http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn9cvhdylyc


WHAT DO YOU THINK ??? YOU THINK DOUGLAS MURRAY HAS A POINT OR NOT ???

Shouldn't open governments at least always anticipate the darker side of their machinations being revealed by increasingly more technical sophistication which, by the very nature of the open society they exist to defend, is available to ordinary citizens?

Can we not expect more cautious and prudent leaders in free societies because of the greater risk of revelation?

Doesn't repression, such as that which exists in China, betray a fatal flaw in the structure of their society? An unfree people ruled by an elite who are (by the corrosive effects secrecy has on human nature) invariably destined to be corrupt.

This was the The New Statesman and Frontline Club debate over Wikileaks and whether whistleblowers make the world a safer place,

Mehdi Hasan and Clayton Swisher alongside Julian Assange spoke in favour of whistleblowers while Sir David Richmond, Bob Ayers and Douglas Murray spoke against it.

stryder wrote on Apr 16^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

This was the The New Statesman and Frontline Club debate over Wikileaks and whether whistleblowers make the world a safer place, Mehdi Hasan and Clayton Swisher alongside Julian Assange spoke in favour of whistleblowers while Sir David Richmond, Bob Ayers and Douglas Murray spoke against it.

Does secrecy necessarily make the world a safer place or does it more likely prove itself to be the sine qua non of repression and corruption?

Don't you think that acts of revelation - the "dispelling of shadows", being the fertile ground within which humanity's darker side prevails - (or the threat thereof) is more likely to foster honesty among those "born to lead" who would otherwise deceive those "born to follow"?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 16^th, 2011 at 10:26pm:

stryder wrote on Apr 16th, 2011 at 10:10pm: This was the The New Statesman and Frontline Club debate over Wikileaks and whether whistleblowers make the world a safer place, Mehdi Hasan and Clayton Swisher alongside Julian Assange spoke in favour of whistleblowers while Sir David Richmond, Bob Ayers and Douglas Murray spoke against it. Does secrecy necessarily make the world a safer place or does it more likely prove itself to be the sine qua non of repression and corruption? Don't you think that acts of revelation - the "dispelling of shadows", being the fertile ground within which humanity's darker side prevails - (or the threat thereof) is more likely to foster honesty among those "born to lead" who would otherwise deceive those "born to follow"?

stryder we are in different times in years gone by news travelled a lot slower by the time it got out there it was old hat.... now it can happen immediately and this could create a problem thats for sure..I am not against wikileaks.. so far its mainly been gossip and what people usually say behind each others backs..nothing really new there...

for shenanegans  and meaty stuff I watch Spooks on ABC.

I have always believed Assange is a narcissist and not much more. However, wikileaks, is the advent of things to come - of the way things will get done in alternative mass media. There will be no possibility of silencing the malcontent whistle-blower. Consent in the very near future will be almost impossible to manufacture by an elite few (if that day has not already come).

Railing against wikileaks is a quixotic, Canutean exercise in futility.