|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't. Spies and whistleblowers are not in the same league. Spies aren't doing what they do based on their moral compass. Not all whistleblowers do either, so I understand why there should be some skepticism. But to argue that the same skepticism should be applied to whistleblowers as there is at spies, well this is not something I agree with at all.
Of course, it's worth pointing out at this stage that Murray no longer has access to state secrets, and hasn't for a long time. So while it's not out of the question that he was a spy, it's highly unlikely he would still remain one, simply because he wouldn't be a very good one.
A spy can pretend to be a whistleblower, that's my point. (And by 'spy' obviously I'm broadening the definition outside of simply 'passing information' to include other types of espionage).
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm sorry, where did I say this? Noone is incapable of lying. But, those who do usually get exposed. When it comes to making allegations of the nature that Wikileaks release, well people tend to get sued when they make false claims on this scale. If Wikileaks have been successfully sued, well please show me when.
I already answered this.
Here's a question: How do wikileaks verify what they're publishing is a legitmate document? Shouldn't that be an important part of a whistleblower's agenda?
|
Reply With Quote