Ron Paul on Wikileaks

Generali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0&feature=player_embedded

5 minutes well spent listening to the Libertarian Republican from Texas.

In general, lots of what he says I disagree with, plenty I agree with. This statement is excellent.

5. Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths? Lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations......

9. Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our Government when it's wrong?

Good to see an elected representative of the people standing up for what is right for once against hysterical populism.

drc

I largely agree to but the Wikileaks "leaks" have only just come out so the information could still be used to cause death and destruction. Lets hope not. Other than that I agree.

mostlycheerful

I agree with wikileaks exposing corruption, fraud, mistakes, cover ups, lying and illegal and bad behaviour and similar. As that is for the greater good to be out in the open.

However I don’t agree with Nato, British, European and American military secrets and information that are necessary for our security being exposed. I don’t agree with having difficult relationships with difficult countries being undermined and made that much harder to deal with.

I agree with exposing things that strengthen us but not things that weaken us and deliver us to our enemies.

If wikileaks was being selective about what material it’s releasing and was holding back data that’s only damaging to our interests then fine. But so far there is no indication that it is exercising any caution. So unfortunately this supposed exercising of freedom of speech may therefore in fact simply be highly damaging treason. And so has to be suppressed, as appears to be happening.

Generali

drc wrote: »

I largely agree to but the Wikileaks "leaks" have only just come out so the information could still be used to cause death and destruction. Lets hope not. Other than that I agree.

What I've seen is just embarrassing for the most part.

There's been nothing like, Mohammed Smith of 33, Mosque Rise, Kabul 2109 has been a most helpful source of information. Nothing like that at all.

TBH, it's what's going to happen with the internet. This sort of thing used to be distributed by loonies with a handful of photostats. Private Eye was about as good as it got.

Now anyone in Government with a bit of savvy can humiliate their department and anyone who deals with them.

Generali

mostlycheerful wrote: »

I agree with exposing things that strengthen us but not things that weaken us and deliver us to our enemies.

If wikileaks was being selective about what material it’s releasing and was holding back data that’s only damaging to our interests then fine. But so far there is no indication that it is exercising any caution. So unfortunately this supposed exercising of freedom of speech may therefore in fact simply be highly damaging treason. And so has to be suppressed, as appears to be happening.

Damaging the nation's interests isn't treason. Damaging a nation's interests of which you are not a citizen and in which you don't reside can't be treason.

If the Americans don't like it, tough sht. They started the internet. This is an obvious consequence of it.

julieq

Wikileaks are trickling information out with very careful redacting.

So far most of it demonstrates the US has an astute, sophisticated and well informed diplomatic service. It may be uncomfortable reading in some quarters, but it's accurate, incisive and unsensational. If anything the US comes out of this very well in general. I'd rather have these diplomats running the show than Sarah Palin and her ilk, and like Gen I found Ron Paul's contribution excellent.

It's faintly ridiculous to suggest lives are being placed at risk from terrorism and that this is treason. It's embarrassing some politicians and they are showing themselves ever more eager to press the "terrorism" button to relieve any pressure and create a populist furore.

mostlycheerful

Generali : “Damaging the nation's interests isn't treason. Damaging a nation's interests of which you are not a citizen and in which you don't reside can't be treason.”

Assange is from Australia which is part of the Commonwealth which includes UK. He’s not, for instance, from Iran or China, is he. So if an Australian wilfully damages, undermines and weakens the security of the Commonwealth, which includes UK, then that’s treason, isn’t it. And the bloke who allegedly supplied the bulk of the new material is American military so that’s treason as well, both treason to America and because UK is so tied to America it’s also treason to UK.

Some of what is being revealed is beneficial to us. Fine. But some of it is damaging so that’s treacherous. Whether more good than harm is being done is the main question arising. Time will tell.

In the meantime wikileaks should make a statement saying that it is suppressing material that is only damaging to us. Otherwise the powers that be will continue to squash it. Whether that is “right” or “wrong” is academic and immaterial.

Truth, and I would add morality, are the first casualties of war. Survival is about expediency. You can only indulge in morality and law if you’re secure. If you’re not secure then it’s dog eat dog and might is right. And you have to suppress and neutralise your enemy as best you can and any way that you can, otherwise they kill you. When your survival is threatened you have to fight with whatever you’ve got until the job’s done. Otherwise you cease to exist.

Julieq : "Wikileaks are trickling information out with very careful redacting."

I haven't researched this much so I didn't know that and I'm glad to hear it. May I ask are there any links to any media reports that state this that you could please supply as I'd like to know more about this and get up to speed rather than evidently being a bit ignorant about it. Or if this is not stated in media reports then may I ask how you know this. Thanks.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Damaging the nation's interests isn't treason. Damaging a nation's interests of which you are not a citizen and in which you don't reside can't be treason.

If the Americans don't like it, tough sht. They started the internet. This is an obvious consequence of it.

How does damaging your countries ally fit in? is that not indirect treason?

vivatifosi

So far the information seems to fit into three categories. The first of these is that which harmless, which so far seems like most of the information: such as the revelations as to what was thought of Kevin Rudd as a mistake prone control freak (after which the former Aussie PM came out in support of fellow countryman Assange), or the fact that the Vatican helped negotiate the release of the captured UK sailors. The second group of information is that which is definitely in the public interest: such as the fact that the UK government said it would paint the US in a favourable light in the Iraq War Enquiry. The third group of releases, which I remain concerned about, is the release of sensitive information, such as the list of strategic sites including the location of the Danish factory for the manufacture of smallpox vaccine and the plant in Canada that could throw much of the eastern seaboard into darkness. Allowing such information into the public domain may well prove to be dangerous over time.

So far the releases have been the tip of the iceberg so we have no idea what else Wikileaks has up its sleeve, however one thing I'm sure of is that while Assange is perhaps misguided, he's not treasonous. If anyone gets tried for this it should be the initial leaker, while the whole US intelligence culture which allowed such a stupid and naieve system to grow up should also come under investigation. I've worked for companies manufacturing innocous products where you can't walk out with a memory stick stuffed with company secrets, how the hell did the US allow that to an intelligence operative?

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

How does damaging your countries ally fit in? is that not indirect treason?

Damaging a country isn't treason either.

Everything I've read has been stuff that should either be in the public domain or is tittle-tattle. There's been nothing about where the nukes are stored or what the US-ians plan to do next in Afghanistan.

It's just not treason.

tomterm8

mostlycheerful wrote: »

if an Australian wilfully damages, undermines and weakens the security of the Commonwealth, which includes UK, then that’s treason, isn’t it. .

No, it isn't.

Treason is an old fashioned crime, and it relies on a specific duty of fealty that doesn't exist between an Australian and the UK.