G'day HASBEEN...

You're wasting your breath and time with that one I'm afraid !

Stay cool !

o sung wu " I sincerely believe, that certain material or information, whether spoken or documentary, if it's not meant for public consumption, should therefore remain 'protected' and confidential. Therefore it should remain totally, in the care, custody, and control of the original owners. Or the actual originators of that material."

Agreed to a point however in the case of government documents that carries with it responsibility that those acting in the name of the government act honestly and ethically. There is a place for secrets but not to further personal or party political interests using the taxpayers resources or government authority.

We don't seem to have reliable mechanisms to deal with it when that's not the case. It's difficult when the original owners are the citizens of a nation, it's difficult to return to them custody or control of material they own without exposing it to others.

There is also a case that when outsiders are impacted by the actions of a government (as we all are by the actions of nations such as the USA) they have some vested interest in the truth of claims made.

The issues around Wikileaks facilitation of the publication of documents belonging to the citizens of the USA (and I believe other countries) is not as simple as taking an individual or corporations private records and making them public. It's about trying to find a balance between governments being able to protect some secrets to improve the safety of their citizens and governments using that same secrecy in a way that harms those same citizens.

Politicians who hide behind official secrecy to protect their own wrongdoings present a far greater danger than any number of Assanges.

R0bert

"He is wanted in Sweden (a very responsible and fair nation)"

wait.. what... the first prosecutor said the case was not worthy of prosecution, they had to go through two more to find one who would. This, a nation where the Prime Minister was assassinated in the 'late '80 and their Foreign Minister not that long ago... lovely. I met several Swedish citizens when I lived in Cambodia, they were all incredibly ashamed over their nations treatment of Assange and each of them said it's there belief it's perused rigorously on behalf of the US.

"In the very liberal Sweden, it is rape if a man breaks a condom by accident or on purpose during otherwise mutually desired intercourse"

To most men not in Sweden, the thought of this would be horrific and yet many are in prison for this very crime, of which Mr Assange is accused.

The last thing you want to do is end up in the clutches of US Law enforcement, facilitate copying a few movies and you will be gaoled for a decade, for example

http://www.dw.de/british-woman-fights-sons-extradition-to-us/a-16248544-1

Assange should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at minimum, then funded by every democratic Government to get on with the job.

o sung wu
I respect your opinions and views too even if we disagree in some areas. :)

My feelings are similar to ROberts'. Too often governments and public servants hide behind the veil of secrecy to avoid disclosing information. There really is very little that is secret or that would come under confidential or national security classifications. Obviously there are very good reasons for secrecy in those contexts.

However you and I have both worked for government (you as an ex-policemen) and I am sure we have both experienced situations and observed things that are not quite kosher and subsequent efforts to hide information for various reasons. Some higher level classifications are overused.

When governments start hiding information from their electorate inappropriately (whom they represent) it is a shame that it takes groups like Wikileaks or whistleblowers like Wilkie (just for example) to make the public aware of what lies behind the decisions made on our behalf.

I don't think it is asking too much for information to be readily available through a more open government focus. Unfortunately history teaches us that this sort of change is more often done via resistance, protest or dissent at some level.

Democracy is best served through the sharing of information otherwise we end up with elitists in power who decide what information is presented, how it is presented and for what purpose.

At least on a positive note, in this country we can both put forward differing opinions without fear of gaol or persecution. That is something we should always be thankful for.

Hi there ROBERT...

Yes, you mount a fairly persuasive arguement there ROBERT. And as we all know, there are some governments not that far away, who deserve a thorough enquiry as to their conduct, apropos exactly what they're doing in our name ?

Your case though morally strong, is (in my opinion) still technically in breach the law. And just how far, are we as private citizens permitted to 'snoop' into protected material ? Simply because we have a belief even a presentiment that our government is engaged in some turbid misfeasance, that's contrary to the public good ?

In so doing, what is it we are bound to do, if during our secret enquiry, we inadvertantly uncover a bit of 'hanky panky' behind the Cabinet's door ? How do we decide what material exactly we should expose to the light of public scrutiny ? What makes us the sole arbiter or what's right, or what's wrong ?

And suppose we release or expose material, that causes a major incident between two antagonistic nations, leading to a serious security incident, who takes responsibility for such a result ?

Don't get me wrong ROBERT, you mount a very strong 'moral' arguement by your assertion the public, the voters, have a 'right to know' exactly what their elected government's doing, or not doing, every minute, of every day ?

I just wonder though, exactly what Julian A's motive was/is ? They say in my previous occupation, '...first, follow the money...' in following Julian, I do wonder why he did what he did ? What benefit did he receive, if so what ? Or is it something far more personal with this gentleman, perhaps he perceives himself as the surpreme guardian for the good of the masses ?

You would agree ROBERT, he's one very strange bloke ?

Many thanks for your thread.

I agree with you o sung wu.
There are many 'secrets' within Governments that the public don't need to know, and in fact could cause much harm to that country or others if they are made known.

Assange is a bit dramatic as far as I am concerned.
Hiding in a foreign embassy in England so he can't be arrested by any number of other countries, seems a bit extreme.
Just how long can this go on?
Surely his mental health must be affected badly by now.

As to the assertion that he is hiding there to avoid being extradited to Sweden to answer to allegations of sexual assault, but believes Sweden really wants to hand him over to the US, I don't buy it.

I have no doubt that if the US really wanted to arrest Assange, they wouldn't need to do it through Sweden.