General Chat

Whoops, Janey. I'm sorry if I've turned what was said backward - again or otherwise. I don't try to go in for playing that sort of game intentionally.

That having been said, I stick with my main point - the internet has made transparency so much more possible, and shooting the messenger just doesn't wash.

As for politicians and diplomats being able to say things in private - of course they should. Just that it would be better if what they say in private has some resonance to what they say in public.

Sue x

suzian, we just seem to be talking at cross purposes and I think I'll have to give up!

My previous post was specifically addressing two statements by you. In both cases, you seem to have turned what was said around backwards, again!


The first was:

"It's free speech that allows Flannagan to say his bit"

My point was that we do impose limits on speech, limits that we consider justifiable, and "free speech" really isn't a trump card. If Flanagan's speech amounted to, for instance, counselling the commission of a homicide, our societies have agreed that he should be charged with a crime. Ditto if he lied under oath, published false advertising, etc.


The second was:

"Which ideal of free speech apparently doesn't include Assange - who wasn't even saying what he thought, just repeating what others said. And which, of course, they wish they hadn't said in public. "

That one is simple. The things that Assange disclosed *were not said in public*.

I actually do think that diplomats and politicians should be able to say things in private. It's just that the cheesy things they have been disclosed as saying are hardly worthy of protection.


The really big thing here is that all the uproar about those cheesy things has served as a smokescreen for some actually hugely important things that WikiLeaks has disclosed, and that unquestionably should not be concealed from the public.

Even the Telegraph did report these facts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8082605
/Wikileaks-Civilians-gunned-down-at-checkpoints.html

"Full details of how US soldiers killed innocent Iraqi civilians at road checkpoints are revealed in the war logs published by Wikileaks."

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

"Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians ... A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks today."

(you can watch the video there ... well, the part that youtube didn't censor, I guess)


That's something I think we could have a little unanimous moral outrage about -- not the messenger, but the message, which is an atrocity, a war crime, a crime against humanity, a multiple murder, a fact, disclosed by WikiLeaks.

I wouldn't really care if it had been Adolph Hitler who disclosed that one.


edit - more of that video here - starting around 6:45 - with commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LkYvEZOZs

Murder, plain and simple. And ugly and foul. Committed by scum pigs.

Hi Sue,
Fully agree with you. If it can't be said in public, it shouldn't be said.
Politicians certainly shouldn't be saying one thing to the electorate and another thing behind 'closed doors'.
They're either open and honest, or two-faced liars.

Hi Janey

Leaving aside what I assume to be your flippant invite to put paid to your other half...... the point here is exactly as you said, ie "briefing notes written for US President Obama, for instance, aren't said in public".

When what's said in public is diametrically opposed by what's been said in private by our elected politicians, then there's something sadly wrong. Good on anyone, in my view, who lays that one open.

Sue x

suzian ... Is it free speech for me to say I'll pay you 10,000 in the currency of your choice if you kill my husband?

Is it free speech to broadcast the home addresses and licence plate numbers of members of another ethnic group and urge people to kill the "cockroaches"? (That's what happened during the Rwandan genocide.)

Is it free speech to lie to the police? to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire? to sell military secrets to an enemy in wartime?

They're all *speech*, and we have the fundamental right of free speech, i.e. the right to speak without being punished for speaking.

There are lots of things that are *speech* that we nonetheless consider it justified to outlaw and punish.

Whether Flanagan's words met that standard is a subject that can be debated. I, personally, doubt that they did.

"Obnoxious" really isn't the issue. Nobody - nobody - has suggested that any charge be laid against Flanagan because his speech was "obnoxious". (Of course, we could say that people are charged with murder when they kill another person because killing someone is "obnoxious", which actually it is, and is kind of why we ban it.)

The likelihood of harm or damage resulting from the speech is the reason some speech is banned.

That's why, for instance, we have laws in Canada prohibiting advocating genocide, or publicly inciting hatred against certain types of defined groups. As well as laws against lying to police (obstruction), lying in court (perjury), advertising snake oil to cure cancer, inciting riots, counselling the commission of crimes, conspiring to commit crimes, and so on.

They're all "speech", and thus we are all free to speak the words -- unlesss justification is given for banning them.

Would the US be able to win a conviction against Assange on some charge? Hopefully we'll never find out, since odds aren't good that he'd get a fair trial on legally/constitutionally valid charges.

By the way, let's not forget that the words that Assange published were not said in public, that being the big point. Briefing notes written for US President Obama, for instance, aren't said in public.

The question is whether what he did rose to the level of some crime being committed in the US. The fact that what he did is defined as speech doesn't mean, by itself, that there can be no consequences. It means there would have to be some legal basis for laying constitutionally valid charges against him.

I'm all for free speech. It's free speech that allows Flannagan to say his bit. Obnoxious though you think it is, it's his right to say it.

Which ideal of free speech apparently doesn't include Assange - who wasn't even saying what he thought, just repeating what others said. And which, of course, they wish they hadn't said in public.

sue x

Not making sense, Frank.

The fact that something is what someone thinks and then says out loud doesn't mean that society has no say in the matter.

If I point at you and say to suzian: go kill him now! -- those are just words; should I suffer no consequences? If I stand up in court and say under oath that you committed a heinous crime when I know you didn't, should I suffer no consequences?

There are all sorts of words for which we impose consequences.

Flanagan's words, to my mind, don't come up to the standard of a criminal offence in Canada: he didn't actually counsel the commission of a crime.

His words were nonetheless irresponsible in the extreme. "Oh, I was just joking / musing out loud" is simply not a good excuse for speaking approvingly, in public, of killing or otherwise harming an individual, or a group of people.

Flanagan is a public figure in Canada and was speaking on a national current affairs program. His behaviour was reprehensible.

But hey, yeah, it's always nice when cretins like Flanagan fly their true colours.

Not nice enough to make it a good thing when people like him say things like that, though.


"Isn't he whole point of Julian Assange's crusade to allow everyone out there to learn what others are saying and thinking about them "

No, actually. It's to expose the hypocrisy and deceit of governments.

(Certain governments, anyway. I'm waiting to see whether he's giving other governments a free pass, and if so, why.)

Assange has been arrested for rape.

Assange wouldn't be the first person to have an "accident" or disappear or be convicted of a trumped up charge because he's annoyed some "important" people.

S

You haven't heard? ;)


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/12/06/
wikileaks-flanagan-vancouver-investigation.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A B.C. lawyer has formally asked Vancouver police to look into whether former Stephen Harper adviser Tom Flanagan broke any laws when he suggested in a CBC interview that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be killed, according to weekend reports.

Gail Davidson, who is with the group Lawyers Against the War, filed a complaint with police, alleging that Flanagan "counselled and/or incited the assassination of Julian Assange contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada."

... Last week in an edition of CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Flanagan said U.S. President Barack Obama "should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

"I think Assange should be assassinated, actually," Flanagan said with a laugh. When asked to expand upon his answer, he added that he "wouldn't be unhappy" if Assange "disappeared."

When Solomon commented that his position was "pretty harsh stuff," Flanagan said he was "feeling very manly today."

A couple of days later, Flanagan apologized for his "thoughtless, glib" remarks and said he wasn't seriously suggesting or advocating the assassination of Assange.

Assange not amused

But Assange and his lawyer have both since called for Flanagan to be charged with incitement to commit murder.

On Monday, Assange lawyer Mark Stevens told CBC News that the assassination suggestions from Flanagan and others along with a revived investigation into alleged sexual assaults seem to be part of an international campaign to discredit his client.

"We have seen that the warrants that … this woman prosecutor has issued have come in the very week that [WikiLeaks] released the cables and been the subject of cyber attacks and suggestions by Sarah Palin that he ought to be assassinated and similar suggestions broadcast in Canada," he said from London.

"So one has to say that maybe there is more to this than meets the eye."

Last week, Liberal MP Denis Coderre filed an official complaint with the CBC's ombudsman Vince Carlin regarding what he called a "declaration to incite violence."

But other former Liberals were giving Flanagan the benefit of the doubt. Scott Reid, a former Liberal adviser to prime minister Paul Martin who was on the same program panel with Flanagan, said he believed Flanagan was being "his usual colourful and provocative self " and was "obviously talking tongue-in-cheek."

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Very powerful quote I think - attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller.

Assange is upsetting a lot of people obviously. One wonders if he will be "disposed of" at some point.

S

Well I can't understand why he feels the need to release diplomatic information that can cause nothing but trouble and embarrassment.

How exactly is that supposed to benefit the public in general? i can't see it does anything but stir things up.

I find it funny he is accusing the Australian government of not helping him, when they are one of the countries affected.

Kind of seems like he wants his cake and to eat it as well.

Just my opinion of course, no doubt that there are lots of people who admire or revile him for his actions.

Hi Janey

I'm afraid I was a very superficial youth. I put on my first red lipstick to watch the Beatles Live at Shea Stadium - on the television. With mum and dad. No doubt it was smeared across my young mouth, while I drooled over George Harrison.

Graduating from there to full shriek mode, I saw Steve Marriott and the Faces , and then went into uber-drive when I discovered Rod Stewart .

Maggie May was my rite of passage.

The screaming stopped, and the "serious me" emerged, (or at least I thought so at the time) to the accompaniment of Leonard Cohen. Gone was the red lipstick, the short skirts and the Players Number Six. Replaced by floaty maxi-skirts, Balkan Sobranies and a leather flying jacket.

Then, oh, so old, I emerged from that chrysalis to the strains of Paul Weller. And my first taste of politics.

Forty years on from there, I still retain my love of music and all things political.

But, deep within my bathroom cabinet, there's still a red lipstick and a scream waiting to come out!

Sue x

"To those who like what WikiLeaks does ..."

I'm at least tentatively in that camp, and I don't see him as rock-star cool, blah blah. I never screamed for rock stars in my youth, either. And I don't like being trivialized that way, really, as some ninny worshipping an idol of cool, who was a socialist in my youth probably just because of the really cool Che posters. That being exactly what I'd expect the Telegraph to say about me, for its own obvious reasons.

I don't doubt that he's a self-aggrandizing egomaniac. As many rock stars were and are. ;)

But he really isn't anything to me other than the person who is doing what he's doing, at some obvious benefit and likely cost to himself, for whatever reason he's doing it -- which doesn't concern me unless and until I spot evidence of an axe to grind in what's getting leaked, i.e. if it seems there are some being exposed and some being protected.

If and when that became an issue, I'd wonder more about his motivations and whether what he was leaking was meant to have a particular effect by presenting a version of reality that I thought wasn't faithful to the truth.

So far, he's just the guy publishing stuff that the US in particular doesn't want published. ;)

Perhaps Assange is just fed up with the lax security, two-facedness and hypocrasy of ALL governments, like, I expect the majority of us are.

You get the feeling they don't give a monkeys about the people they're 'governing' - just what they can get out of them - and how they can 'look good'.


On the subject of 'looking good' - perhaps we should blame the media!

Well, today revealed the unbecoming "sight" of the British Government salivating in pursuit of the "special relationship". And beleaguered Gordon Brown seeing if he could be graciously granted a minute or two of Obama's time in the kitchen, between engagements.

Det - I read your comment about "MY Country". I understand what you were saying, but where does it begin and end? My house, my town, my region, my country, my world?

I keep coming back to the same point, and call me naive if you will - but if we were all more honest with each other, then there would be no need for this Scarlet Pimpernel of Cyberspace. Quoting the Daily Telegraph

"To those who like what WikiLeaks does, the Australian-born Assange, 39, is rock-star glamorous – a vagabond warrior wreathed in deadly cool. Give him a sombrero and replace his BlackBerry with a smoking carbine, and it isn’t hard to imagine him holed up in the hills with the compañeros, waiting for the corrupt citadels of concealment to fall. To those who don’t, he’s a slippery, self-aggrandising charlatan, running what amounts to a criminal enterprise. "

I'm not sure which one he is - but I am very sure that I'm absolutely behind knowing what my government is really doing in my name

Sue x

LOL DET - Hypocrasy rules!!!

..which of course, is what Assange has exposed.

We seemed have ignored maggiewinchester comment last night regarding the US internet security.

The unfairness of the extradition policy between the US and Britain has been discussed before, and is another example of ‘in the American Best Interest’. I believe that the agreement has yet to be ratified by the US Houses. Unfortunately, the British Government has already passed it, and it is law until such time as the promised Review takes place.

You may be interested to know that there was large gathering of American Hackers held in San Francisco this summer, an annual event. The best Hackers, as judged by their peers, were those who had broken into the US government servers………….and were now employed by them. Although I can not confirm this, a number of them supposedly gave too much detail during their Conference talks, and were promptly arrested from the Stage – lol

If we were to just limit this discussion to the current Wikileak expose, as a non US citizen, I would agree with you. But I’m not. I’m British, just as JaneyC is Canadian (if this incorrect, I apologise). The phrase ‘GW’s poodle’ referring to Tony Blair is widely known to anyone in the UK who has a passing interest in Foreign Affairs.

Sue has suggested that there should be greater transparency in *all* governments, not just in National policies, but in International ones. Whilst not an adherer of ‘My country, right or wrong’, I would not wish the private Diplomatic or Military discussions undertaken by MY government, elected by MY fellow citizens, in the perceived best interests of MY country to be available to other’s who wish MY country harm.

Wasn’t there a poem that started something like….
‘They came for the Jews and I said nothing’?
With the final sentence along the lines of….
‘Then they came for me and there was no one left’

(Sorry internet on a go slow so can’t look it up)

If we were to applaud and encourage Assange for publishing these leaks, then were will it end? Which Government will have its intelligence gathering leaked next???

"The criticisers are going to be treated with more suspicion than they were originally."

And a demmed good thing that would be, in the present case.

The US expects all of its "friends" to do its bidding unquestioningly. We in Canada already pretty much know what they said about us when we refused to join that little Iraq adventure.

Let's hear more of what those in power in the US really think about their "friends". The friends might just find a little less public support behind them next time they consider following the US in its ugly, murderous foreign policy.