It is natural for a nation to protect it's interests but often this agenda conflicts with principles of freedom, competition, self-determination, human compassion and equality. International relations is subject to wheeling and dealing much of it is not transparent nor is it always win-win for ordinary people.

Dubious interventions into the affairs of other nations when in conflict with US interests is only one aspect. America is not alone but it has a high profile, is a superpower and thus will naturally invite greater criticism. However all nations work in their own interests (as they should) but how far does this go when balancing ethical considerations? The despot countries don't get a free pass with Wikileaks exposure either where there is little concern often for community wellbeing.

Sometimes governments act outside their nation's interests or perpetrate some injustice on another nation (usually poorer) for economic gain. It is natural for people to seek some truth in government, to ask why and there is an expectation and a presumption of accountability.

Do governments represent their people or do they act as separate entities divorced from their populace, working at some higher level out of reach of criticism, scrutiny and accountability? The wider that gap between government and people (or the perception), the more discontent grows and this is why Wikileaks and other jouranlistic endevours are an important part of the mix.

Yes there are questions about who gets to decide what is leaked and the impacts, but when governments set out to deceive they cannot expect that apathy will save them all the time. Generally speaking if there is nothing to hide (other than national security) exposure should not be an issue.

That is why Wikileaks has been well received at the grass roots. People are fed up with spin. People have a vested interest in decisions which impact on quality of life (not just domestically).

In the long run it can only be a good thing as many have summised. Far too much is being made of Assange the person rather than Wikileaks the organisation.

Yes, the US has been doing "things" for decades - but this is the first time that they seem genuinely concerned with what's going to come out next, and they are being forced to face it. They can no longer appear to be "the good guys" when facts are appearing to the contrary. And it's the facts that should matter to us all. Brushing things aside with 'Oh but they've been doing it for ages," is no longer good enough! And their PR of being the world's "saviours" is beginning to look a bit tarnished!

cont'd ...

There's another article in New Matilda that worth a look. It's called,
"They Lock Up Journalists, Don't They?" by Austin Mackell. It puts things into perspective.

I think that is a well put and balanced assessment and view Pelican.

And Jewely your link and information is informative and displays facts I hadn't known. Our own national ABC radio news station as we speak, keeps saying he is charged with rape in their copy and are running a question "is Julian Assange a hero or a villain"

Despite the emotive an inaccurate terminology of their copy 80% of their listeners say he is a hero. I would suggest we are running about the same percentages or better on this forum.

I have been fearful that political awareness at street level has become alarmingly low and the generations coming through have become less and less informed, but thankfully their is light in this digital age when someone like Julian Assange can make a difference.

With internet control in the hands of the few we have very much to fear.This must not happen and when hero's do their thing for obviously just causes like the exposure of the truth, rather than pretend to ourselves that we would do the same if we were them, we should at the very least not let them go down alone and stand by them.

This was the point of my post in the first place. Is this a defining moment in history?.
Does Assange's Wikileaks provide a valuable source of truth in Gov't?, yes it does,
and can we really live without the right to know the facts, without fear?.
I don't think we can. I certainly couldn't anyway.

I keep coming across other information Thinker which mostly puzzles me more… like this one;

http://radsoft.net/news/20101202,00.shtml

But Claes Borgström knew better. He and his friend and colleague Marianne Ny had been working on expanding the legal concept of rape in Sweden. They were interested in two sweeping changes to current legislation, whereof the most important one is that people themselves no longer decide when they've been raped - their governments do.

The other second change is relatively unimportant - but perhaps more shattering worldwide: almost anything can be considered rape - even and especially nonviolent and consensual acts.

Consensual sex can be rape, according to Borgström and Ny - but the alleged victims don't decide - they do.

The new laws which establish these 'precedents' are not yet on the books - but it's Marianne Ny's intention to make the Assange affair into a test case for that purpose.

In other words: Marianne Ny wants to try Julian Assange for a something that wasn't a crime when it took place.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/12/09/3089103.htm
Coldblood, a representative of Anonymous who spoke to the ABC's AM program, says companies such as Mastercard have been targeted in order to show corporations that 'it's not just governments they need to keep happy - it's the users as well they need to keep happy'.

"Operation Payback is a way to highlight to these companies that if they bow down to government pressure that they will face repercussions from their users of their services," says Coldblood.

Anonymous have launched barrages of data at the companies' websites to bring them down, a technique known as Distributed Denial of Service and one that that EFF doesn't support.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/the-aussie-who-blitzed-visa-mastercard-and-paypal-with-the-low-orbit-ion-cannon-20101209-18qr1.html?from=smh_sb
A Sydney man, whose identity is known to this website but spoke on condition of anonymity, said the group used an application called Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC) to carry out the attacks. Each user of the program voluntarily signs up to be part of a "botnet" of computers and their collective power is used to take down websites.

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=1070
Aussie Protests