Tuesday 30 November 2010

The moral dilemma of Wikileaks

Not infrequently a letter arrives at our house which is intended for a neighbour. What should be one’s first instinct when that happens: to deliver it to the right address, or to open it first to see whether it contains anything of interest?
I would hope that your own answer is the former. I would take it as a sign of ‘good neighbourliness’. Indeed, I would go further, and say it is a necessary quality for a strong social order.
Trustworthiness when we are unobserved is, in short, a virtue. It is not one that we all possess, and certainly not one we all possess all the time. But that is because we are not entirely virtuous, not because trustworthiness is optional.
Imagine, though, that your neighbour is a local councillor. Imagine, furthermore, that the letter is marked ‘Confidential’. Add to that, there have been rumours about irregularities in the recent business of the Council and, furthermore, that these have directly affected you and your welfare.
Now are you so keen to take the letter next door?
Or what if another of your neighbours came to you with the same letter having opened it already, and says, “Here, I don’t understand these things myself, but perhaps you’d like to have a look through this to see if it sheds any light on what the Council’s been up to?”
What will you do now?
Philosophers love to construct such dilemmas, not least to show the fragility of our moral absolutes. What if your neighbour were a known drug dealer? What if you thought they were a spy? — and so on, and so on.
The tendency of such arguments (indeed, often the deliberate intention) is to weaken our reliance on traditional ‘rule based’ systems. And if you are a Christian, there is something to be said for that.
But the fundamental question, familiar to moral philosophers but often overlooked in debate, is not whether we can come up with a workable ‘rule’ (often we can’t), but what is the kind of thing that would be done by the kind of person we ought to be.
In short, what would a virtuous person do in any given circumstance?
This, however, may itself be the subject of some debate, and I am therefore inclined to turn the question round and ask, ‘What would a wicked person do?’ Suddenly (for some strange reason) the answer is generally clear.
If I were a wicked person, for example, I would certainly open any letter that I thought might contain anything to my advantage or offer an opportunity for causing harm to another. The greater my wickedness, the less compunction I would feel in doing so. And if my other neighbour brought me such a letter I would ask whether there were any more from the same source (all the time making sure that as little harm as possible could come to me as a result).
Of course, this still does not translate into a ‘rule’ system. It is not that the wicked person operates by ‘wicked rules’ (though we may be sure such have been devised). Rather, it is that the virtuous person and the wicked person approach a moral dilemma very differently.
Faced with the so-called ‘trolley problem’ — shall I divert a runaway train to a siding where it will kill one unfortunate individual, or leave it on its current track where it will kill five who have been tied to the rails by a mad philosopher — it is easy to know what a wicked person would do. (Indeed, the whole problem is posited on the somewhat-politically-incorrect presumption that madness produces wicked acts, such as setting out to kill people or to tax the morally virtuous with difficult choices!)
But if we may thus be sure that the wicked person would have scant regard for an accidental breach of confidence, we may equally deduce that the virtuous person will, on the contrary, seek to minimize the consequences of such a circumstance.
This still does not push us into the realm of ‘absolute rules’. What if one’s neighbour were indeed a suspected drug dealer? What if the envelope were already open, the letter fell out and one could not help noticing it described plans for an act of terrorism?
The theoretician can always come up with tantalizing situations. The fundamental answers, however, must be couched in terms of what a virtuous person would do, which can itself often be assessed in terms of what would be done by a person lacking in virtue.
Now this brings me to the subject of Wikileaks — its rationale, but also its social impact. What is the significance of such a website becoming part of our cultural ‘fabric’, and of media outlets participating in the process, particularly when they are favoured recipients of the material Wikileaks has obtained?
The reaction of many (including the editors of certain newspapers) is that such a phenomenon is vitally important, exposing, as it does, that governments are corrupt and that they have acted corruptly.
But that leads me to ask, what do we expect of governments? Or do we rather expect that they should be virtuous, and if that is the case, where will we find the men and women of virtue, and by what process will we produce them?
We seem to have forgotten that society can only work with the individuals who actually make up that society. We cannot therefore expect to produce incorruptible police officers, self-sacrificing captains of industry and honest politicians from a population of morally indifferent individuals. Virtue begins in the individual, not in theoretical ‘values’ a society demands, but fails to apply at the personal level.
Let me pose another dilemma. You find the lap-top belonging to an MP. As a virtuous person, is your first duty to open it and see what you can find? Or is it to return the lost lap-top intact to its owner as soon as possible?
What a wicked person would do is surely self-evident.
But why would a person of virtue presume that there might be damaging material on the lap-top. And why would they want to know? Surely the virtuous person would first presume virtue in the other? And the virtuous person would equally regard the keeping of a confidence and the preservation of trust as their first priority.
The problem with the Wikileaks phenomenon is that the values by which it operates either presume a lack of trustworthiness or rely on such untrustworthiness in others. There is something about it of the ‘wiki-sneak’, and a true danger of it undermining our necessary social fabric.
By all means let whistles be blown. But let them never be blown by those who love ‘whistle-blowing’ for its own sake, and let us never become people who long for the next ‘revelation’ of wrongdoing. The difference between the reader of the Guardian and the reader of the News of the World is not as great, in this regard, as the former might like to imagine.
John Richardson
30 November 2010
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

19 comments:

  1. A very long argument, but one relying on three things:

    1) An implicit tu quoque or relativizing argument that the whistle-blower is as guilty/sinful as the person(s) on whom the whistle is blown;

    2) An implicit assumption that the Wikileaks people and the Guardian editorial staff didn't think of these points already. Since the editorial staff have been all over the data with a fine-toothed comb to make sure of not revealing things that might hurt or endanger the innocent, then this argument fails.

    3) Some rather vague argument that whoever does the whistle-blowing shouldn't be in (implied) the Guardian or any other segment of mass media. Huh? Whyever not?

    There's also the implicit Trust-The-Government instead of doing leaks; which leads us to those famously missing WMD's in Iraq. 45 minutes readiness WMD's.

    To be really blunt, this kind of Wikileaks stuff is worth more than a million Daily Mail stock tirades against the Target-Of-Choice-Of-The-Day.

    Sorry, but I really can't see your argument as doing anything more than tut-tutting about the leaks; but if you make that a general principle, how about Deep Throat and Nixon, the Watergate affair; how about the Pentagon Papers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi John,
    Something I have found helpful regarding ethics is the OAR analysis. Heard it in a sermon once by Rev. Graham Cole, now a lecturer at TEDS in Illinois.
    Outcome - is the end result beneficial?
    Action - is the action itself virtuous?
    Reason - is the intent or purpose of the action virtuous?
    Applied to Wikileaks, I guess we could say the reason is virtuous (greater transparency and accountability), although I wonder how much is to do with promoting Wikileaks. I'm not sure the end result is beneficial, since it just messes up relationships between the US and other nations. And as you say above, the action itself is pretty questionable, given this is confidential information.
    Let's keep in mind the government security agencies do a fair bit of looking into our private correspondence also, not that it justifies us returning the favour.
    I think Jesus' command to Do to others what you would have them do to you is instructive here. Would we want others viewing our private correspondence? No. It could only be the most extreme circumstances - e.g. illegal behaviour, jeopardy to others' lives that could justify that kind of activity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John from Australia30 November 2010 at 15:04

    Hm, I didn't quite follow this as a coherent argument, but as a series of thoughts it's quite interesting.

    The conclusion against 'whistle-blowing for its own sake' is contentious to say the least. Governments are not your next door neighbour or your local MP, even if they consist of such people.

    The ultimate problem is that governments control laws and liberties, so institutions which hold them to account can be defended as acting in the public interest.

    Assuming that the government is virtuous might be ideal, but it would also diminish the capacity to hold them to account. Besides WikiLeaks, think of investigative journalism. Much corruption would exist undisturbed, and much more would take encouragement from this, if investigative journalists had to take everything at face value.

    Overall, it's too simplistic to say that virtuosity consists of assuming others are as virtuous as you (after assuming as well that everyone conceives of virtue in the same way).

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Accountability' was the first thing that flashed across my mind when I read this. Surely governments should act as if they expect to be brought to account, that everything they do should be capable of being shared? That is after all an aspect of final judgment that applies to all equally. Personally I try to ensure that everything I say and write could be published one day without fear (of neither God nor man).

    Of course there are reasonable arguments for (short) periods of secrecy, but they should not cut across the ability of a people to take their leaders to task. In other words, leaders should have nothing to be ashamed of in the 'letter', and so there will be no harm in 'opening' it.

    John, Manchester

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think "John from Australia" (that narrows it down, right?) has more or less got the hang of the article: not so much intended as "a coherent argument" as "a series of thoughts" around a number of important issues.

    Several people have touched on 'accountability', for example. But if we feel that the 'Wikileak' phenomenon is the best and right way to maintain this, then should not all government communications be public domain all the time? That would then, surely, discourage the sort of behaviours those behind and supporting Wikileaks think ought to be discouraged.

    And given that we are living in a democracy, that would presumably be a reasonable and practicable demand to make. We have, after all, a Freedom of Information Act. Why not apply it to any and every government e-mail?

    However, I am also interested in the question of social virtue and how it is reflected in government. If we believe government should be 'virtuous' (and I, for one, do), then it will, I suggest, only be possible if it consists of people who esteem virtue (not quite the same, please note, as 'being virtuous').

    Part of what I am saying, however, is that that cannot be something which is confined to government, or begins when one enters the government classes.

    What I think we certainly cannot do is demand a high standard from our political classes whilst excusing a lower standard for everyone else. Not is it inconsistent but, particularly in a democracy, it is unworkable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, as to whether or not the Wikileaks personnel and Guardian editorial staff "have been all over the data with a fine-toothed comb to make sure of not revealing things that might hurt or endanger the innocent", you can go here online (credit to The Daily Telegraph) and discover that a source travelling in the Middle East who passed on information about a "UK registered" company allegedly busting sanctions against Iran is "a UK-educated engineer from a prominent Pre-Revolution Isfahan family, and formerly owned a large factory in Iran. He is a former national fencing champion of Iran. former President of the Iran Fencing Association, and Vice-President of an Azerbaijan sports association. He has been based in Baku for more than ten years, working primarily as a sub-contractor to BP and the Cape Industrial Services company."

    Now how many of them can there be, I wonder? And who in Iran would like a quiet word?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who are wikileaks and the Guardian accountable to?

    Stephen Walton
    Marbury

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1) "But if we feel that the 'Wikileak' phenomenon is the best and right way to maintain this"...
    Who is saying that? Who at all is saying that? I'm tackling:
    a) your criticism of the Wikileaks happening at all
    b) your argument that if leaks happen and should be publicized after all, they should be publicized by some (unnamed) other, not by the Guardian and Wikileaks
    c) an implicit sneer about "the reader of the Guardian". That comment seemed not to have anything to do with actual matters: why on Earth make such comments about a Guardian reader?

    The RIGHT way of doing things would be comprehensively different right from the very very start; but you did not answer my question about Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. That bit about trust and virtue? What does one do when a government acts unvirtuously? My question about those famous but mythical Iraq WMD's?

    Next: your reply about the one specific case: I note that Julian Assange actually offered to various groups that they could help out with redaction, only they ducked out. BTW, I like the irony of relying on a massmedia (Daily Telegraph) source to whistle-blow about possible wrongnesses of disclosure in this case, after that argument it shouldn't be up to massmedia to whistle-blow (and who else can afford to?).

    And since you're venturing a utilitarian argument, then that same link given above also links back to various groups who while ctiticizing Wikileaks also praise its value overall on concrete grounds, so any overall utilitarian argument as to worth is going to have to include all that too.

    And to answer Stephan Walton:
    the Guardian is responsible to the Scott Trust and to the laws of England and Wales.

    But why do you leave The New York Times and Der Spiegel out of this? That's a question for The Ugley Vicar too; why are The New York Times and Der Spiegel not mentioned? Or their readers?

    By the way, in interests of full disclosure, I actually do read Der Spiegel (and I've even read the NYT on occasion, let alone the Guardian).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gurdur, I’d a feeling you’d be back to me on this.

    Can I refer you to the first sentence of my last paragraph, “By all means let whistles be blown.” I am not opposing — indeed could not oppose — the principle of ‘leaks’. To repeat, I am not in principle opposing people revealing wrongdoing — even Wikileaks.

    I am concerned about a general attitude that if secrets come my way I am free to look into and divulge them, and a specific tendency to broadcast information that may (or may not) be proper to make public and which may (or may not) have unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences for groups and invidivuals.

    Thus what I aimed to do in my article was, as I said in an earlier comment, express “‘a series of thoughts’ around a number of important issues”, some of them quite divorced from Wikileaks in general or this instance of leaking in particular.

    You say I am arguing that “if leaks happen and should be publicized after all, they should be publicized by some (unnamed) other, not by the Guardian and Wikileaks.” All I can say in reply is that was not my intention.

    You also say I made an “implicit sneer about ‘the reader of the Guardian’”. My point there was that prurient curiosity is a human trait, not confined to any particular social group, which I do believe to be at work here and which may be overriding other important moral mechanisms.

    Regarding some of the other examples you gave, since I specifically said that whistles could be blown, I didn’t feel it was necessary to express agreement with examples where this may have been done necessarily and to good effect.

    As to relying on mass media, I also keep my money in the bank, but it does not mean I endorse the banking system. We are all caught up in the web of corruption. There is sometimes no escaping from it.

    Finally, I left The New York Times and Der Spiegel out of this because after mentioning “media outlets” I couldn’t be bothered to keep typing their names as well as that of the Guardian — which, being English and writing a blog largely read in England, I felt pretty much covered what I and most of my readers are familiar with locally.

    Let New Yorkers criticize the NYT if they wish, and ditto Germans and Der Spiegel.

    I hope that pretty much covers it.

    Could I just note that there is also a blog policy regarding ‘disclosure’, that people posting comments are asked to “give a full name and location” and warned, “Comments without this information may be deleted.”

    As you can tell, I’m pretty lenient about this, but it does tend to affect my attitude when it comes to replying to comments (or not, if you get my drift).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hiya, Gurdur here again. My location, given beforehand in previous comments, is Solingen, Germany. You're even welcome to my actual address.

    "Gurdur, I’d a feeling you’d be back to me on this. ..."

    I'm fairly random. I often have no idea what I am doing myself. But the issues in question, as well as the argument presented, do spark my interest. Obviously, we're doing both the ethics and separately the practicalities of vigilantism. It's an interesting and wide-ranging theme.

    " ... I am concerned about a general attitude that if secrets come my way I am free to look into and divulge them ..

    We both share that concern. Obviously, none of us wants to live in a glasshouse world where everything we do is noted and made public, the horror world of perfect transparency; so we get onto this one specific case for its specific properties.

    ".. My point there was that prurient curiosity is a human trait, ..."

    Indeed, granted. Yet the Wikileaks matter is not a reader-driven thing (unlike, for example, the naming of [alleged] pedophiles by the Brit tabloids, which is in part populist pandering & scare-mongering, and is on other part actually reader- and public-driven).

    My point was by mentioning the readers, it seemed to be hinting at another appeal, an appeal about something else (the spectre of armies of Guardianistas does get raised a lot elsewhere).

    On the contrary, this matter is an editor-driven thing, this is where a newspaper seeks to publish something thought of as being in the public interest. I don't agree with you that "prurient curiosity" is what is at work here; the decision to process the Wikileaks stuff must have cost the editorial staff of the Guardian many a sleepless night, not to mention their legal staff.

    By the way, there was an interesting discussion, I think on Bishop Nick Baine's blog, about how a newspaper editor pointed out that matters of the public interest are not the same thing as what interests the general public -- which raises interesting ethical concerns of its own.

    So: vigilantism. Disclosure, etc.. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes the right thing gets done but for the wrong reasons (Martha Mitchell maybe on Watergate, the hunt against Bill Clinton over his affairs, etc.)

    Sometimes the right thing can still be very costly. I remain of the opinion that sometimes ethics simply cannot be reduced to utilitarian terms and conditions; I actually liked your original argument for its Stoic properties, though I disgree with you in this one specific instance.

    "... We are all caught up in the web of corruption. There is sometimes no escaping from it. ...

    There you and I are worlds apart in (a)theology; and I think any strength to your argument is also vitiated by that statement. I think the whole strength of your observations lie precisely in being able to determine one's own conduct regardless of what others do, and one's ethical responsibility to do so; a Confucianist and Stoic argument (and I think Mark Vernon wmight lay claim to it being an Epicurean argument as well).

    Many thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "We seem to have forgotten that society can only work with the individuals who actually make up that society. We cannot therefore expect to produce incorruptible police officers, self-sacrificing captains of industry and honest politicians from a population of morally indifferent individuals." Think I'll get that framed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gurdur has left a new comment on your post "The moral dilemma of Wikileaks" [UV: for some reason this seems not have actually posted - nothing to do with me, and I am reposting it as sent, just in case]:

    Hiya, Gurdur here again. My location, given beforehand in previous comments, is Solingen, Germany. You're even welcome to my actual address.

    "Gurdur, I’d a feeling you’d be back to me on this. ..."

    I'm fairly random. I often have no idea what I am doing myself. But the issues in question, as well as the argument presented, do spark my interest. Obviously, we're doing both the ethics and separately the practicalities of vigilantism. It's an interesting and wide-ranging theme.

    " ... I am concerned about a general attitude that if secrets come my way I am free to look into and divulge them ..

    We both share that concern. Obviously, none of us wants to live in a glasshouse world where everything we do is noted and made public, the horror world of perfect transparency; so we get onto this one specific case for its specific properties.

    ".. My point there was that prurient curiosity is a human trait, ..."

    Indeed, granted. Yet the Wikileaks matter is not a reader-driven thing (unlike, for example, the naming of [alleged] pedophiles by the Brit tabloids, which is in part populist pandering & scare-mongering, and is on other part actually reader- and public-driven).

    My point was by mentioning the readers, it seemed to be hinting at another appeal, an appeal about something else (the spectre of armies of Guardianistas does get raised a lot elsewhere).

    On the contrary, this matter is an editor-driven thing, this is where a newspaper seeks to publish something thought of as being in the public interest. I don't agree with you that "prurient curiosity" is what is at work here; the decision to process the Wikileaks stuff must have cost the editorial staff of the Guardian many a sleepless night, not to mention their legal staff.

    By the way, there was an interesting discussion, I think on Bishop Nick Baine's blog, about how a newspaper editor pointed out that matters of the public interest are not the same thing as what interests the general public -- which raises interesting ethical concerns of its own.

    So: vigilantism. Disclosure, etc.. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes the right thing gets done but for the wrong reasons (Martha Mitchell maybe on Watergate, the hunt against Bill Clinton over his affairs, etc.)

    Sometimes the right thing can still be very costly. I remain of the opinion that sometimes ethics simply cannot be reduced to utilitarian terms and conditions; I actually liked your original argument for its Stoic properties, though I disgree with you in this one specific instance.

    "... We are all caught up in the web of corruption. There is sometimes no escaping from it. ...

    There you and I are worlds apart in (a)theology; and I think any strength to your argument is also vitiated by that statement. I think the whole strength of your observations lie precisely in being able to determine one's own conduct regardless of what others do, and one's ethical responsibility to do so; a Confucianist and Stoic argument (and I think Mark Vernon wmight lay claim to it being an Epicurean argument as well).

    Many thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gurdur has left a new comment on your post "The moral dilemma of Wikileaks":

    Hiya, Gurdur here again. My location, given beforehand in previous comments, is Solingen, Germany. You're even welcome to my actual address.

    "Gurdur, I’d a feeling you’d be back to me on this. ..."

    I'm fairly random. I often have no idea what I am doing myself. But the issues in question, as well as the argument presented, do spark my interest. Obviously, we're doing both the ethics and separately the practicalities of vigilantism. It's an interesting and wide-ranging theme.

    " ... I am concerned about a general attitude that if secrets come my way I am free to look into and divulge them ..

    We both share that concern. Obviously, none of us wants to live in a glasshouse world where everything we do is noted and made public, the horror world of perfect transparency; so we get onto this one specific case for its specific properties.

    ".. My point there was that prurient curiosity is a human trait, ..."

    Indeed, granted. Yet the Wikileaks matter is not a reader-driven thing (unlike, for example, the naming of [alleged] pedophiles by the Brit tabloids, which is in part populist pandering & scare-mongering, and is on other part actually reader- and public-driven).

    My point was by mentioning the readers, it seemed to be hinting at another appeal, an appeal about something else (the spectre of armies of Guardianistas does get raised a lot elsewhere).

    On the contrary, this matter is an editor-driven thing, this is where a newspaper seeks to publish something thought of as being in the public interest. I don't agree with you that "prurient curiosity" is what is at work here; the decision to process the Wikileaks stuff must have cost the editorial staff of the Guardian many a sleepless night, not to mention their legal staff.

    By the way, there was an interesting discussion, I think on Bishop Nick Baine's blog, about how a newspaper editor pointed out that matters of the public interest are not the same thing as what interests the general public -- which raises interesting ethical concerns of its own.

    So: vigilantism. Disclosure, etc.. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes the right thing gets done but for the wrong reasons (Martha Mitchell maybe on Watergate, the hunt against Bill Clinton over his affairs, etc.)

    Sometimes the right thing can still be very costly. I remain of the opinion that sometimes ethics simply cannot be reduced to utilitarian terms and conditions; I actually liked your original argument for its Stoic properties, though I disgree with you in this one specific instance.

    "... We are all caught up in the web of corruption. There is sometimes no escaping from it. ...

    There you and I are worlds apart in (a)theology; and I think any strength to your argument is also vitiated by that statement. I think the whole strength of your observations lie precisely in being able to determine one's own conduct regardless of what others do, and one's ethical responsibility to do so; a Confucianist and Stoic argument (and I think Mark Vernon wmight lay claim to it being an Epicurean argument as well).

    Many thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ed: For some reason this didn't post, though Gurdur sent it in. I am attempting to repost it on his behalf:

    Hiya, Gurdur here again. My location, given beforehand in previous comments, is Solingen, Germany. You're even welcome to my actual address.

    "Gurdur, I’d a feeling you'd be back to me on this. ..."

    I'm fairly random. I often have no idea what I am doing myself. But the issues in question, as well as the argument presented, do spark my interest. Obviously, we're doing both the ethics and separately the practicalities of vigilantism. It's an interesting and wide-ranging theme.

    " ... I am concerned about a general attitude that if secrets come my way I am free to look into and divulge them ..

    We both share that concern. Obviously, none of us wants to live in a glasshouse world where everything we do is noted and made public, the horror world of perfect transparency; so we get onto this one specific case for its specific properties.

    ".. My point there was that prurient curiosity is a human trait, ..."

    Indeed, granted. Yet the Wikileaks matter is not a reader-driven thing (unlike, for example, the naming of [alleged] pedophiles by the Brit tabloids, which is in part populist pandering & scare-mongering, and is on other part actually reader- and public-driven).

    My point was by mentioning the readers, it seemed to be hinting at another appeal, an appeal about something else (the spectre of armies of Guardianistas does get raised a lot elsewhere).

    On the contrary, this matter is an editor-driven thing, this is where a newspaper seeks to publish something thought of as being in the public interest. I don't agree with you that "prurient curiosity" is what is at work here; the decision to process the Wikileaks stuff must have cost the editorial staff of the Guardian many a sleepless night, not to mention their legal staff.

    By the way, there was an interesting discussion, I think on Bishop Nick Baine's blog, about how a newspaper editor pointed out that matters of the public interest are not the same thing as what interests the general public -- which raises interesting ethical concerns of its own.

    So: vigilantism. Disclosure, etc.. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes the right thing gets done but for the wrong reasons (Martha Mitchell maybe on Watergate, the hunt against Bill Clinton over his affairs, etc.)

    Sometimes the right thing can still be very costly. I remain of the opinion that sometimes ethics simply cannot be reduced to utilitarian terms and conditions; I actually liked your original argument for its Stoic properties, though I disgree with you in this one specific instance.

    "... We are all caught up in the web of corruption. There is sometimes no escaping from it. ...

    There you and I are worlds apart in (a)theology; and I think any strength to your argument is also vitiated by that statement. I think the whole strength of your observations lie precisely in being able to determine one's own conduct regardless of what others do, and one's ethical responsibility to do so; a Confucianist and Stoic argument (and I think Mark Vernon wmight lay claim to it being an Epicurean argument as well).

    Many thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wikileaks has not really told us anything that observant people haven't already worked out for themselves, but it has blown away the emptiness of Obama's attempts to 'engage' Iran and Pakistan and shown that the Saudis are not really worried about Israel; in fact they would be happy to have the Zionist Entity "take out" the Shia snake. So it makes the wishful thinkers on Planet Guardian (some bishops among them?) look more naive or foolish, and shows up their fellow-travelling antisemites. Israel is no paradise, but across the border is closer to hell, at least for quite a few people.
    But the leaker is a criminal who broke his promise of employment and he should be prosecuted with the full vigour of the law.

    Mark B.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The army private who copied the documents and released them to Wikileaks is first of all, a traitor to the nation and people he swore to protect. He was acting out as a homosexual because of a breakup with another male. He felt entitled to punish the military because of its position on homosexuality. He showed that his idealogy comes before his job, his country and the security of billions people. Same dynamic with the moslem army psychiatrist who went on a shooting rampage at Ft. Hood recently.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aren't wikileaks a bunch of hypocrites? They call for complete openess on polictical and military matters, even if it puts lives at risk. Yet Assange lives in hiding, and according to the Week a few months back, the names of everyone else who works for wikileaks are kept secret. Not much openess or accounatbility there.
    The best response would not be to arrest ot presecute Assange, but for the CIA and SIS to make everything they know about him and his assistants publicly available on the internet- including addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail.

    Stephen Walton
    Marbury

    ReplyDelete
  18. Assange is currently facing charges of rape and molestation in Sweden, so I hope this information is also diseminated - in the public interest, of course. :)

    Mark B.

    ReplyDelete
  19. mbt shoes is the mbt masai shoes-the physiological mbt footwear.MBT Shoes can make you enjoy a unique mbt chapa experience of walking .

    ReplyDelete