|
Biden calling Assange a terroristSeriously? What an ass-clown. My (admittedly not-that-well-informed) opinion of Biden just took a nosedive.
I actually agree that calling Assange a terrorist is too much. It takes away from the horrors of what the real terrorists are doing. That being said, I have to wonder if Biden's natural state of existence is foot-in-mouth.
I actually agree that calling Assange a terrorist is too much. It takes away from the horrors of what the real terrorists are doing. That being said, I have to wonder if Biden's natural state of existence is foot-in-mouth.
It seems like a pre-req for the job (Cheney being an exception).
Okay, in all fairness, he did say "closer to being a high tech terrorist [than the Pentagon Papers]."
Here's the video
|
|
Okay, in all fairness, he did say "closer to being a high tech terrorist [than the Pentagon Papers]."
Here's the video
But there are others who have called for him to be labled a terrorist. Again, I personally think that makes too much light of what actual terrorists do. I may not like Assange, but he is no terrorist.
But there are others who have called for him to be labled a terrorist. Again, I personally think that makes too much light of what actual terrorists do. I may not like Assange, but he is no terrorist.Okay, in all fairness, he did say "closer to being a high tech terrorist [than the Pentagon Papers]."
Here's the video
Oh, no doubt that other US politicians has flat out called him a terrorist, even "subtly" called for his assassination by CIA black-ops. Biden's remark was just fresh in my memory because I had very recently watched it and, while some of the other politicians are members of congress, Biden is, after all, still the Vice President. Thus, whether you like him or not, his words "should" carry more weight.
I can't say whether I like Assange or not, haven't met the guy, but I have massive sympathy for the cause he's leading.In fact, I just read an article about the lack of spine in Danish journalism and how the politicians didn't "fear" the press, because they had basically become an extension of the political spindoctors. I see much of the same in the US and the whole world of journalism needs a big shake-up. That is exactly what WikiLeaks provides.
As noted in the article I read, if you have something juicy you want out, you don't really go to the self-censoring press anymore, you'd send it to WikiLeaks.
If anyone is interested in the article, it can be found here. It's in Danish, so I don't know how well it would survive a trip through e.g. Google Translate.
|
But there are others who have called for him to be labled a terrorist. Again, I personally think that makes too much light of what actual terrorists do. I may not like Assange, but he is no terrorist.Okay, in all fairness, he did say "closer to being a high tech terrorist [than the Pentagon Papers]."
Here's the videoOh, no doubt that other US politicians has flat out called him a terrorist, even "subtly" called for his assassination by CIA black-ops.
So when He is assassinated by the USA, that it For US Treaties with Commonwealth Nations world Wide?
|
|
But there are others who have called for him to be labled a terrorist. Again, I personally think that makes too much light of what actual terrorists do. I may not like Assange, but he is no terrorist.
I'm glad that there are people on both sides who think this is going too far. I have mixed feelings about the man.
On the one hand, I applaud him for making the information free in the first place, and I do agree that the government should be much more transparent. (Note: I do acknowledge that total transparency just isn't realistic.)
On the other hand, he is partly responsible for whatever retribution might happen due to the information he released... but only partly. Let's not forget the members and agents of the US government who committed the acts that were bad enough that they needed be kept hidden. Those people are responsible as well, a fact that the government and media are really downplaying.
On the other hand, he is partly responsible for whatever retribution might happen due to the information he released... but only partly. Let's not forget the members and agents of the US government who committed the acts that were bad enough that they needed be kept hidden. Those people are responsible as well, a fact that the government and media are really downplaying.
Such vile, despicable acts as....
- Providing frank descriptions of bloodthirsty or corrupt foreign dignitaries to their superiors
- Conducting diplomacy with unsavory, but useful, foreign leaders
- Attempting to gather information about other nations, both friendly and hostile
- Attempting to pressure foreign governments on behalf of American corporate interests
- Waging war against people who hate and despise the US
Give me a break!
I haven't gone over many of the Afghani War documents, but my reading of other documents released by Wikileaks suggests that they're clearly engaging in a "spin" campaign of their own. By manipulating which documents they release (and when), they manipulate people's reactions to those documents. By "spinning" their releases with sensationalistic headlines (such as the blatantly misnamed "Collateral Murder"), they can whip up a frenzy of hostility toward the US from people who haven't seen the video or who don't bother to understand what they're seeing.
I'm sorry if I sound unreasonable, but Assange's self-serving BS just really sets me off.
THIS post is probably the most insightful, best-witten piece on the situation I've seen yet.
THIS post is probably the most insightful, best-witten piece on the situation I've seen yet.
Thanks for the link!
It may seem ironic that the WikiLeaks founder would criticize The Guardian for publishing leaked information, but in an interview with the BBC, Assange made a distinction between what he does and what's been leaked about him.
"We are an organization that does not promote leaking," Assange said. "We're an organization that promotes justice … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism."
It may seem ironic that the WikiLeaks founder would criticize The Guardian for publishing leaked information, but in an interview with the BBC, Assange made a distinction between what he does and what's been leaked about him.
"We are an organization that does not promote leaking," Assange said. "We're an organization that promotes justice … that promotes justice through the mechanism of transparency and journalism."
Wow, that´s quite arrogant. So, wikileaks promotes justice - according to which standards? Who defines what exactly justice is? (As an aside, in Belarus violent protesters were convicted to 5 to 15 days in prison in summary proceedings - for protesting against an unfair election. This is "justice" as well...) It gets obvious that Assange has a very overblown idea of his own importance and seems to think that he is always right, no matter what. That kind of thinking is far away from any democratic standards. His credibility is getting lower and lower IMO.
Stefan
|
I'm not an expert on international law, but in the United States, the idea that there are rights granted to people which are not granted to the government is well recognized. They're called "civil rights".
I know that much of Europe considers privacy a "civil right".
Well, there's another basic rule in effect: you want privacy, don't put yourself in the public arena.
And, I think some of those diplomats expected internal comments made about world leaders and whatnot to stay private as well.
Like I've said, I have no problem with Wikileaks. But if Julian wants to play the game, he shouldn't cry when it's flipped on him.
Like I've said, I have no problem with Wikileaks. But if Julian wants to play the game, he shouldn't cry when it's flipped on him.
That's the blog post I linked above, condensed down to two sentences. ;)
Nixon, likewise, had expectations of privacy wrt the Watergate tapes.
And, I think some of those diplomats expected internal comments made about world leaders and whatnot to stay private as well.
.. which was an illegal operation right from the start. Internal diplomacy cables? not so much. I see a rightful purpose in exposing illegal operations by governments. But just embarrassing the nations diplomats for the sake of it? I really don´t see what is gained by that, other than more difficulties in diplomatic dealings. Not every information is "news" in its own right.
|
.. which was an illegal operation right from the start. Internal diplomacy cables? not so much. I see a rightful purpose in exposing illegal operations by governments. But just embarrassing the nations diplomats for the sake of it? I really don´t see what is gained by that, other than more difficulties in diplomatic dealings. Not every information is "news" in its own right.
And what if the leak had showed that the US goverment promotes illegal activities in democratic countries? Would justify the leak that?
Because thats just what the leaked cables show.
.. which was an illegal operation right from the start. Internal diplomacy cables? not so much. I see a rightful purpose in exposing illegal operations by governments. But just embarrassing the nations diplomats for the sake of it? I really don´t see what is gained by that, other than more difficulties in diplomatic dealings. Not every information is "news" in its own right.Nixon, likewise, had expectations of privacy wrt the Watergate tapes.
And, I think some of those diplomats expected internal comments made about world leaders and whatnot to stay private as well.
Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? movie stars? business owners? family pets?
Who all is off limits?
When Bush Sr. vomitted on the prime minister of Japan, should we have learned about it? When Bill Clinton had an affair, should we have learned about it? When Ronald Ray Gun had alzheimers in office, should hwe have learned about it?
Only if people leaking information think they shouldn't be embarrassed either.
I do find it interesting that the supposable "hero of free information" is selective about who he gives the information to. Only those not on his crap list get it directly, everyone else has to get the filtered versions from them. Kind of goes against the whole justice through honesty bit.
Clearly, to be sure that everyone is behaving appropriately, we need someone to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks. Once that has been done we will need another person to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks WikiLeaks, and so on. This will ensure that everyone leaks their information objectively, and all organizations (including the ones that keep the others transparent) are transparent, fair, and just.
Clearly, to be sure that everyone is behaving appropriately, we need someone to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks. Once that has been done we will need another person to create WikiLeaks WikiLeaks WikiLeaks, and so on. This will ensure that everyone leaks their information objectively, and all organizations (including the ones that keep the others transparent) are transparent, fair, and just.
Wait.
I'm not sure because I'm uneducated in these matters. Did I just describe what politics is all about?
.. which was an illegal operation right from the start. Internal diplomacy cables? not so much. I see a rightful purpose in exposing illegal operations by governments. But just embarrassing the nations diplomats for the sake of it? I really don´t see what is gained by that, other than more difficulties in diplomatic dealings. Not every information is "news" in its own right.Nixon, likewise, had expectations of privacy wrt the Watergate tapes.
And, I think some of those diplomats expected internal comments made about world leaders and whatnot to stay private as well.
Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? movie stars? business owners? family pets?
Who all is off limits?
When Bush Sr. vomitted on the prime minister of Japan, should we have learned about it? When Bill Clinton had an affair, should we have learned about it? When Ronald Ray Gun had alzheimers in office, should hwe have learned about it?
I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question. This is what I would expect from serious journalism: knowing the difference between news on a yellow-press niveau and real news. Furthermore, if some things threaten the diplomatic ties to nations, weighing the consequences of publishing possibly embarassing news should be well considered.
Exposing the true positions of various leaders in the arabic world about Irans nuclear program, which differ from their public positions does exactly what to further anyones goals? Keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons? I doubt it. Painting US diplomats as trustworthy negotiation partners? Hardly. Endearing the US to the local arabic populace, because their leaders are exposed as double-faced? Probably not. I think this leak did nothing to improve the overall situation in the Near East, quite contrary.
If we say information is power, then this power needs to be used responsibly, by governments and media alike. Exposing a secret only because its a secret and claiming to be a hero is not responsible, but rather attracting interest to oneself (or the "cause", whatever it may be).
Stefan
Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? Movie stars? Business owners? Family pets?
You deliberately misrepresent the point. No one has argued that diplomats should never be embarrassed. Their point is that Wikileaks claims to serve justice and democracy, but instead acts to undermine diplomacy. Their releases have already resulted in diplomatic staff being reassigned away from their areas of expertise, not due to any wrongful action on the part of those diplomatic officers, but because they did their job and reported information to their superiors.
Your viewpoint suggests that diplomats should have to pussyfoot around, being careful what they report to their superiors lest some traitorous malcontent decide to leak their sensitive comments to the entire world.
Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? Movie stars? Business owners? Family pets?You deliberately misrepresent the point. No one has argued that diplomats should never be embarrassed. Their point is that Wikileaks claims to serve justice and democracy, but instead acts to undermine diplomacy. Their releases have already resulted in diplomatic staff being reassigned away from their areas of expertise, not due to any wrongful action on the part of those diplomatic officers, but because they did their job and reported information to their superiors.
Your viewpoint suggests that diplomats should have to pussyfoot around, being careful what they report to their superiors lest some traitorous malcontent decide to leak their sensitive comments to the entire world.
Good thing you're not on jury duty, eh?
|
|
Good thing you're not on jury duty, eh?Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? Movie stars? Business owners? Family pets?You deliberately misrepresent the point. No one has argued that diplomats should never be embarrassed. Their point is that Wikileaks claims to serve justice and democracy, but instead acts to undermine diplomacy. Their releases have already resulted in diplomatic staff being reassigned away from their areas of expertise, not due to any wrongful action on the part of those diplomatic officers, but because they did their job and reported information to their superiors.
Your viewpoint suggests that diplomats should have to pussyfoot around, being careful what they report to their superiors lest some traitorous malcontent decide to leak their sensitive comments to the entire world.
Kid ain't getting a jury trial. JAG, not DOJ, will be handling his case.
I actually agree to a certain degree that Assange shouldn't complain about certain things being leaked about his own personal affairs.
My concern, though, is whether it would affect an ongoing criminal investigation (note, I haven't read what has been disclosed about his Swedish trial).?
Second, while certain personal things came to light in the current leaks, I don't think Assange as a person as such is of that much interest when it comes down to it. He's just the founder and one of the spokespersons for WikiLeaks, so this smells more like a form of character assassination.
Try to smear Assange to discredit the leaks the organisation he founded discloses.
If he's found guilty of the charges (in a fair trial), he should, of course, do the time the law requires.
I just wish the same could be said of the people who might be caught having done illegal activities, activities which are now being exposed by the leaks.
Kid ain't getting a jury trial. JAG, not DOJ, will be handling his case.Good thing you're not on jury duty, eh?Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? Movie stars? Business owners? Family pets?You deliberately misrepresent the point. No one has argued that diplomats should never be embarrassed. Their point is that Wikileaks claims to serve justice and democracy, but instead acts to undermine diplomacy. Their releases have already resulted in diplomatic staff being reassigned away from their areas of expertise, not due to any wrongful action on the part of those diplomatic officers, but because they did their job and reported information to their superiors.
Your viewpoint suggests that diplomats should have to pussyfoot around, being careful what they report to their superiors lest some traitorous malcontent decide to leak their sensitive comments to the entire world.
Oh I know, but Sir_Wulf has apparently already convicted the fellow and is sure of the personal reasoning behind any actions *maybe* taken by the soldier in question.
|
|
I actually agree to a certain degree that Assange shouldn't complain about certain things being leaked about his own personal affairs.
My concern, though, is whether it would affect an ongoing criminal investigation (note, I haven't read what has been disclosed about his Swedish trial).?
Second, while certain personal things came to light in the current leaks, I don't think Assange as a person as such is of that much interest when it comes down to it. He's just the founder and one of the spokespersons for WikiLeaks, so this smells more like a form of character assassination.
Try to smear Assange to discredit the leaks the organisation he founded discloses.
If he's found guilty of the charges (in a fair trial), he should, of course, do the time the law requires.
I just wish the same could be said of the people who might be caught having done illegal activities, activities which are now being exposed by the leaks.
Well, to be fair, you have to have character before it can be assassinated. I have no problem with the leaks, I'm all for some minor anarchy, but the dude's motives are far from pure, I'm sure.
|
|
Oh I know, but Sir_Wulf has apparently already convicted the fellow and is sure of the personal reasoning behind any actions *maybe* taken by the soldier in question.Kid ain't getting a jury trial. JAG, not DOJ, will be handling his case.Good thing you're not on jury duty, eh?Okay, so nations' diplomats aren't allowed to be made embarrassed. Does the same thing apply to politicians? Movie stars? Business owners? Family pets?You deliberately misrepresent the point. No one has argued that diplomats should never be embarrassed. Their point is that Wikileaks claims to serve justice and democracy, but instead acts to undermine diplomacy. Their releases have already resulted in diplomatic staff being reassigned away from their areas of expertise, not due to any wrongful action on the part of those diplomatic officers, but because they did their job and reported information to their superiors.
Your viewpoint suggests that diplomats should have to pussyfoot around, being careful what they report to their superiors lest some traitorous malcontent decide to leak their sensitive comments to the entire world.
I apply the same standard to the kid as I do Assange. Don't want to get tried in the court of public opinion? Don't play the game. If all the kid did was release the tapes of the helicopter incident and some Afghan war stuff concerning possible malevolence by GIs, cool, I'm fine with that. If he thought soldiers committed war crimes and wanted to blow the whistle, I commend the effort to keep the U.S. on the high road.
But stealing a bunch of stuff that isn't even remotely in the same category as whistle blowing, and making (if they're true) statements to the dude he was texting/e-mailing, it lends some credence to one side of the court of public opinion's assertion he may be a traitorous malcontent.
Sir_Wulf is entitled to his opinion.
I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question.
A lot of people asked the same thing when Clinton was impeached.
If we say information is power, then this power needs to be used responsibly, by governments and media alike. Exposing a secret only because its a secret and claiming to be a hero is not responsible, but rather attracting interest to oneself (or the "cause", whatever it may be).
See above...
|
|
I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question.A lot of people asked the same thing when Clinton was impeached.
As chicken s!*# as the impeachment was, Clinton wasn't impeached for using an intern as a humidor. He was impeached for lying under oath. If he didn't want to discuss a personal issue (and he shouldn't have had to, frankly), he could have refused to answer (and the worst that could have happened was being found in contempt of congress) or he could have told the truth.
Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
I apply the same standard to the kid as I do Assange. Don't want to get tried in the court of public opinion? Don't play the game. If all the kid did was release the tapes of the helicopter incident and some Afghan war stuff concerning possible malevolence by GIs, cool, I'm fine with that. If he thought soldiers committed war crimes and wanted to blow the whistle, I commend the effort to keep the U.S. on the high road.
But stealing a bunch of stuff that isn't even remotely in the same category as whistle blowing, and making (if they're true) statements to the dude he was texting/e-mailing, it lends some credence to one side of the court of public opinion's assertion he may be a traitorous malcontent.
Sir_Wulf is entitled to his opinion.
I have to plead ignorance as to what he has supposedly said when he turned over the documents/files. Nothing has been reported about that over here. And, of course, the government and the military would have a vested interest in trying to smear him with a supposed agenda. It might be true, it might not, I don't know. I'd like to see the facts about it before rendering a verdict.
As I mentioned a little back, regarding what he turned over, it might just have been a "package deal" where he downloaded a whole bunch of stuff without paging through all of it to sift out the "juicy" stuff.
I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question.A lot of people asked the same thing when Clinton was impeached.As chicken s*&% as the impeachment was, Clinton wasn't impeached for using an intern as a humidor. He was impeached for lying under oath. If he didn't want to discuss a personal issue (and he shouldn't have had to, frankly), he could have refused to answer (and the worst that could have happened was being found in contempt of congress) or he could have told the truth.
Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
I know it wasn't the indiscretion itself he was impeached for, but it should have never come to that. That was my point in highlighting the stuff Stefan wrote.
|
|
As I mentioned a little back, regarding what he turned over, it might just have been a "package deal" where he downloaded a whole bunch of stuff without paging through all of it to sift out the "juicy" stuff.
If that were the case, about the package deal, I'd have to say I have ZERO respect for the kid under that scenario. That would be amazingly irresponsible and not at all "heroic". If he just handed over hard drives worth of stuff without triage, he's either incredibly stupid or not at all noble.
That is, there are some things he should have recognized as actually legitimate reasons for classification. And, under the oath he swore, it would be absolutely unconscionable to release such documents. Considering that rogue soldiers breaking the rules of war could be considered "enemies domestic", whistle blowing is fully within a reasonable interpretation of his service oath.
Shotgun releasing unscreened classified documents? Pretty well summarizes treason, imo.
|
|
I know it wasn't the indiscretion itself he was impeached for, but it should have never come to that. That was my point in highlighting the stuff Stefan wrote.I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question.A lot of people asked the same thing when Clinton was impeached.As chicken s*&% as the impeachment was, Clinton wasn't impeached for using an intern as a humidor. He was impeached for lying under oath. If he didn't want to discuss a personal issue (and he shouldn't have had to, frankly), he could have refused to answer (and the worst that could have happened was being found in contempt of congress) or he could have told the truth.
Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
I'm still unsure if they match 1:1, but point taken.
I know it wasn't the indiscretion itself he was impeached for, but it should have never come to that. That was my point in highlighting the stuff Stefan wrote.I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question.A lot of people asked the same thing when Clinton was impeached.As chicken s*&% as the impeachment was, Clinton wasn't impeached for using an intern as a humidor. He was impeached for lying under oath. If he didn't want to discuss a personal issue (and he shouldn't have had to, frankly), he could have refused to answer (and the worst that could have happened was being found in contempt of congress) or he could have told the truth.
Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
Keep in mind though that at the time (or close to it, it has been a long time) there were allegations of Clinton using his office (then the governorship) to "force" women to do sexual acts with him. If he had been using his position as president to get sexual favors from subordinates that would have strengthened the case for those making the allegations.
Keep in mind though that at the time (or close to it, it has been a long time) there were allegations of Clinton using his office (then the governorship) to "force" women to do sexual acts with him. If he had been using his position as president to get sexual favors from subordinates that would have strengthened the case for those making the allegations.
Keywords here being "allegations" and "if" - you don't build a case on hints, allegations and things left unsaid.
Keep in mind though that at the time (or close to it, it has been a long time) there were allegations of Clinton using his office (then the governorship) to "force" women to do sexual acts with him. If he had been using his position as president to get sexual favors from subordinates that would have strengthened the case for those making the allegations.Keywords here being "allegations" and "if" - you don't build a case on hints, allegations and things left unsaid.
True, but one also doesn't do it by not investigating leads, merely because they may lead to embarrassing details.
Also, I would think everyone would be worried about a superior using their position to elicit sexual favors from a subordinate, in any field. Whether that is the manager at the local restaurant or the president of a nation.
Also, I would think everyone would be worried about a superior using their position to elicit sexual favors from a subordinate, in any field. Whether that is the manager at the local restaurant or the president of a nation.
Right. What this comes down to is that the person in question will abuse his power. While this is to be expected in humans to a certain degree (power corrupts may be a truism, but it still has some truth to it), a true leader should be able to keep this instinct in check. Otherwise, this leader can´t be trusted to do his job right.
IOW, if Bill Clinton used his position as president to get sexual favors, this casts a shadow of doubt on his ability to lead the nation IMO. I´m not saying that he would be unfit to lead the nation because of that alone, but a man who has his sexual instincts not under control might be prone to other errors in judgment as well. (I´m well aware that promiscuity is nothing unusual for "men of power", as power makes sexually attractive. Also, I´d guess that many politicians who pointed a finger at Clinton did so to to point away from themselves - talk about double standards.)
Stefan
I don´t say that it is not allowed (allowed is the wrong word here anyway - if this leaking would be allowed, there would be no discussion about it) - I just question what is gained by that. How is justice promoted by making a laughing stock of politicians? If they are exposed and shown to be not up to their jobs (like your Ronald Reagan alzheimer example seems to indicate), that is important. If they are shown to be in an embarrassing situation (like the Bush sr. vomiting incident), which probably has nothing to do with their capabilities to do their job, I don´t see what is gained by making incidents like these public, other than ridiculing the person in question.A lot of people asked the same thing when Clinton was impeached.As chicken s!~# as the impeachment was, Clinton wasn't impeached for using an intern as a humidor. He was impeached for lying under oath. If he didn't want to discuss a personal issue (and he shouldn't have had to, frankly), he could have refused to answer (and the worst that could have happened was being found in contempt of congress) or he could have told the truth.
Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.
Being found in contempt of congress isn't a good idea for any sitting president, however. Still, the 5th exists for a reason.
This just in: novaya gazeta reporting about imminent leaks of data exposing corruption in the russian leasdership.
Now, I would have guessed as much that Russias top politicians are a corrupt and murderous lot, and that Putin is the man who truly holds the power. But if novaya gazetas claim of actually exposing proof is true, it would get a new dimension. Things like this are what makes Wikileaks important. I only hope that NG has secured its data somewhere so that even if something "happens" (which surely will if their claims are true), they get published. Mind you, the murder of Anna Politkovskaya (who worked for NG) is still not solved - and probably never will be.
Stefan
