fordy said:
HappySqurriel said:
fordy said:
HappySqurriel said:
Look beyond wikileaks ...
There has been suggestion that many recently released classified documents were leaked by the administration to benefit the president's election chances. In the past leaked information has also been targeted towards politically hurting other politicians.
Wikileaks is just an organization to make this information public, the people who are leaking the information are doing it for their own reasons; and rarely are these reasons to be an honorable person.
If you want a transparent government demand a transparent government, don't let people spoon feed you shit and call it a leak and think you're getting legitimate unbiased information.
|
You realise that your argument is digging you in an even deeper hole, right?
So can you explain Manning's motive on this? You have some kind of proof that he's running for office and looking to dig up dirt on Obama? If I want a transparent government, I'd want as much info out of it as possible, biased or not (of course, the government is going to release only info that will show them in a good light. Its the job of the press to report on the other side). Oh, and if Manning did it for some kind of personal gain, it didn't help, did it?
How about this: If you saw the government doing something that you would consider immoral, would you let others know about it? Or would you let the government continue on it's merry way, in fear that what you release will just be bias material? Sometimes whistleblowers are motivated on a moral basis. Why do you think Syrian/Libyan officers were defecting from their respective reigimes? Just for their own personal gain? Some people are deeply ashaed at some of their government's actions...
Oh, and originally you claimed that you're 100% against Wikileaks, but now you're claiming that they're "just an organisation" and that the people leaking it are to blame. Which part do you have a problem with, exactly?
|
If I was involved in the government doing immoral things I would be a whistle blower, not an information leaker ...
While a whistle blower may only reveal one side of the story you can evaluate their motives, an information leaker remains annonymous and their motivations are kept secret. A whistle blower (typically) acts from a position of trying to do the right thing (because the act of speaking out generally destroys their career), while an information leaker typically acts for personal gain.
|
Given the way whistleblowers are treated nowadays, I'm not suprised why some do it anonymously. You have to understand that some people wish to show what a business/government is doing to which they consider immoral, but are afraid of the reprecussions that they will experience. Whistleblowers are subject to threats of violence or losing their job, and in the case of Manning, incarceration. So all the government did is promote further anonymous "leaking", not the non-anonymous whistleblowing that you trumpet, since they have shown what they do to people who whistleblow.
You can't just be for one form of whistleblowing and against another.
Once again, please tell me what personal gain is involved here.
|
Actually, I can be against whistleblowing and against the anonymous leaking of information ...
An accountant at a company (like Enron) coming forward with documentation that demonstrates that the company has been using illegal accounting practices to boost stock value is substantially different from electronic documents posted on a server somewhere by someone who claims to be an insider that supposedly demonstrate a company is using illegal accounting practices. One is someone who, at great personal cost, stood up for what they believed in to stop something illegal/immoral; the other could be an elaborate hoax designed to make someone substantial amounts of money by shorting the stock.
The hardship a whistleblower goes through is why they're trusted. If being a whistleblower was no big deal anyone with a bone to pick with their current employeer would become a whistleblower.
