Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.
Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have.
Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this.
I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.
The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not hiding things).
The policy of wikileaks is that they will black out only information which could put people's lives at risk. Merely being embarrassing is not sufficient criteria to get blacked out. Agree or disagree with their philosophy, at least they have been consistent about it. Releasing the Tanden-Lessig e-mail is totally in line with what I'd expect from them.
How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"?
I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours?
That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest (eg government corruption), then yes, I am all for airing such matters. Transparent government is good. Transparent "what kind of porn does Joe Public watch at home?" is not.
There is always going to be an uncomfortable point where you draw a line that isn't quite fair, where up to that line is fine and doesn't really do much harm, but crossing that line would be a detriment to the public interest, and so the liberties of the one end up curtailed in the best interest of the whole.
Legally defining that line will always be a challenge. And there will always be people that question exactly where the line is drawn and want it moved further. And in some cases, some people won't want any line whatsoever.
Let's take free speech. I support this 100%. Even if it means defending the KKK's hate rallies, the WBC's protesting of military funerals, etc. I even take it further and don't support obscenity laws. It's not free speech if you can't say something just because someone else thinks it's 'obscene'. I go as far as supporting eg Handley in US v Handley on the importation of loli material. Yet even I will draw the line at real pictures of victims (I believe your freedoms end at the point they harm someone else's freedoms), so some might even say I'm not a true supporter of free speech.
Let's take capital punishment. If you are for executing terrorists or serial killers, then why be against murder in general? I mean, where do you draw the line? What about self-defense in the case of home invasion? That's okay too? What about self-defense against a brutal assault (that wouldn't kill you)? Is that okay? What about to stop someone from stealing your car? You can keep whittling this back and eventually say, "well we shouldn't make any laws against murder, because it's too hard to draw the line!", which is silly.
If you're against the death penalty, then how about drugs? Why do we allow alcohol when it causes more harm than weed? Okay, let's legalize weed (which I support.) Now what about LSD and mushrooms? Let's legalize those too (I also support that.) How about crack cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and krokodil? (I don't support that.) But wait! How do we draw a line here? We should just legalize everything, right? Well ... no. When a heroin addict can't get their fix, they'll start breaking into cars and houses to get money for their habit. They'll end up in the ERs and racking up bills that you and I end up paying in the form of increased insurance fees to pay for them. Whereas someone eating mushrooms is just going to feel great for six hours, throw up, then feel bad for two hours, then go back to their everyday lives.
There are cases where no matter what we decide, there will be consequences. You can be pro-choice, and that's to the detriment of all the children that won't ever be born as a result. You can be pro-life, and that's to the detriment of women who are forced to act as breeders against their will and be saddled with huge amounts of child rearing pain, a child, possible medical complications, huge amounts of debt, and very little to no real support for it.
Real progress in society requires us to say, "damn, yes, this is a really hard problem! How do we improve things?", not throw our hands up in defeat and effectively embrace full-on anarchy.
>I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours?
What did you do that you are so concerned about? I have done plenty of things embarrassing, as has everyone; however I'm not so sure I have done anything that would be life-ruining if it made it to the public. I don't understand why you would feel so differently unless you were engaging in things that people would strongly disapprove of - in which case you probably shouldn't be doing them don't you think? Well, even if you are I think you have a right to your privacy. A generation ago homosexuality could be life ruining, and I think what you choose to do with your personal life is up to you, not your government or other people's personal belief system. That is why unless you decide to become a world leader you should be entitled to your own privacy. As a world leader, though, your personal character has consequences for everyone else.
If you disagree, what do you disagree with here?
Could this have been done better? Perhaps. We don't know the details of when Assange got this information, what opportunities he might have had to filter it through MSM outlets with the resources to handle it and release it before voting (which has already begun).
The fact is, quite a lot in there is in the public interest to know, and especially for someone like Tanden I have little sympathy for her shit-talking being made public, after she's attacked others for less.
Did Palmer Luckey go on another spending spree?
That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html
STEWART: No, no, no, please.
CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials.
(CROSSTALK)
STEWART: Please. Please stop.
CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire."
STEWART: Please stop.Thanks for the link!