3,000 people is such a blip on the radar really. No one can be bothered to stop speeding or put down that beer before driving home but we act like 3,000 people dying in New York is cause to kill ten times that many to prevent it.

Ridiculous.

As Syria shows the middle-east have their own problems. Leave them to it.

Doesn't really teaches us anything new. Who had any doubts on how it was in Guantaname?

But I have to say that I feel that publishing these documents is rather irresponsible.

I reacted to that too but this whole thing with Manning on the other hand isn't dealt ideally by the government and it's good WikiLeaks tries to release some of those documents. They aren't suppose to reveal secrets but threats against democracy or human rights.

But the documents are 'hard' proof.

By the way, Wikileaks shared many documents that public deserved to know. I mean mostly Iraq war documents as long as a video with a chopper accidentaly killing journalists (I believe that was Wikileaks too?)

Cablegate was something different, though. But still, US acts like a bad guy here. Congressmen calling out to kill him on sight, Bradley Manning being kept naked in his cell for many hours or days, etc etc.

On the other hand, it's understandable why US govt. sees him as an enemy. But it looks kinda pathetic, like a kid aggreviately trying to squish an ant with his boot but misses all the time.

I agree to a point. But where Wikileaks become irresponsible is when they publish information that could put people's lives in dangers (like the spies sent in the Middle-East) while completely dodging the blame. If they posted the entire procedures (haven't read them yet), they're acting irresponsibly. They could've sticked to the (miserable) conditions.

I don't support the US government actions in prosecuting him (at least not entirely), but Wikileaks isn't free of blame either.

It always depends on the nature of the documents. While the public has the right to be informed about what the state is doing. There are obviously borders when it comes to eg. operational security.

I haven't read much about those documents, but what concerns the treatment of the prisoners and how they are treated is of public concern.

We are the good guys in this, therefore we should act like them.

Yeah, governments have secrets for a reason a lot of times. It's a fine line.

But not when hiding information about tortures, murderers and other violations of human rights.

I agree with SimonG - there are documents that shouldn't be ever revealed to the public, but such kind of information is what people deserve to know.

Isn't it a bit early for a Christmas miracle ;-P

That's kinda my point. I haven't read the documents in their entireties (don't have time right now), but from what I've gathered, it details the full procedures including security procedures (and THAT can put people in danger). This is why I called it irresponsible.

I'm actually confused why this one is even a problem, the way they sacrifice for their holidays is literally no different than most methods of slaughter on most ranches and farms, in fact it's actually more humane than some methods that are allowed in industry. They end up consuming the animal, the death isn't useless, it's no different than our ritualistic killing of turkeys in the US and consuming them for our Thanksgiving, except most Americans have never butchered their own meat.
If you're going to quibble over something that minor than we can really never talk about anything. That prison is a military prison, it probably has god damn air support from a squadron of F-14s if it needs it. Everyone working there is likely 100 times safer than the average guard at an American prison. I don't think we're going to see a Burn Notice-style prison break any time soon just because some bog-standard security procedures, that anyone with half a brain would have guessed, were confirmed.

I think it was in Germany (not sure, though, before my time) because to kill an animal you need a permit or license. And those religious leaders didn't get one because officially they weren't qualified. They couldn't get one, because the method of killing didn't involve any tranquillizers and German law requires those due to animal cruelty laws.

In the end it was more a storm in a bottle. It got more attention than it should because Jewish communities were allowed to do so forever, while the Islamic communities were initially forbidden to do so.

It was more a matter of German bureaucracy not catching up than of religious oppression.

Female circumcision will ALWAYS be illegal in Germany. Always. Because it is a disgusting practice with massive harm to the women. Heck, it's illegal everywhere, I think.

The case was about male circumcision. Very, very complicated issue. But here, it weren't the health concerns so much the problem as the conflict between the religious freedom of the parents VS. those of the children.

Security is often based on some principles which should be complied with consistently. I don't know the details in this case, but I feel it's wise to be somewhat conservative on this matter. Bits of information which appear small and worthless by themselves can be collected from various sources and contexts and put together into something more substantial down the line.

By the way, you retired your F-14s six years ago. ;)