Assange looks for asylum in Ecuador

I think the point being made here is that your moral compass (as with any other individuals moral compass) is irrelevant in the context of a global geopolitical paradigm.

This is where I bring the concept of 'real morality' into the picture - where concepts of right and wrong a determined by those (such as the power brokers in the U.S Government) who are powerful enough to significantly influence the state of geopolitics as we know it today.

Again, the question is whether Wikileaks (just like the US) can significantly influence the state of geopolitical affairs, and thereby be above any drawn out mode of morality we can apply to it.

This 'real morality' is just as ineffectual as any other morality. There is no objectivity in morality, no matter how much you want to make it internally or logically consistent. And, even if you can establish morality as objective, there it has no bearing on the correctness (in the amoral sense of the word) of a state's response to something that it perceives as a threat.

So you say that a government should be completely amoral to protect it's own interests in the world, and that the interests of other people that don't live in that country, or live in that country and aren't a citizen, are secondary or even irrelevant?

Exactly the government job is to protect and serve its citizens, it has no obligation to give a shit about those people living in other countries.

It not only should be that way, but it invariably will be that way.

Another reason why Authority is never to be trusted, they will do horrible fucking things for there own benefit.

I have to agree with Lenin Cat on this one, despite his grammar.

Without getting into a technical discussion about what we mean by morality here - can we not also extend the above to argue that conversely, no established morality has any bearing on Wikileaks' response to something that it perceives as a threat (Assuming it has the power to influence geopolitical affairs)?

It's important to note here that the very same principle should apply to the government in it's relation to its own citizens (and I use the term 'government' very loosely to indicate those who hold power over a nation). The interests of a country's citizenry has no moral bearing on the State's actions, especially if it perceives the citizenry's interests as a threat to its own. The role of the government is not to protect and serve its citizens, but quite the contrary - it is the citizens role to protect and serve the state by virtue of the fact that the state holds power.

Or at least authority that is not regulated by anyone else in the world, such as a much more powerful UN.

Wow, you completely missed his point. Like by a mile. He said, basically, that no authority can be trusted and your response was "except for authority that is regulated by even MORE authority."

I was disagreeing with him....he seems to think all authority is bad I simply think that authority is bad if it does not have to answer to the needs and wants of all nations or at least the majority of them....

All i can say is that you guys condone racism...

Sure, since morality doesn't have any weight to begin with.

I think the point that both I and Kali are making here, is that 'authority' is above any concepts of good and bad that we may apply to it. But I think you do have an interesting take here General - if we divorce any concept of morality here to begin with, can we not argue that the architecture within which authority functions has the ability to fundamentally change the way in which power is exercised?

Furthermore, has not Wikileaks, in its ability to shed light on power itself (through the revelation of information hidden by authority) fundamentally created a shift in the way that power functions today?

I don't think Wikileaks will have any lasting effects. Just some diplomatic scandals and stuff. As for what I was saying, is pretty much that if one country answers to many, then all of these countries must hold themselves accountable to the others. In which case, everything that happens must benefit humanity as a whole, because humanity has no one to be accountable to (for now), besides themselves.

Yes, clearly, that's exactly what everyone is saying. I mean, look at all of the comments in this thread that discuss race. Just CTRL+F the pages and look at how many hits you get for the word "race" or "racism".

I'm curious as to what his "insurance" cable is.

Wikileaks has already had an extremely significant and lasting effect through out the world. To claim their only effect has been the revelation of a few embarrassing diplomatic cables is a gross understatement.

The very fact the U.S. has gone to such lengths to exercise their influence over Sweden to involve Assange in a lengthy (and unrelated) legal battle, to refer to an obscure U.S. espionage act (that is almost a century old) to make a secret indictment against a non-American and even to go so far as to have top level political officials calling for his assassination, shows that even the world's superpower recognizes that Wikileaks is a serious threat to U.S hegemony and that the organisation has the ability to create lasting change across the globe.

Wikileaks has had lasting effects on public perception regarding the Iraq and Afghan Wars through the release of the war logs and has instigated significant and lasting political changes through the release of diplomatic cables in (just to name a select few) Kenya, Tunisia, Eygpt, Bahrain and Ecuador. And these are only to mention a few of it's political repercussions. Wikileaks has also had significant ramifications for cyber technology and security systems, journalism, diplomacy, legal systems for Australia, Sweden, the U.S. and other nations, and the list goes on.

Furthermore, it's been able to achieve this all by holding nations accountable to their own documentation for all of humanity through the medium of the internet.

Mmm.. but then it comes down to whether or not you think complete governmental transparency is a good thing.
Personally, I think the government functions much more effectively without telling everyone all that it is doing. That's not to say some transparency is good, but it cannot be helpful or constructive for everyone to know everything that goes on in government.

Well, Ardinius has a point there. I suppose it has had quite an effect. Only time will tell whether those effects are lasting. But I agree with Utterly Impeccable, the government shouldn't be completely transparent.