Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder. Photograph: Carmen Valino for the Guardian
You can click the title of this post to see all the questions that Julian Assange was recently asked. Most of the questions seem to be very generic with praise for him and his efforts. I did manage to come across an interesting one:
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.
Julian Assange:
If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.
It seems as though the question was just too much for Assange.
4 comments:
In Chemistry, LIBERAL movements refer to the movement of particles from states lacking freedom to states having freedom. All other movements are reluctant of change, and are concerned with maintaining confinement and immuration... I call them conservatives!
I actually studied chemistry. Nice try. I think you are trying to refer to entropy. That is not called, "liberal movements." Your definition is also lacking and, actually quite deceitful. Particles move from order to more disorder, which falls in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In physics, there are actual conservative forces.
You might want to actually study some of this stuff first. Just a thought.
I appreciate the fact that you understand the sciences well enough to respond to my comment. I also appreciate the fact that your response mostly steered clear of ad hominem, until the last two sentences.
I recognize the fact that my chemistry definition was slightly embellished. However, my point was not one of comparison. My intent was to parody your comparison of Physics concepts with political ones. I would be cautious when doing such a thing; while it may seem like a clever rhetorical strategy, I think it replaces substance with semantics. I think it only succeeds at misrepresenting the real issues. Just a thought.
By the way, I don't want you to get the wrong picture of me. I'm actually rather well versed in the sciences.
You are more than welcome to post whatever you like on my blog, agree or disagree. I will chose to respond or not respond. I have yet to delete anything, nor do I plan on doing so.
I happen to believe that all the sciences work off of one another and that parallels can be drawn from each science, with math and physics being their core. Politics is a science.
I think when we look at direct comparisons, through clear observation and study, it no longer is about rhetoric but, actual proof.
Post a Comment