Originally Posted by Starkipraggy
It's true that the government needs their privacy, but the government shouldn't have the power to just stamp "Confidential" over things that they clearly should not be doing and shoving it under the rug. Wikileaks is a clear balance to that. Of course if Wikileaks starts spitting out really important documents that completely jeopardise US' position as a superpower, then they've gone too far.
It's a form of checks and balances, which is what democracy is about. If Wikileaks starts leaking stuff pertaining to national security so that the terrorists can figure out how to set up those bombs better, or they release the documents talking about the government's plans to screw North Korea/rogue countries hard in the ass, causing those countries to go nuts and prep their nukes for launch, then they go too far and the government clamps down on them and nukes everyone who is involved with Wikileaks at that time. If the US government is abusing its confidential stamps to cheat American citizens of their money, or they are making a plan to completely OMNOMNOMNOM Africa, then yes, Wikileaks should expose their evil stuff and make the citizens blast the damn politicians out of office.
To be fair Anon is a more powerful force than all the voters of America so meh. You have more people, but you can't agree on anything and then you have those silly brainwashed people throwing their votes at the worst options so nothing gets done.
Bare with me while I am writing this post, it is being written while I am listening to John Powell's music score known as the "Treadstone Assassins."
But just what did the leaks accomplish? Were they simply released to piss people off? I mean, from what I have heard, pretty much the only outcome was harm to American/European relations? Neh?