So today during an interview with TIME magazine, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, put forth his opinion that current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, should resign. (see the article at this address: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599203377100) This was done during an interview over Skype. I can understand why Assange has been hiding and using Skype for his interviews. The information that has been coming out over WikiLeaks is classified information that has caused lots of waves since the site started publishing their material.
So just a little clarification on what Assange had to say about Clinton's position. According to the article, Assange said. "[Clinton] should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that." So that takes some of the rashness of the article. I can't disagree with what Assange has to say about Clinton's resignation considering the situation. This won't come as a surprise to those of you that know me. I'm not the biggest Clinton fan even though I am from NY. (My issues have nothing to do with Bill Clinton's term as President. I've got other issues, that might pop up in another opinion.)
So what about my opinion on WikiLeaks? This is a tricky question because I have lots of issues with the secrets that the government keeps from us even though the government is supposed to work for us. I know that there are some things that can't always be talked about right away, but some of the material that is popping up on the site doesn't seem that significant. On the other hand, some of the revelations on the site aren't worth even knowing about. So what if a Chinese official told an American official that Kim Jong-Il is acting like a big baby? All that revelation does is upset Kim Jong-Il. Personally, I'm not interesting in making that guy any crazier than he already is.
"I know that there are some things that can't always be talked about right away, but some of the material that is popping up on the site doesn't seem that significant. On the other hand, some of the revelations on the site aren't worth even knowing about."
ReplyDeleteWikiLeaks' position (and my own) is that any material the release of which doesn't pose clear and present danger to anyone should be public property, not that of a political elite. If the content "doesn't seem that significant" or even not worth knowing, that's an argument in favor of its being freely accessible; in a democracy, blocking access to info simply because it's embarrassing isn't acceptable.