PaulL from your first post it was clear to see you are a person with firm views.
And those views seem to me at least to some times blind you.
Right now my party,the party of a great number of Australians, is not looking good.
Yours is not much better, being carried along in the wave of discontent mine worked so badly to create.
So given a chance many Australians would want a different party different direction.
Your anti Wikileaks posts, concern me, they represent a harshness and blindness to accountability.
Never in the history of politics do we need that more.
We also need more centrism and far less my side or none thoughts.
It says some thing, that you and Shadow Minister, tried to use this silly young girl, and some silly but still victims, the men who did get involved with her and those who did not, to aim at?
Wikileaks!if such made up rubbish is all you have got the ALP is safe.

But PaulL you are missing the point. Not all information is about revelaing corruption but a system that has at its heart strong regulations RE access to information reduces the probability of corruption. It is more difficult to be corrupt or lie if information is freely available. No system of course will ever be perfect but some will be worse or better than others.

If access to information is limited then this works in favour of those who would dupe the public for their own ends. There is no harm in disclosure it is just that we have all been conditioned to think 'secret government' business is in everyone's best interests.

The reasons why we go to war are important, the dealings behind government contracts is important, trade negotiations, nuclear armaments, corporate favouritism and political donations are important - the list is endless. A culture of secrecy facilitates deception. Not everything goverments do is corrupt, that is the mindset of conspiracy theoriests, but taxpayers have a right to know if they want to - as I said it is not compulsory - how their money is being spent or why there young people are being sent to war.

Wikileaks has support from many on the Right and Left of politics - it is not about Left/Right ideology but about democracy and one's values and beliefs about citizen participation in that democracy. Participation can be more than just a vote in a short electoral cycle and includes access and freedom of information.

There is potentially more harm in concealment than disclosure regardless of one's feelings about Wikileaks one way or the other.

PaulL I think it's agreed by most of us here that not all information should be in the public space, what does seem to be missing is an alternative to what Wiki-leaks is doing. Out pollies sometimes talk of greater accountability but don't deliver it.

What would you suggest as an alternative to what wiki-leaks is doing?

I suspect that the view of lies being exposed or not depends on how much you consider spin to be lies. It has told us some more about how those who have lead or sought to lead nations behave away from the camera's and microphones.

R0bert

Pelican,

I’m not missing the point at all. Assange's solution; to have no secrets, is not realistic. You yourself have pointed out instances where secrecy is needed. Yet you haven’t yet explained how you think diplomacy can work without it.

How exactly do you think we can deal with any of the volatile regimes around the world by telling them our every thought? Do our diplomats limit themselves to reports they would be happy for their subjects to see?

You say “taxpayers have a right to know if they want to - as I said it is not compulsory - how their money is being spent or why there young people are being sent to war.

Firstly what does the "it’s not compulsory" bit mean? If anyone in the public wants to know, you can guarantee that every foreign gov’t will know too. What does compulsory have to do with anything? It’s irrelevant.

Secondly, I fully agree that taxpayers have a right to know what their money is spent on, and why they go to war.You seem to be deliberately conflating the idea that secrecy in diplomacy is the same thing as lying about what people’s money is spent on and why we go to war. It’s clearly not. And your article of faith, Wikileaks, HAS NOT uncovered any evidence for such a conspiracy.

You say secrecy inevitably leads to the public being misled. One would expect then, if your theory of rampant corruption were true, that we might have found an example or two of this. We haven’t.

You refer to the secrecy of diplomacy as “secret gov’t business”. Yet again, wikileaks has NOT exposed any instances where the gov’t is being dishonest with the public in their dealings.

So after uncovering none of these instances of corruption, and having avoided explaining how diplomacy works when there is no secrecy, you claim we would be better off.

We wouldn't. And besides, we both KNOW that the only thing which will change as a result of wikileaks will be the tightening of information within gov,t. Which is Assanges aim.

PaulL I have not anywhere used the term secrecy of diplomacy.

If you have ever worked in government you would know that what is often released does not tell the whole story or at worst lies outright about some matters - much of it is spin. Not everything governments do is corrupt nor is it all spin. Much of the problems are with an embedded culture or incompetence (it is not only about corruption), the checks and balances in the system should be as strong as possible to act as a deterrence.

PaulL is your only concern with Wikileaks the 'cablegate' release or do you hold concerns about other releases prior to the diplomatic cables? Wikileaks has been around much longer than just in 2010. It is naive to believe that world leaders and other key players are not already fully aware of the undercurrents in diplomacy.

There has been corruption exposed in the cables - check out the Russian, Ugandan and Afghanistan related missives, just to name three. Try googling "corruption in Wikileaks cable".

There is a risk, I agree that the revelations on Wikileaks might lead to some tightening of communication but any sort of information security is only as tight as the people who have access to it. That will be always the case regardless of the nature of security measures taken.

Much of the comments and personal thoughts about world leaders revealed on the cables were unsurprising but some of the business dealings involving BHP and China were of interest. Have you actually read the Wikileaks cables or are you just digesting them via the media?

It is interesting that you claim Assange's aim is to tighten government information. This is in the realm of conspiracy theory. Certainly any scenario is possible where human beings are concerned but not all human endeavours of this nature have an ulterior motive other than the aim of open government. I personally doubt your view of Assange is accurate, what would be the point?

My goodness, all this fuss about a bit of anatomical equipment that half the population possesses and which can be seen hanging on art gallery walls and displayed in all its glory on public statues. Why the obsession ?