下年和平獎:維基解密?

繆美詩:和平獎得主
黃世澤:「解密」翻舊帳 促進施政監察

雖然諾貝爾委員會未頒和平獎俾劉曉波,但2011年和平獎得主,相信最大熱門,一如Rachel與小弟所想,應該是Wikileaks。

雖然小弟對Wikileaks公開伊拉克戰爭War Logs係有保留,但Wikileaks唔係對和平無貢獻,Wikileaks披露美國嘅Embassy Cable,可以睇到美國外交同國防政策一啲缺陷,對防止戰爭發生係有幫助,例如依家對北韓、伊朗呢兩個惡棍國家明顯各國都搞綏靖政策,查實依家都夠料處理。而伊拉克同阿富汗,特別阿富汗個政府太膠等等。

而且Wikileaks呢個超級Watchdog好處係,政客作出決定前,應該要諗到有人會回帶,做漏決定、唔做決定、做錯決定都可以被人翻舊帳,政客作出打仗呢啲重大決定前,會諗清諗楚先。

你估全世界個個都似梁展文咩,面皮厚過萬里長城。

11 則迴響

Filed under 英國與歐洲, 香港政治, 中國政治

11 responses to “下年和平獎:維基解密?

  1. 嘉慶

    正!「你估全世界個個都似梁展文咩,面皮厚過萬里長城。」佢夠膽就出來發毒誓,佢有攞著數就死老豆死老母,死全家!!!

  2. 義不容共

    維基解密,維基間諜,還是維基左仔黑客 ?

    這件事情恕我傾向右派觀點,阿桑奇也許係爆料英雄,新聞自由先鋒 — 自己封自己。不管出於多麼高大空的口號理由,賊就係賊。

    西方民主國家也許不乏政治黑幕,泄漏出來也許不下於專制政權。但個人始終認為,什麼事都可以肆意列為國家機密,與什麼合情合理國防外交機密,都可以被賊偷出來任爆唔嬲的世界,一樣好難真正安享和平。

  3. 持書者

    好人之所以冇用 就係佢地既堅持好多時候都係流既. 鄉愿, 德之賊也

    呢個世界就係因為好人冇「犯法」的決心 先至搞到咁多暴政
    而好人既定義. 其實係所有國家都係愚蠢既同義詞.

    而美國漸漸接近中國的原因. 就係佢地一樣將正苦犯既罪行全部列成國家機密

  4. v

    new world order versus old world order

  5. 不留名

    維基解密最大貢獻就是踢爆美國隱瞞在伊拉克濫殺平民。

  6. Joel

    Allow me to second 義不容共’s rejoinder. This is a good dissent piece by Canadian columnist David Warren:

    http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=1218

    December 1, 2010

    Wikid: Can there be such a thing as treason?

    David Warren
    © Ottawa Citizen

    This is a question no one thought to ask, or at least no one sane, until recently. But part of the general insanity that has come from loss of faith — in God, then progressively in everything else — is the questioning of such things in isolation.

    Does the state, under whose protection we live, have any claim on our loyalty, whatever? Do the men and women who have died, and generations that have made sacrifices for our very existence, have any moral claim upon us? Or are they simply disposable extensions of our own ego?

    The questions in that last paragraph are not entirely rhetorical; not today. I am asking them by way of explaining what I mean by “questioning in isolation."

    We live, today, under opinion-forming elites that will very glibly ask and answer a question, as if it stands by itself; as if everything that follows from the question can be ignored. They are the intellectual descendants of people who, on this issue, advanced the notion that one’s loyalty to a friend, or to one’s current squeeze, must trump the most solemn obligations of honour, and therefore exempt one from making unpleasant sacrifices. This is a view unintentionally presented in its full fatuity in the novel, The English Patient, by the second-rate Canadian writer, Michael Ondaatje.

    “It is the soul’s duty to be loyal to its own desires; it must abandon itself to its master passion." Thus spoke Rebecca West, perhaps the greatest of the leftists and feminists of the last century, who did honestly wrestle with questions of treachery and betrayal. See her book, The Meaning of Treason.

    What, I’ve been wondering, would Dame Rebecca have said, about the casual treachery of The New York Times, and other media who have cooperated with Wikileaks in return for advance access to their stolen documents — as if this were a straightforward business arrangement?

    The total hypocrisy of the Times has been exposed by several of my right-wing colleagues, who have juxtaposed the paper’s various self-justifications. The Times smugly refused, for instance, to print or link any “Climategate" revelations of a global warming scam, because “the documents appear to have been acquired illegally," and “were never intended for the public eye." But when an opportunity arises to publish potentially devastating state secrets, they do so without hesitation “in the public interest." And the smugness is the same.

    Paradoxically, these documents confirm everything the Times and like-minded media have not been reporting for the last few years.

    That Arab leaders have been begging the U.S. to take military action against Iran, or at least stop appeasing a regime they compare to Hitler’s; that Egypt fears Hamas more than Israel; that Iran rearms Hezbollah in Lebanon under cover of the Red Cross; that Iran and Syria are hand in glove; that North Korea has been trading lethal weaponry to Iran, with Chinese encouragement; that the Turkish government is alarmingly Islamist, and has become a cuckoo in the nest of NATO; that the Emir of Qatar is double-dealing — all these things which “paranoid right wing" types such as yours truly have long known (and been reporting in this column) — are confirmed in the documents.

    One might express frustration, that U.S. diplomatic, military, and intelligence agencies did not make much of this public, long ago. For it has struck me, repeatedly, that the U.S. government has been fighting world opinion with two hands tied behind its back.

    All this can be fairly stated, and yet it does not change the nature of the crime. A conscious act of treason has been performed — very smugly — and there is yet no prospect that anything will be done about it. Wikileaks continues to publish privileged U.S. diplomatic traffic day by day, with the full co-operation of the world’s “progressive" media, and with the impunity that is granted by an elite “liberal" culture, which lives in something like Michael Ondaatje’s moral universe.

    Which is unfortunately the alternative universe from which Barack Obama stepped, when he became president. He evidently does not have the intellectual equipment to understand the grave duties he has assumed. And that includes the duty to do something about open acts of treason.

  7. alvin

    People gave way too much credit to Julian Assange. He is just an anti-American attention seeker who came across a disgruntled, gay, low-level Army specialist who is pissed at Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and is looking for his own personal revenge. Perhaps they should just lock both Assange and Manning up in a cell for the next 75 years.

  8. v

    大家咪囿於舊式敵我思維
    當UNCLE SAM 日日來中國賣債, 老共個個有外國PASSPORT, 呢個世界仲有國界?

    WIKILEAKS 事件, 唔係國與國之爭,而係世代之爭,好似香港反膠鐵同菜園村保衞戰.

  9. v

    “WIKILEAKS 事件, 唔係國與國之爭,而係世代之爭,好似香港反膠鐵同菜園村保衞戰."

    世代之爭,係可以驗證既. 大家放長對眼睇. 短期之內,諗下,點解班友攻擊MASTERCARD,可以乜事都冇, 輿論都唔敢鬧佢.

  10. world traveler plus

    如果佢老兄成立一間空殼出版公司,係咁二事前出版少少野,再爆美國外交大鑊,咁佢可唔可以用憲法第一條來抗行美國想入佢罪?

    Article 1.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  11. alvin

    world traveler plus – If you want to quote the US Constitution, at least quote it right. Article 1 of the US Constitution is about the Legislative Branch. The text you’ve quoted is from Amendment 1.

    And yes, as long as WikiLeaks (or Julian Assange himself) is not responsible for stealing / obtaining the classified material, the US Supreme Court has already established in prior cases that the publishing of classified material is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects individuals as well as corporations, so there is no need for him to open a shell company offshore. He may have violated some US statutes, but not for publishing classified material. US Army private Bradley Manning, on the other hand, is being charged with illegally downloading classified documents amid suspicions that he gave them to WikiLeaks.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

你正使用 WordPress.com 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

你正使用 Twitter 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

你正使用 Facebook 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

你正使用 Google+ 帳號留言。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s