You don't seem to understand what the "diplomatic cables" are.
You said the cables revealed no wrongdoing and when I said you have a distorted of what constitutes wrongdoing you said maybe I wasn't paying attention to detail. I then asked you what details you are referring to and you come back with this. So how about you answer my question?
What I do know is that while most of the stuff revealed about the U.S. government itself is small-time there is plenty of damaging material concerning foreign countries, allies and enemies, as well as material concerning multinational corporations.
If no laws are broken, what's the problem? You seem to need gossip.
No laws are broken with earmarks. Do you think that sort of information should not be given out? The thing about the law is many powerful people look for each and every way around it and make sure there are ways around it.
He's attempting to "try" everyone he's going after in the "court of public opinion."
They generally aren't facing charges or at least not the ones they should face. Assange is already facing charges and the people involved know what it is about so revealing it all to the public at a time when there are court proceedings going on definitely is different.
So I guess I'm right; you think it's outrageous for it to happen to him because you like him.
No, I think it is outrageous for people in power to attempt to corrupt the judicial process for political purposes.
No corporation has any power over you that you don't give it.
I agree with the literal meaning of this, but your intended meaning is far too simple-minded. You could throw "government" in there instead of corporation and it would still be accurate.
The fact that they happen to be large employers is irrelevant. They're still private. It's not your business.
What corporations do is very much the business of the people. Say I am not working for a company but a family member or friend is working for that company. I am sure there are some widows of oil rig workers wanting to see what was really going on in BP. Sure you will say that involves deaths so it is different, but then if someone had revealed said information before there was a incident perhaps there would not have been an incident at all.
Generally you only recognize the importance of transparency when it is best suited to your needs. Obviously your perspective is that transparency is not terribly important indicating that it is not in your interests much at all for some reason.
You just like seeing dirt dished out.
I do rather like seeing the bad guys get their misdeeds splashed all over the media.
Well, he's got you snowed.
No, I just recognize when someone is doing good and when I see it I generally do not oppose it.