Pelican,

I've been to the wikileaks site a couple of times and haven't been able to find much. Whether its poorly constructed or whether its denial of service attacks, i don't know. What I do know is that Assange and his mates sifted through the material to provide newspapers with the stories of interest.Wikileaks, regardless of its earlier attempts, is defined by the diplomatic cables it has been releasing. And in any case, your philosophy of access to ALL gov't information (well almost all)is problematic in this area.

I've read Assange's blogs. You should read them. He says that the both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US are conspiracies which need to be defeated. He goes on to talk about how a conspiracy is defined by the interlinking of people and information. He continues that conspiracies can be brought down by reducing the flow of information between conspirators. This is a FACT.http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

You should do some reading of the bloke you want to canonise. He's a nut job.

Finally, the idea that you deserve access to US cables so you can find out about conspiracies in other countries is absurd.

You say " It is naive to believe that world leaders and other key players are not already fully aware of the undercurrents in diplomacy. "

What is naive is to believe that there is no difference between saying something in a confidential cable between embassies, and having it published. Ever heard of loss of face? Its a big issue with the types like North Korea's ,"the dear leader"

The America we see today is not yesterdays one.
Not the one that fought both world wars ,then paid to rebuild after.
Not the one that has in its charter freedom of speech.
OH it is still the one we need to protect us, forget the child like idea no one would threaten us if America did not exist.
We need America,but the past America,not the tea party madness, not the hidden lies of the Bush era, not the kill the Wikileaks founder America.
Vietnam will look like victory after America leaves the Afghan/Iraq area,and they will.
Strutting, insular, unable to understand other cultures this America knows its Allies do far better in those county's than they do.
No rapes not near as many friendly fire or wrong target deaths
Humility will help restore America.
I am not condemning America, but putting my view Wikileaks is of far more use in restoring their good name than blind support of people like PaulL.

PaulL
I wish to canonise Assange? Really that would be difficult as atheist.

This sort of 'speak' is the same strategy used by creationists to diminish evolutionary theory or loggers to demonise environmentalism. Surely access to information has nothing to do with fundamentalism or religion.

People who support systems that reduce corruption and who wish to strengthen democracies are not radicals or fundamentalists.

I am sure I could find a document or two on Wikileaks that I would not have released as far as the cablegate goes. Many of the cables have names and company names blotted out. The best way to search Wikileaks is to go to the panel on the left and go by date or by classification.

Radicalism is in the eye of the beholder. It used to be radical to implement policy that would demolish a nation's industry and agricultural sector. Now it is the norm. Those who have not fallen for the mantra of free trade and globalisation as the panacea for all ills are now the radicals. Such is the nature of history.

As far as Republicans and Democrats go, there is very little to distinguish them. However, there are greater differences between them in the US unlike Australia where the two majors are almost interchangeable.

The NSW Government is not allowing public servants to testify into the inquiry into the privatisation of state power. Wouldn't it be in the public interests to get hold of a few emails or documents that explain and possibly expose the reasons behind this policy decision?

I tend to share Assange's belief that conspiracies and corruption are stifled via access to information. There is nothing wrong with that aim.

What if Assange's mission to free up information to the public and make it harder for corruption to take hold actually works. Assange is doubtless not a perfect human being, but who is, I would rather people focus on the work rather than the man who will continue to be a target of attack for those who have most to lose.

You say “ People who support systems that reduce corruption and who wish to strengthen democracies are not radicals or fundamentalists.”

Firstly I don’t accept that this is Assange’s goal. I have pointed out his writings directly refute this. Secondly, if by trying to achieve this reduction in corruption (which wikileaks has not exposed) you make it more likely

1)that dictators can’t be overthrown (having published all our strategies to deal with them),
2) that our enemies are able to threaten us more effectively (having published all our of our military dispositions and intentions)
3) that we are less able to achieve our diplomatic goals (having published all the details of our positions)

Then I would say that yes, absolutely, that is radical or fundamentalist. Especially so since you haven’t been able to show the corruption which you say is the driving factor in making such damaging changes.

You say “ The NSW Government is not allowing public servants to testify into the inquiry into the privatisation of state power. Wouldn't it be in the public interests to get hold of a few emails or documents that explain and possibly expose the reasons behind this policy decision?”

Yes. Any release of information which exposed lies and corruption would on the face of it be worthwhile. But we have laws to protect whistle-blowers who expose this sort of information, and it almost inevitably ALWAYS comes out. I simply don’t accept that our politicians get away with corruption anymore. But more to the point. I don’t accept that we need to shoot ourselves in the head, to solve a problem you haven’t demonstrated.

You say “ I tend to share Assange's belief that conspiracies and corruption are stifled via access to information. There is nothing wrong with that aim.”

Well it depends on who YOU think the conspiracies are. If you think our gov’t is a conspiracy that needs to be stifled, then that makes you a radical and there is absolutely something wrong with that

PaulL
It should have read "...corruption are stifled via PUBLIC access to information". My previous wording sounded like I inferred governments be restricted to access information. But I think you got my drift.

I don't think governments are by their nature automatically conspiracies (Government is just an institution) but the people within goverments or any organisation are open to corruption if there is no accountability regime (more than just lip service).

I am simply saying that any design that does not have in it rigorous checks and balances opens a pathway for potential corruption, fraud, maladministration, incompetent practices and cultures, whitewashing and spin.

You keep asking me to prove what 'conspiracies' have been highlighted via Cablegate, but are missing the point about the validity of my argument about FOI and the rights of citizens in a social democracy.

I have already pointed out some of the cables in relation to Uganda, Afghanistan and Russia in relation to corruption. There has been much more revealed, not via Wikileaks, about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular to the corruption behind the awarding of private contractors in those nations. Not to mention the fraud perpetrated by those companies in extracting continuing payments of US tax dollars. Why are other media outlets been given a free pass but Wikileaks continues to invite censure. No-one called for the assassination or arrest of Laurie Oakes for talking with Andrew Wilkie about WMDs.

Not everything has to be conspiracy to argue for more open government - you are hung up on naming conspiracies. History has revealed that the US was instrumental in interference in Latin America to serve their own economic aims including propping up less than democrtatic regimes or bringing down governments that sought to improve the wellbeing of their citizens but at the risk of US investments.

That is the sort of stuff we should be aware of in the NOW not in terms of historical context, because it is by then too late to ensure integrity in foreign relations.

Pelican

You say “You are missing the point about the validity of my argument about FOI...”

I don’t accept the validity of your argument. I don’t accept the blanket assertion that a citizen has the right to know EVERYTHING that the gov’t does. There has never been such a right. It defies common sense. In fact, you yourself have been able to think of instances where such a ‘right’ would need to be curtailed for the common good. And you’re arguing for it. We do have the right to be governed by people who abide by the rule of law. But it’s not the same thing.

Since this topic is about wikileaks, and for me, wikileaks is the publishing of diplomatic and military cables and intelligence; these are the areas I have focused on. How would diplomacy work? How does the military work? How can they be effective when they have no secrets? These are questions you have not, or cannot answer. But they are fundamental to the ACTUAL implementation of your right to know.

You have continually avoided recognition that open gov’t of the type you advocate would effectively neuter our diplomatic and military capability. In my opinion, such cost can only be justified if it is a response to a greater problem. You have so far failed to articulate such a problem. So to me, it seems like you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You cannot bring up the US in Latin America 40 years ago as evidence for your case. The world has changed. Furthermore, I think you are missing the fact that much actually came to light through regular reporting. Oliver North was convicted of lying to congress and was sentenced to jail for diverting funds from weapons sales to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Finally, you cannot seriously suggest we should be disempowering our own military and diplomacy, in order to learn that foreign dictators are corrupt. We are being told that anyway by the media, and often by gov’t as well. And you would be reducing our ability to deal with them