Comments on: Julian Assange at TED

By: Shawn Lonsdale

Shawn Lonsdale — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:15:15 +0000

Jealous much, lololol xD

By: WikiLeaks ‘has blood on its hands’ over Afghan war logs, claim US officials – The Guardian | Communication & Dating

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:19:27 +0000

[...] Julian Assange at TED | KABOBfest [...]

By: Jamal

Jamal — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:04:36 +0000

You still haven't answered my question. There's absolutely no secret that the US government could possibly hold that would threaten the lives of Americans if exposed. Government operatives who are taking part in occupying foreign lands may need to keep secrets for their safety. They can eliminate the need for maintaining secrets by leaving.

Governments that are repelling an invading force may have a legitimate need for secrets, but there are no such recognized governments in existence today. Hamas may fit into that category if they were recognized internationally.

Governments eliminate the need for secrets by obtaining the consent of the people they serve. Obtain that consent and their will be no need for secrets.

By: SanaKF

SanaKF — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:23:09 +0000

Not just the US, any government. If you have information regarding certain military programs or operations whose release would threaten the lives of soldiers or, more importantly, of your citizens and threaten your sovereignty in anyway, then yeah I think it's legit secret. Not all secrets are from the citizens – many are also from other governments who also seek to find the weaknesses of more powerful or better equipped states in an attempt to further their own might and influence. It's unsurprising, really. The point of government, whether we agree with it or not, is to practice and protect sovereignty over a given area of land. The point of the modern government is protect a population within given borders. Realities aside, it follows that a government – any government – would have legitimate secrets it would want to keep from getting into the hands of adversaries. The problem, as I mentioned, is when this shroud of legitimacy is expanded to issues which really aren't at all related to national security etc.

Don't read that statement I made out of context.

By: Jamal

Jamal — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:22:02 +0000

"I think there are some legitimate government secrets, pertaining to security especially"

Like what? What "national security" secret is a big, powerful government like the the US entitled to?

By: SanaKF

SanaKF — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:21:00 +0000

I think there are some legitimate government secrets, pertaining to security especially – but the problem is that almost anything can be justified as a secret if put under that banner. What happens then is that legitimate secrets lose their legitimacy in the face of the exposure of secrets heralded as ensuring security when in fact they are promoting oppression and hiding heinous atrocities. Thus such institutions as WikiLeaks and people like Assange become an imperative asset to our knowledge and our role as citizens under various sorts of governments – be they extremely overtly oppressive or implicitly oppressive or whatever.

Mind you – no government, which seeks to spread its influence and maintain its power at home, will ever be 100% transparent, especially about those things which relate to actions in "foreign places" and spread of influence. That's touchy for them and as states as so-called "rational actors" it makes sense that they'd refrain from doing so. Is it right? Not necessarily from our perspective as citizens, but from the perspective of the modern, bureaucratic state which operates on its own morality, of course it's right. So yeah, again, keeping governments in check becomes our responsibility because a government, even if it claims to be built of a system of checks and balances which always has its limitations, will never do so legitimately.

By: Jamal

Jamal — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:48:42 +0000

Julian Assange is a hero, and so are his sources like Bradley Manning. There are NO legitimate government secrets. Governments keep secrets to protect themselves and oppress their people. The example that Assange gives as a legitimate secret is that of a conversation between a doctor and a patient. That's one example of a legitimate secret. Note that people have the right to keep secrets from governments, not the other way around. Assange also talks about the concept of people looking down on soldiers because of videos like http://www.collateralmurder.com/. It's funny because he makes no apologies like the standard "we still support the troops" line. He says that Iraqis have to live with those images every day, and perhaps things will change if other people have to as wall. Personally, my view is that anybody who signs up for the US military today is nothing more than a complacent hired killer, someone who should be reviled, not praised.

By: Last Roman

Last Roman — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:09:58 +0000

Julian Assange accepted stolen goods and distributed them. That is illegal. He claims to be a journalist, but he is an activist. He has a stated agenda (end the war in Afghanistan).

Julian Assange reminds me of Zorg from the Fifth Element.