Oh, I agree with you on a lot of that. But at the same time, there are the situations where people really just don't want to know.

A book series I like (Vince Flynn's "Mitch Rapp" series. Like 24, but with even more brown-people murdering) actually touches on this. And while it completely goes off the deep end and plays every single emotional card it can, it also raises a good point.

Sometimes, people just don't want to know. They say they do, because they NEED to say they want to. But they don't (always).

To do a less politically charged example: Let's use the Batman example. Batman is a sick son of a bitch. He tortures and assaults the hell out of people on an hourly basis. And you might hate the concept of vigilante justice (because cops are SO effective :p). But, at the same time, most people wouldn't be going out of their way to catalogue and try and bring Bats up on charges. Why? Because he is making people safer (excluding the regular supervillain attacks) by acting outside of the law. But if the public actually knew what he did, there would be daily manhunts (and, in some stories, there are :p).

Obviously that has a lot of holes (Bats isn't really a government operative, even though he gets a lot of police cooperation) and it is often taken too far (we kind of DO care about where our tax money is going when it is used for pork. And the line between security and "cover-up" is pretty thin), but it also isn't a stretch to see a lot of situations where you don't want to know what the government is doing (because otherwise, you would have to get angry).

And another thing to remember: Jurisdiction. Our laws extend to our borders. So technically, a lot of what the CIA and the other guys do isn't actually breaking the law. It just seems like it :p

Ignoring the downright laughable nature of that (seriously, just about nobody gives a damn), a few things worth noting:
It involves conflict between signatory nations: Most of the people the US is bombing/screwing with aren't signatory nations. And you can EASILY spin it by saying "We aren't attacking so and so, we are attacking the terrorist organization that is almost definitely part of so and so, but is officially separate so as to give them freedom of action"

The caveat there: It also applies to non signatory nations, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions". Executing prisoners, beheading, "general terrorist acts", etc. All of those kind of show a rejection of provisions.

Aside from the legality of violating Geneva Conventions, geez man, a lot of stuff we ban is banned for a reason in that. You thought war was ugly? Let soldiers start putting 3 bladed bayonets back on their rifles and whatnot, see what you get.

Suggesting it's "okay" even when you can spin it misses the point. War is horrid enough as is. You can't take the moral high ground if you're violating Geneva Conventions, I don't care against whom.

The Batman analogy is kind of misleading since this pure morale goodness and superpowers that you find in comics are normally absent in us. (Btw The comic Watchmen deals with these questions.) However I like it because I think that it illustrates how the mighty people who are doing what they want are thinking. They think that normal people are of lesser intelligence and they do it for "the greater good". Well, overestimation of their abilitiies at its best.

On the other side you assume people suffer from schizophrenia. They approve things only if the consequences are not directly shown to them.... I have a simpler explanation: they just don't care. Many people only care for themselves and their beloved ones and the more far away somebody suffers the easier it can be ignored. Automatically many people do not look too closely. 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians - not visible. Its wrong. We should care more and we should insist on more transparency.

One thing I think people should consider: many people claim that certain things are 'just how the world works" and that we should just accept them, such as there will always be corruption in government, the rich get richer, etc etc. If we accept that, however, then they should also accept that things like WikiLeaks and their actions is also just a fact of life. Just like politicians sending people to their deaths for personal gain, there will be out of control whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is needed, and if occasionally it gets out of hand or abused that's the price we pay.

People have differing ideas of what is need to know only and what isn't, and any attempt at regulating it would defeat the whole purpose of exposing corruption. Though I bet governments would love to be able to 'regulate' things like WikiLeaks...

Well, just about everyone has touched on the "do superheroes really help ordinary people" angle.

And you say "they think that normal people are of lesser intelligence and they do it for 'the greater good'", but one could just as easily argue "the brave men and women of the various three letter agencies commit horrifying acts so that nobody else will have to". It is all perspective.

And you misunderstand, I am not saying the people would approve. They just don't want to have to disapprove.

Now for a less comic-booky example: Let's say that it was revealed that the CIA just stopped a terrorist bombing (hell, we can crank it up to "nuke" for the full effect). Everyone is happy. Then we find out that, in the course of the investigation, a car battery was shoved up someone's urethra, and that the information obtained in this fashion allowed us to stop them at the very last second (right down to heroic and overly dramatic "Everyone, clear the room, I need to stay with the exploding bomb to disarm it with one second left on the clock!").
Now, nobody is complaining that they didn't get nuked, and nobody WANTS to get nuked. But, at the same time, a car battery up the urethra is pretty messed up.
Nobody approves of it (except the whackos), but it is also one of those things that we don't particularly want to know about so that we don't have to disapprove, and deal with the harder questions like "Is the violation of one person's rights, that they may or may not have (depending on which lawyers chime in on if the Geneva convention or US Constitution really apply to them, since it is a grey area at best) acceptable if it saves thousands of lives?" or the counter-question "Is the death of thousands an acceptable cost to pay for the preservation of one person's rights (that they may or may not actually have)?"

That is a hard question that will almost definitely make anyone bend on their moral/ethical viewpoints to an extent, and it is just something that people really don't want to have to deal with. Because the idealists need to stay idealists (so that they can keep bitching at the pragmatists in an attempt to keep them in line :p). If we lose the idealists, we start going down a pretty dark rabbit hole.


Also, worth noting, some of the former Wikileaks guys are opening a new site called OpenLeaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLeaks

The focus for this one will be NOT having a political agenda, and only giving the information to the news media, not to the general public.
Honestly, that is EXACTLY what I want. I fully agree that whistleblowers/narcs are required, and that a lot of the more shady stuff needs to be revealed (to an extent). But my complaints with Wikileaks are threefold:

1. It is clearly just Assange's vendetta against the US at this point.
2. They are INSANELY biased "reporters" (actually, many people in the news media have spoken out that they AREN'T journalists), what with taglines like "Collateral Murder" and a clear agenda. And, unfortunately, many of the enlightened intellectuals who love the site don't seem to realize that there is a bias.
3. There is no reason that the average person needs ANY of these documents. We don't need to know the names of ANYONE, even if they are only tangentially related and are perfectly safe from being attacked. Let the news media do their job, and do responsible (-ish) reporting. They have done a pretty good job as far as embedded reporting goes, they have a good track record with other incidents, and they actually have accountability to deal with (half the crap Wikileaks has pulled in the past year or two would get any reporter blacklisted).

So here is hoping that OpenLeaks isn't just blowing smoke, and are actually serious about this. Release the information (if it is pertinent. We don't need to know some sorority's initiation procedure. And YES, Wikileaks "leaked" that before their vendetta started), and let people who are trained in how to handle the crap handle it.

As usual, you forgot or overlooked a few things.
First, we're not talking about 1 guy who's a proven terrorist and who's rights gotten violated, to save xxx lives. We talk about xxx guys who "might" be that one guy. It's the nature of terrorism (and crimes in general), that you have a lot more suspects then actual culprits. How many more crimes would get solved (correctly or just because someone broke down), if the police was allowed or at least covered to use force? And how would the police been seen? Nobody, absolutely nobody wants that.
Real quick: how many imprisoned in Guantanamo have been or still have to face trial in a court? Or skipping legal questions aside, have been confirmed as being guilty? Now take that number and set it next to the amount being imprisoned, with no prove of guilty.

Second, one might accept that proven terrorists have lost some or all of their rights, to gain knowledge of planned attacks. But now we have 10 suspects under which we believe at least 1 actual culprit is. To get a possible info out of him, you have to put all 10 under these "enhanced" interrogation techniques. Where's the point where it's too much?

Third. For the sake of it, let me call these "enhanced" interrogation techniques what they are: torture. These torture techniques have a high fail rate. Simply because every human being can get brought to the point, where he admits to being satan himself.
Heck, the United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war in World War II.

Fourth. All of this has side effects. Tortured innocents who gotten released, relatives or friends of abduccted "potential" terrorists, seeing it as unjust and holding a grudge against who did it...
Mr. Bush can claim that the world's a safer place as long as he wants. Personally I see more terrorists then ever before. And I don't wonder why.
I can only suggest to get Why Do You Kill?: The Untold Story of the Iraqi Resistance by Jürgen Todenhöfer - it's a good read.

Frankly put, then they're sheeps and (at least for me) have lost their right to vote.

The idealists are long gone or plain unimportant in todays politics (or ethics). And the pragmatists aka realists have a hard time to keep the egoists at bay.

No, that's an opinion. It's going against the US at this point, because that's the only big leak Wikileaks had. Once they gotten documents from other leaks not concerning the US directly and don't publish them, then I'll gladly join you on this point. Before that, it's just the usual pointing at alleged anti-americans.

That's just tabloid reporting. Printed press has it since when? Again, the agenda is only a personal opinion, not a fact and far from proven.

Care to explain what american newspaper could still be considered responsible and accountable with a good track record after the almost blind take on everything Mr. Bush and Co. pushed out to get their foot into Iraq? None has exactly covered itself with glory and only a few (the good ones) had admitted so retrospectively to not have been critic at all.

The american view on key norwegian politicians and such is certainly interesting. Apparently we're siding with terrorists because some guy at some point may have expressed some notion of support for Yemen.

Geeze, where's the middle ground with these fucks? The stupidity is appalling.

Will reply to SIannah when I have more time, but couldn't pass this one up (I am weak :p)

The Norwegian view on the American people and such is certainly interesting. Apparently we're all stupid because some guys at some point may have expressed some notion of Norwegian politicians not being hard on terrorism.

Geeze, where's the middle ground with these freaks? The stupidity is appalling.

As you can see, over-generalizations and nationalistic bull is offensive and annoying. So how about you don't do it to others if you don't like it happening to you, 'kay? Thanks.


Sorry. Just saw a perfect opportunity to bitch about crap that has annoyed me in general. Stonebro just gave a REALLY good opening :p

I don't give you that one. Sorry.

Just a fairly random selection from recent reports:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/wikileaks-corrupt-ghana-police-drugs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/11/wilileaks-cables-litvinenko-murder
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-muammar-gaddafi-libya
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-rbs-chairman-philip-hampton
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-cables-burma-nuclear-weapons

There is no specific targeting the US. Different national media focus on what concerns their own country more than what concerns other countries - but that's how news always is slanted.

Assange himself does not consider what wikileaks is doing as journalism. Hence the involvement of a variety of newspapers in this latest release schedule of the leak - specifically the New York Times, Le Monde, the Guardian, Der Spiegel and El Pais, that had independent access to the cables and decided - each on their own - how and what stories they ran. [Incidentally all of them also profited from and increased their exposure, free of charge, from a leak that wikileaks provided.]

I'd argue - and there's plenty of evidence out there by now - that the bias by the media conglomerates, through their financial and political pressures, is a LOT more pronounced than that of wikileaks.

There is no such thing as too much information.

In a time when embedded journalism is the norm, where the large majority of news corporations are in the hands of five big companies, and where there's a clear bias and misconception / misrepresentation in the media (see, for the very latest perspective John Pilger's documentary just released in cinemas in the UK last Sunday) it's very clear that the media is NOT doing it's job in being impartial and actually informing the public in a critical and upfront manner.

Note that the really good journalists - those that really do have integrity - happen to be largely on the independent side.

You're not all stupid, it's just the vast majority.

And there should be a difference between the opinions of plumber Joe and the apparently official opinions of your government.

Because according to your government, we are;

- Lazy, passive, complacent, weak work culture (perhaps we are, we're too rich after all and don't have to do jack shit for it ... except build tons of oil rigs, ships, and generally push the boundaries of current technology in the field. Overall Norway is one of the nations who actually gets the most value in practice out of every working hour spent. You know, work smarter, not harder?).
- Selfish moralists (morals? we have a youth culture now which is basically centered around bilge drinking and casual sex, and more and more people cancel the church membership they automatically receive upon birth. Morals and conservatism are dead in Norway. Selfish I can agree with).
- Irresponsible, naive, a virtual haven for terrorist activity (what the fuck)
- Not willing to comply with the physical and technical resources needed to do widespread surveillance (yeah, we don't want to become you, thanks anyway).
- I could go on about the targeted blackwashing of our top officials, but I won't, since it is all obviously written by a conservative, paranoid freak who sees terrorists behind every bushel in Oslo.

Not that I need to have a problem with this for long, your reeling economy will collapse on itself within my lifetime and the self-proclaimed status of the United States as a "superpower" and "world police" will end. You might try and invade someone and spark world war 3 but will inevitably lose.

Just don't come crawling to us for oil when it happens.

This is a post in response to thelovebat's post asking for more info on [url=http://wikileaks.ch]Wikileaks. Let me try to give you a neutral response as possible.

What Wikileaks does is create a relatively safe way for whistleblowers to leak information. This by taking measures to keep the identity of the whistleblower secret. Then, this information is published so it can be accessed by newspapers and the general public.

This method is controversial. Some reason it is nothing but free press, as also used by 'traditional' publishers such as newspapers. In general, the importance of free press for the functioning of a democracy is not subject to debate. What is subject to debate however, is that internet-based organizations such as Wikileaks are harder to control by governments because they are not bound to a specific material location. This creates a change in power of press vs. government, which might result in the leaking of material that is potentially harmful, such as the names of government secret agents.

Put it bluntly, it really comes down to your personal estimation of where this balance of power should be. And which of the two, government or Wikileaks, you trust more in deciding where the boundary lies between freedom of information and protection of harmful information.

That is, in my point of view, the discussion in a nutshell.

Assange's idea (that from interview in Pilger's film - so I can't provide link) is that Wikileaks is an attempt to create a "fifth estate". The idea is that as a news reader you can check up on the accuracy of the news reporting by looking at the same source a reporter used as the basis for her/his article/report. If you want to, that is. This is also why he doesn't see wikileaks as a replacement for journalism. The aim is different.

It goes beyond what we have, at the moment. The idea of the media as a "fourth estate" being impartial of government and other organisations of power and scrutinising them is being presented as true, while how news are made, what sources are used, and what those sources / documents quoted spell out in detail are, especially with non-public information, are kept hidden. Wikileaks aim, according to Assange, is not just to leak information or make whistle-blowing easier, but also to make reporting more transparent and accountable.

Wow, this link did shake my view of the US completely: The Congressional Hearings on the Wikileaks issue. You always hope there are people in Congresses and Senates throughout the world thoughtfully rethinking the way a country should be, after this you know it to be true.

I offer a sincere apology to all americans for having a view of them too much based on what reaches me through the news, which is not all that well-thought, I can tell you. As for why there exists a stereotype of americans being stupid, I guess here's the answer.