Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
WikiLeaks.
- Thread starter Deluge Of Sound
- Start date
Regarding the idea that Wikileaks ought to be prosecuted because its actions are illegal, no solid case has been made that this is in fact true. Of course, that doesn't mean that rogue action cannot be taken outside the rule of law (like the illegal incarceration of "enemy combatants").
Further, the fact that a specific law exists is absolutely no guarantee that said law is just. Just look at the people who are appointed to make the laws and the motivations behind their appointments. Suffice to say that there are powerful agendas at work to change laws to suit specific interests and that upholding a genuine notion of justice often has little to do with the reality of human laws. The point to take away is that legality has no direct connection with justice.
Further, the fact that a specific law exists is absolutely no guarantee that said law is just. Just look at the people who are appointed to make the laws and the motivations behind their appointments. Suffice to say that there are powerful agendas at work to change laws to suit specific interests and that upholding a genuine notion of justice often has little to do with the reality of human laws. The point to take away is that legality has no direct connection with justice.
Legal is still legal. Illegal is still illegal. No matter how you spin it this remains true.
Sure.... however, nothing in reality would change if the law proclaimed that white was black and black was white. The point I'm making is that legality and justice are not equivalent concepts. People should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the notion that because something is legal it is therefore just. Nor should people be lulled into a false sense of security by the notion that what is illegal is therefore unjust.
This is not an attempt to spin. Rather, it is a fact about the distinction between the law and the principle of justice. Many laws are unjust while many injustices are perfectly legal.
I tend to agree. But then, I'm a social constructivist with post-modernist tendencies, so I'm skeptical about the concept of morality being something with an essence that exists outside of people defining actually defining it.
At my command we have a standing order not to view wikileaks on Navy networks. Classified information is handled on specific networks and machines, so opening them on an unclassified computer compromises that computer. Not to mention the fact that people without clearances or a need to know can't access that information anyway. The people who endanger their lives in the service of their country do so willingly and voluntarily. They follow the rules so leaks don't happen and further endanger their lives.
On the issue of legality....
One prominent example is the Jim Crow laws which were in effect until 1965. Effectively, these laws represented legal racism, sanctioned by state and local governments. If one were to see the law as equivalent to justice, one would be forced to view Jim Crow laws as just. However, very few would hold that view today (for hopefully obvious reasons). Thus, it should be apparent that unjust laws can and do exist. Therefore, limiting one's view to distinguishing only between legal and illegal is effectively remaining blind to the reality that some laws are unjust.
One prominent example is the Jim Crow laws which were in effect until 1965. Effectively, these laws represented legal racism, sanctioned by state and local governments. If one were to see the law as equivalent to justice, one would be forced to view Jim Crow laws as just. However, very few would hold that view today (for hopefully obvious reasons). Thus, it should be apparent that unjust laws can and do exist. Therefore, limiting one's view to distinguishing only between legal and illegal is effectively remaining blind to the reality that some laws are unjust.
I tell you what, if there was anything remotely bad about wikileaks the site would of been taken down immediately upon it's publication. I think this whole situation is a farce.
Easy, say he is a terrorist and they can lock him up and do what they will. The only reason he hasn't disappeared altogether is the fact that he has such a wide public backing. Also maybe the fact that someone would find the document sanctioning his disappearance and put it up on the net
/foil hat
thanks , though I feel that aborgman shot some nice holes in them...
What you describe.... Allow me to say it in my words: I am glad there are people willing to do the dirty jobs for us. They need to be kept under control, but not by public indignation. We have a governemental system to take care of that. If the system doesn't work, let's see if we can improve it.
I agree.
In practice, law and justice may not be the same thing. In theory, however, they are, since, again theoretically, the law is a consistent whole. Legal inconsistencies (that will pop up anyway in spite of the efforts for consistency) are to be solved in court or by making new laws.
We can never allow individuals to not abide to the law because they feel any law to be unjust. Or, as aborgman pointed out, they may, but they will have to face the consequences. If those will be civil or criminal procedures doesn't make much difference to me.
So, though your views are very sympathetic, they offer no practical solutions.
For the most part I was attempting to point out potential problems rather than offer solutions (as a philosophy student, this is a starting point... begin by showing problems inherent in a viewpoint, then try to find solutions to those problems). One reason why I support efforts like Wikileaks is because I acknowledge that often internal accountability procedures fail at self-regulation. Thus, some outside source is necessary if we want public accountability. Although a separation of powers may be somewhat helpful, it seems wise to have an outside group working with a free press if we want to avoid collusion and cover-ups.
Here's a list of Wikileaks revelations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...an/8070253/Wikileaks-10-greatest-stories.html
Julian Assange is not on trial for whistleblowing. He is currently being investigated for rape charges. wikepedia is not accused of putting 'classified' material on the internet, just as much as the newspapers that published the information are not on trial. If you want to put the people on trial that gave wikepedia /newspapers said information, fine, but you cannot put the journalists/newspapers that publish it on trial.
Actually, we (at least here in the USA) CAN do exactly that. Jury nullification does occasionally happen.
Ok, so what has come out from the Wikileaks that have been more then embarrassing to the individual? Like what are the BIG stories that were released?
Regarding the notion that governments ought to police themselves... recently Canada's auditor general revealed that the department which was specifically set up to protect whistleblowers in fact did the opposite - it failed to investigate most of the claims and instead worked to protect the government. This totally unsurprising result is why it is important to have third-parties who serve this role, as well as a free press to report the transgressions of those in power.
I wonder if anyone accused of rape will ever get that much attention
... as seems to be shown by sown historic cases... But that will change soon enough. Classified information is property. In the near future, fence and thief will be treated in the same way.
Occasionally... A question of rule and exception...Also happens over here, either by the state attourney without any trial or in court by a judge's decision.
Generally speaking we are to obey te law / to account for our acts in court where a jury or a judge will come to a verdict that is based on what the law says. Surely, in case of a conflict between law and morality, exceptions can be made.
The process to make these exceptions is part of the law itself. It can never be done by public or media judgement.
I agree. But how may we create external bodies of control that will remain fully independent? How do we give them classified information without the risk of letting it become public?
