"No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret - our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them. That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives we would publish all of the archives because it’s extremely important to the history of this war."

Julian Assange, the man responsible for publishing 92,000 classified documents on the ongoing war in Afghanistan, has been hailed as a hero by some.  But I very much doubt his purportedly noble intentions.  The quote above informs me that he is rather cavalier about the lives which might be harmed as a result of his leaks.

"No one has been harmed" is his sweeping response to the question that the documents might contain sensitive information which may endanger lives.  I don’t find that believable.  He published 92,000 documents.  He did not have the time to read every one of them, and identify the documents which contain sensitive information and withhold the publication of those or redact them.  Is he now claiming that there is not a single document which might disclose sensitive information that would put the lives of soldiers or informants as risk ?

The Times of London claims that "in just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, the Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers’ names. US officers recorded detailed logs of the information fed to them by named local informants, particularly tribal elders.  Among the documents is a report from 2008 that includes a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection. He is named, with both his father’s name and village included."

I can’t verify if the foregoing is true.  But Assange’s retort is that "should anyone come to harm" appears to be "too bad — I would rather that people die, than miss this opportunity to gain notoriety".  Which sounds a lot worse than the accusations which Assange levels against countries such as the US, of indiscriminately killing civilians in the course of prosecuting the (unjust) Afghan war.

Assange’s decision to approach three newspapers with the documents prior to the publication on Wikileaks also suggests that he was seeking a quick way to gain notoriety and to translate raw information which would otherwise be generally unintelligible to him.

In an interview, Assange suggested if any document "clearly jeopardised innocent people" that document would be withdrawn from disclosure and added to a store of 15,000 documents which he has withheld from disclosure.  Which sounds awfully helpful given that such information would already be circulating in the public domain.

I think that if Assange were truly responsible, truly devoted to the lofty ideal of transparency in Government, and truly concerned about the prosecution of a just war and the loss of innocent lives, he could have scrutinised the documents and picked out several samples for disclosure (with sensitive information redacted where necessary), to demonstrate his theory that civilians were being killed indiscriminately and that war crimes were being committed. 

There was absolutely no need to publish 92,000 documents in order for Assange to achieve his objective (I’m assuming this objective to be the lofty pursuit of transpanrency in Government, protecting innocent lives and a just war).  Just a few particularly incriminating samples would have sufficed.

Alternatively, Assange can travel to Afghanistan and cover the war as a journalist.  I’d very much like to see that.

Personally, I hope that he and his co-conspirators will be put away for a long time for his / their irresponsible acts.  Or maybe they should just all be shipped to Afghanistan.

I said that I could do it but warned (with apologetic sincerity) that I had an "obsessive compulsion to amend any agreement which comes to me for review afresh".

Amused and sufficiently deterred, he said he would wait another day for my colleague to return.

I’m not sure of the extent which the two newly opened casinos (or "Integrated Resorts" as we call them) are responsible, directly or indirectly, for this.  But I assume that their (positive) impact on the economy is not insignificant.

And I also note the frequent media reports of people, quite often Singaporeans, being convicted of stealing and cheating at the casino.  And stories (which I can’t confirm) that charities / non-profit organisations have seen a rise in gambling cases being referred to them, either for treatment of gambling addiction or for financial assistance.

Which begs the question - at what price have we achieved this economic growth ?

Thanks for a long but clear reply.

Option A - Not OK with our consultant
Option B - Not OK with us
Option C - Not OK with you
Option D - Looks workable, will check with our consultant

Strip away the civility of the ECHR judicial process, dressed in the fig leaf of human rights, and the incivility of the Indonesian extra-judicial process, shamelessly exposed, what does this tell us about the state of religious (in)tolerance in Europe and in Indonesia ? 

(Well, maybe that the two don’t diverge very much).

At the beginning of the book, the co-authors pen in the final paragraph of the acknowledgements page -

"Finally, Jim [ the Christian ] thanks God for giving him a long life with a mind fascinated by the mysteries of God and his universe.  Carl [ the atheist ] feels fortunate that he emerged into sentience in a relatively benign environment via the concatenation of innumerable chance events spanning millions of years of evolution."

I find the second sentence amusing.  The book looks promising.

The US Central Intelligence Agency reportedly controls a fleet of drone aircraft from its headquarters in Langley, Virginia.  Drone attacks on hostile targets in Afghanistan and Iraq are also remotely carried out from Virginia.

The arguments for and against (mainly against) the legality of drone attacks under international law make an interesting read, though I’m sure that not a few American soldiers who would otherwise have to place themselves in the line of fire will have positive things to say about drones, whatever the academics may exhort.

What I found particularly ironic, was this comment at paragraph 84 of the Study :

"Furthermore, because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audiofeed, there is a risk of developing a “Playstation” mentality to killing …"

By his use of the word "Playstation", Mr Alston was suggesting that drone operators based in Virginia, far removed from the realities of the battlefield in Afghanistan, would have fewer inhibitions in authorising an attack.

I think the same criticism may be levelled against academics.  Far removed from the realities of the battlefield, would academics also not have fewer inhibitions in advancing narrow interpretations of international humanitarian law, which would place soldiers’ lives at greater risk ?

1.  I am thankful for the fact that the state has both the capacity and the courage to probe religious groups and similar organisations in the public interests.  City Harvest Church has a huge membership and is hugely influential.  There is nothing wrong with this; it is highly admirable and the good work of the church is praiseworthy.  However, as NKF and Ren Ci have shown, there is potential for individuals to abuse their influence in such organisations.  Just as religious groups can have the influence and moral authority to check corruption and abuse of Government power, the state should have a role in ensuring that religious groups do not abuse their influence or misuse their resources, in the public interests.

2.  Whatever has been done, is done.  If anything has been done which is dishonest, reckless or negligent, or even if there was an innocent mistake, my prayer is not that the authorities will fail to detect it.  Rather, regardless of whether there has been any criminal offence, my prayer is that the Christians under probe will conduct themselves truthfully and graciously, which is what the Bible demands.  An individual can be innocent yet behave like he is guilty.  Or he might be responsible for wrongdoing yet live in denial.  My prayer is that the individuals in this case will not be guilty of either.

3.  I pray that we will remember that it is individuals who are being investigated, not God.  We often closely associate (prominent) churches and / or Christian leaders with the Christian faith.  However, while they may represent a facet of the Christian faith, they are not God.  That they are being investigated does not mean that God is lousy or bad.  It is, on the other hand, a reminder that we, including our Christian leaders, are imperfect, and in need of God who shows us the way to perfection.

4.  I pray that the faith of Christians will remain strong.  When leaders fall, or their apparent infallibility is questioned, it is normal for their followers to lose faith.  However, the root of the Christian faith lies in Jesus, "the author and perfector of our faith" (Hebrews 12 : 2), and not the apostles in the Bible, early church leaders or our current Christian leaders.  Christian leaders have an important role to play in nurturing our faith, but the Christian faith should ultimately rest on Jesus.

5.  I pray that Christians will be wise and gracious, when speaking to each other and to non-Christians, about this matter.  Everyone has something to say about City Harvest Church — good or bad — because of its size and prominence.  It is easy in a time like this for anyone to criticise the church.  Some Christians might feel that their faith is under attack.  Members of the church might feel that their church is under attack.  The human inclination is to respond ungraciously, but the Bible asks Christians to do the opposite, to "bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12 : 14), "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have … with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3 : 15 - 16).

6.  I pray that churches will learn from this incident and strengthen their internal governance.  All large churches today were once small "start ups".  However, the church is not a family business, and a system of governance which might have been satisfactory ten, twenty or even a hundred years ago, would no longer be satisfactory today in view of the large finances involved, the change in the regulatory environment, and the complex operations that a church might nowadays choose to get involved in.  With growth in members and prominence, comes great responsibility, and churches need to put in place the appropriate systems and processes, to properly discharge at least the legal aspect of that responsibility.