EVieira wrote:
Why is it that now publishing diplomatic information is crossing a line? When the Times published leaks on the Vietnam War, people supportted the paper and the journalist.
It depends on the kind of leaks. My personal criteria for deciding when a leak is appropriate is dependent on whether or not it was edited to protect lives. If a leak exposes our informants or allies and puts their lives at risk, then that's a leak that is irresponsible and worthy of condemnation.
I'd have to look more into the leaks you're referencing to determine what I think of them. If they did endanger the lives of our allies or informants, then yes, I would consider them deplorable.
How the public reacts isn't likely to be logical. The Vietnam War was very unpopular, so I'm sure any sort of leak would be supported by a lot of people back then.
EVieira wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
You say that like it doesn't already.
It does, but it gets harder now. The more the people know, the more mature a democracy is. Transparency is key to a functioning democracy, and freedom of speech is fundamental to that. Start drawing lines and imposing limits and ypou begin to step away from democracy.
The goverments, corporations, etc., need to keep their secrets better kept, and not trying to prosecute Assange. Specially considering he isn't the soure of the leaks.
I support leaking things about corporations, because that doesn't usually result in any death. Leaking wartime secrets is very different.
Even just general leaks on governmental corruption are fine as well.
However, war has to be handled differently. By its very nature, war is not usually transparent.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-13 07:51:22)