> If the US gov is a healthy, democratic, open gov, how and why can Wikileaks be so damaging?
Because we are still humans and fallible. No matter how healthy, open gov or democratic our governing bodies are I suppose there will always be something going off rails at some points and it's much easier to spot it in transparent governing structures (which usually means democracies) than in non-transparent ones (which usually means dictatorships).
> > You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships.
> Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of public/accessible records, it's a platform to publish confidential information.
Yes, yes. But it's easier to feed wikileaks with information from democracies than from dictatorships.
> I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't because you don't cite your source, but because the reasoning is absurd.
I am okay with downvotes ^^ as long as it's not a flamewar.
Because we are still humans and fallible. No matter how healthy, open gov or democratic our governing bodies are I suppose there will always be something going off rails at some points and it's much easier to spot it in transparent governing structures (which usually means democracies) than in non-transparent ones (which usually means dictatorships).
> > You will always find more dirt and problems in public/accessible records than in dictatorships.
> Wikileaks isn't some sort Wikipedia of public/accessible records, it's a platform to publish confidential information.
Yes, yes. But it's easier to feed wikileaks with information from democracies than from dictatorships.
> I believe the reason you are getting down voted isn't because you don't cite your source, but because the reasoning is absurd.
I am okay with downvotes ^^ as long as it's not a flamewar.