[FONT=“Georgia”]So what about retaliation then?
Suppose the leaking of the classified document is to retaliate against something already immoral being done by the organisation?
Then would the leaking of the document still be immoral?
[/FONT]
Documents and intellectual property of private organizations are the property of those organizations. Governments are not private organizations. They are public.
The system of classification/declassification controls the dissemination of government documents, but essentially, everything/anything can become public record.
Well, isn’t that the same thing? Private property can also become public if the copyright holder chooses to do so. Classified documents can only become public if the government chooses to declassify them. But if someone does that for them against their will, they’re breaking a law. The laws are different, but the moral principles are the same.
I understand that but my point is that not everyone can access it (hence the issue with wikileaks). And my answer to the OP question (one of them anyway), what do we think about its morality, is based on that.
Government documents were never owned by a private entity to begin with. There’s a difference between ownership and confidentiality.
This is oversimplified, but technically, any citizen with the proper clearance can request to see anything at or below their clearance level.
Retaliating by immoral means is still immoral. It leads to war and there’s nothing moral about war.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Overall, I love what is happening with Wikileaks, but it is important that we have a culture of trust, and sometimes trust involves not sharing information. For example, if I have a great idea and have devoted months to it, I need to be able to trust employees to stay with me and develop the idea. There are many other examples of trust involving not sharing information.
But on a larger scale, we have a problem now with “noise” being louder than “truth” and people are able to hide behind lies. Wikileaks may help us if we can learn to actually seek the truth. I’m not convinced yet that we have turned over that stone yet, but I hope we do.
This is a VERY interesting thread, keep it up… and anyone who is not a Mentor/Advisor can contribute as well, just so everyone knows 
Whenever there is a puppet, there are controlling hands on the levers.
Wikileaks is part of the broader power shift from the United States to China.
The United States is a deeply divided nation. Racism and poverty is evident in every major city in the United States. The United States Government has failed its own citizens and is no longer trusted in their self-assumed global policing role.
But the alternative may end up being worse. We may be headed for a power vacuum or an increasingly active China.
Wikileaks is merely a pimple on the surface of what is boiling below - a shift in the balance of power.
How’s your Mandarin?
Human history tells us that strong nations - particularly those emerging from the economic wilderness - tend to look for “living space”.
Population
China: 1.5 billion people
Australia: 20 million people
Population density
China: 186 people / sq km
Australia: 2 people / sq km
Sitepoint’s headquarters in Melbourne could well become the frontline!!!
[FONT=“Georgia”]Guys, just to remind everyone, discussions about politics aren’t ordinarily allowed on Sitepoint.
Please try to speak generally and avoid throwing around accusations.
It’s an interesting discussion and we don’t want it turning into a flame war.
No-one’s crossed the line yet, but just a reminder.
[/FONT]
[FONT=“Georgia”]What would you say is the moral way of bringing information to light then?
Suppose you’re a private in an army and accidentally come upon classified photos of immoral actions done by a company in your army against innocent persons.
It would be immoral for you to steal or copy the photos, right?
So, how would you effectively blow the whistle, who should you rightfully blow the whistle to, and how would you supply evidence of the incident you learnt about?
[/FONT]
If the actions are against someone else, you’d be making a sacrifice by doing something illegal/immoral to help them. And then you have to accept the consequences.
If the actions are against you specifically, then maybe you can call that self-defense, especially if your life is threatened. I wouldn’t say that’s immoral.
[FONT=“Georgia”]Not necessarily. It depends on what you value.
You mightn’t specifically value those persons, but you might value an idea of justice.
If not that, maybe the prevention of another wrong committed by the same squad.[/FONT]
If the actions are against you specifically, then maybe you can call that self-defense, especially if your life is threatened. I wouldn’t say that’s immoral.
[FONT=“Georgia”]But you’d be using the same means, though.
What would make it moral in this case, but immoral in the other?
[/FONT]
Good point. Sometimes we need to step outside the framework society has constructed. In WWII Germany not everyone was capable of stepping outside the framework in place, but some were. It’s easy to forget that some of the greatest heroes of WWII were actually Germans who assisted the allies.
One of my favorite quotes (from a movie):
Sometimes you have to think like a hero merely to behave like a decent human being. The Russia House
I don’t believe most of what I read on the internet
The world would probably be a different place if the “media” wasn’t “controlled”
G filters got that
Exactly, quit blaming every one else for your mistakes
It definitely does. It might not even be immoral at all depending on one’s values. But the consequences are the same in any case.
Your life at stake.
I would normally say that the end doesn’t justify the means… but that really depends on the end as well as the means…
It is not the same to steal information that will save thousands of lives, than killing someone to get that information. Yet, it is a very tough decision.
The Wikileaks issue fascinates me.
I think regardless of whether you like the idea of this type of transparency or not you have to admit that the release calls attention to a number of things:
1) The 4th Estate is dead - Traditional news outlets are far more interested in abiding by their corporate sponsors than investigating and reporting the truth of what goes on in the world.
2) A number of people threatened by the leaked memos are just plain bad. I think it would be a good idea to remember the government officials and/or public figures who suggested assassination or execution for the people exposing the information. That’s just not a mature, rational or appropriate response.
3) Things are not remotely what they seem… There is a great deal of “tails wagging the dog” going on with regard to worldwide relations.
4) A lot of the diplomats named in the cables should be more diplomatic when discussing their foreign counterparts. Some of the comments were just rude and uncalled for.
Personally, I support the idea that we need more transparency and that world citizens should educate themselves on what goes on in their world. I’m more content knowing the bad things that are going on rather than sticking my head in the sand and hoping that the governments are governing in my best interests or at least the way I expect them to.