31–39 of 39 posts
I've read allegations that David Kelly's rapid turn around from saying that there were WMDs present to arguing that there were none present was the result of blackmail over evidence of him being sexually involved with an aide. Googling on "David Kelly blackmail" gives thousands of hits. Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490216/Sex-drugs-bla...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was dead? Do you know if it was auto-killed or flagged out?
It looked like it had to be flagged out because at the time it already had 10+ votes. So an editor had to have killed it and another had to restore it. Weird. I can see why though, it is a purely political piece. Either that or I'm seeing things :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikileaks isn't the answer to problems like this. If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. For a start, we have to ask why the legal power exists to seal records in this way, who has the authority to order such seals, and what kind of oversight exists to make independent determinations about whether such…
If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. Correct. I pay Wikileaks to be explicitly un ethical, for that very reason. It's like someone said elsewhere in the thread: if governments have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looked like it had to be flagged out because at the time it already had 10+ votes. So an editor had to have killed it and another had to restore it. Weird. I can see why though, it is a purely political piece. Either that or I'm seeing things :)
Even though the story's interesting, I think it should have been flagged - there's plenty of places to discuss it online, and there's no way not to Redditize this kind of conversation. Already there's a comment here claiming the Baha'i (??) may be behind this..
You can file that one under 'it takes all kinds'...
Also anybody that would know even the most cursory facts about the Bahá'í would realize that that is not a very likely explanation.
I'm in the atheist camp and was quite surprised to see a scientist of Dr. Kelly's calibre associated with an obscure religion so I did some reading and I think I could see some of the motivations for his actions rooted in his faith.
It's an interesting faith in the sense that it has worldwide following and was founded in recent times.
The united nations actually figure quite prominently in the followers of this religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. Correct. I pay Wikileaks to be explicitly un ethical, for that very reason. It's like someone said elsewhere in the thread: if governments have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear, right?
The problem with this argument is that sometimes people, governments, businesses or whoever else do have something to hide, and sometimes they are hiding those things for honest, legitimate reasons. But sites like Wikileaks don't tend to pay much attention to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the article it isn't the suicide verdict that is sealed it is other evidence given tot he inquiry but not published. So perhaps the name of the CIA/Mi5/RAC agents that reported there were weapons, the names of current Iraqi politicians that were working for CIA/MI5/RAC. 70 years is nothing - there are still cabinet meetings from the Napoleonic wars that are sealed.
There wasn't any doubt about the suicide verdict. The issue was that the scope of the inquiry was limited to investigating a very specific claim - about what David Kelly said about the report. It was not allowed to investigate the real question about the truth of the report and "who sexed it up" In American terms it's like holding an investigation into JFK's death but only considering the cause of death and finding t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this argument is that sometimes people, governments, businesses or whoever else do have something to hide, and sometimes they are hiding those things for honest, legitimate reasons. But sites like Wikileaks don't tend to pay much attention to that.
Well it might be more useful for your argument if you discussed particular instances where wikileaks has published material that you consider hidden legitimately.
You and I might not share their political views, but violating the privacy/anonymity of members of any political party is not the way forward, particularly when such violation will inevitably lead to sanctions that are at best dubiously ethical themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it might be more useful for your argument if you discussed particular instances where wikileaks has published material that you consider hidden legitimately.
One obvious example was publishing the membership records of the BNP. You and I might not share their political views, but violating the privacy/anonymity of members of any political party is not the way forward, particularly when such violation will inevitably lead to sanctions that are at best dubiously ethical themselves.