Slashdot Mirror
Why WikiLeaks Is Unlike the Pentagon Papers
daveschroeder writes "The recent release of classified State Department cables has often been compared to the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers, has said he supports WikiLeaks, and sees the issues as similar. Floyd Abrams is the prominent First Amendment attorney and Constitutional law expert who represented the New York Times in the landmark New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713 (1971)) Supreme Court case, which allowed the media to publish the Pentagon Papers without fear of government censure. Today, Abrams explains why WikiLeaks is unlike the Pentagon Papers, and how WikiLeaks is negatively impacting journalism protections: 'Mr. Ellsberg himself has recently denounced the "myth" of the "good" Pentagon Papers as opposed to the "bad" WikiLeaks. But the real myth is that the two disclosures are the same.'"
They keep telling us that if we don't like them knowing what we are doing then maybe we shouldn't be doing it. How come we can't say the same in return? It seems even more difficult to swallow, considering they work for us via the hard earned money ripped from our hands to pay them to do these things.
Anybody else think the whole "oh noes, Wikileaks might tell the truth about something, those bastards!" and the whole "they're traitors! (by being open and honest when gov't doesn't want to be, what treachery)" is completely overinflated and overblown?
Only the very powerful very entrenched type of interests have anything to fear from anything Assange is going to do. Am I the only one who would love to see them squirm for once? They kill thousands and harm the quality of life of millions. It's quite amusing to see them suffer. I am not going to take any action myself, but it sure is nice to see them taken down a peg or two. They need it. We need it. What's the problem here?
The "damages" caused by Wikileaks seem to use RIAA-style math, where every copy is automatically a lost sale with no burden of proof attached to that claim. In other words, it's bullshit. Name the first name, last name, and location of a single individual person who has been physically injured by anything Wikileaks has published and explain how he/she would not have been physically injured if Wikileaks didn't exist. Nobody in media wants to do that. They want to go for the emotions instead of the evidence. They are part of the problem, and if they don't like Wikileaks that's basically a damned seal of approval to me.
I think Floyd Abrams hit it right on the head. The idea of any secrecy being somehow intolerable in diplomacy is a daft idea. For example, there were many diplomats working in German occupied territories in WWII who were issuing visas to Jewish refugees despite the fact that their governments instructed them not to. (For example, Ho Feng Shan, Raoul Wallenberg, etc). Would it be a good thing for these cables to be released to the public? What about secret negotiations with a government who doesn't want to publicly take actions to pressure a rogue state (say, China and North Korea?). There's a lot of discreteness that is needed in diplomacy that must be done in secret. The mentality that any secrecy is inherently wrong is counterproductive, to say the least.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
No it's not Wikileaks that is negative impacting journalism protection... That is like saying, it where the jews that negatively impacted Nazi-German war-crimes. It really are the bastards trying to prosecute Wikileaks and Assange that are negatively impacting free speech and journalism. Make no mistake about that part.
Since no one ever RTFA, the gist is that Wikileaks sees things in a very simple, black and white universe. Everything must be open at all times. With the leak of the Pentagon Papers, not all of it was leaked initially. In fact, portions of it were held back for years because the leak would only cause harm to diplomatic relations and it had no bearing on the purpose of the leak (to expose the fact that the US government lied to its people about Vietnam).
The latter part of the article is the important part. It suggests that Wikileaks may force the government to come down hard in its enforcement of laws, and hurt journalism in the long run.
To the former, I personally have no respect for Wikileaks simplistic view of total transparency when they are shrouded in secrecy themselves. As for the latter, I really hope that isn't the case.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret.
The article misses one huge fact - Mr. Ellsberg is an American, Mr. Assange is not. While Ellsberg leaked information people needed to know, he was doing so to show how his country was lying to the population. Assange shows other countries places where their governments have lied to their people due to US pressure.
Who is served by the release of these cables is a huge difference between the two situations.
Except Wikileaks didn't release all the cables at once (most still aren't released, we're only about 3% into it), and redacts a lot of information (some 15,000 war reports from Afghanistan, for example).
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
What he is saying is that the job of a journalist is to decide what the public needs to know. They know better than the government, or they would have kept all of the files secret. But they also know better than you the public, because they should hold back some papers at their discretion. Very noble of them to take on this weighty responsibility.
Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all.
Just off the top of my head
Wikileaks has revealed that:
security contractor DynCorp (who were commissioned to train the Afghan police forces) paying for drugs and (pre)teen party boys
"appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S." ?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I still don't see the real difference between an 'accepted' journalist like Mr. Ellsberg leaking papers and Mr. Assange, a foreign national, leaking papers. Oh, wait, Mr. Ellsberg wasn't a journalist. And so far, Julian hasn't released all the papers he has...
I'm more convinced than ever that these two cases have more in common than not, and are different in two very distinct areas only: First, that the diplomatic papers are unique and especially damaging, and second that Julian Assange has no specific patriotic national interest. If the second test is the lesser one, inagine how we might apply the standard of "he has no real patriotic interest, and is not justified in his actions" to foreign journalists all over the world. But the first is most important, as in 'too important to disclose'.
Disclosing the methods and particulars of American nuclear arsenal security would be very, very damaging, and probably clearly actionable as an espionage and national security threat. Disclosing the secret but frank assessments of foreign leaders by U.S. diplomats is damaging, but in such a different way. First, some of the cables leaked point out facts that are inconvenient for those foreign leaders, but indisputable. If you don't want the world to know you're a Muslim leader who keeps a Ukrainian nurse with him, perhaps he should consider changing his behavior. Such a thing is an open secret in Middle Eastern diplomatic circles, it's just the worldwide exposure that will cause the angst. As well it should.
I just don't see the difference at all. Too big to fail. Too important to disclose. Right.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I read it in the voice of someone with a bloody knife saying "now look what you made me do"
or possibly in the voice of someone saying "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself"
I read that article. This paragraph from it will be useful for making my point:
The topic of the meeting was the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by a collection of western countries, including the U.S. and E.U. Tsvangirai told the western officials that, while there had been some progress in the last year, Mugabe and his supporters were dragging their feet on delivering political reforms. To overcome this, he said that the sanctions on Zimbabwe "must be kept in place" to induce Mugabe into giving up some political power. The prime minister openly admitted the incongruity between his private support for the sanctions and his public statements in opposition. If his political adversaries knew Tsvangirai secretly supported the sanctions, deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans, they would have a powerful weapon to attack and discredit the democratic reformer.
He didn't have the courage to be honest and publically say, "this is terrible right now but I sincerely believe it is a necessary step towards a brighter future and therefore worth enduring, however unfortunate that will be". Instead of doing that, openly and honestly, he said what he thought people wanted to hear in public while saying what he really believes they should do in private. There's a word for that: hypocrisy.
Now hypocrisy is nothing precisely new from politicians, even the more well-intentioned ones. Apparently that's just as true in Africa as it is in North America. It is unfortunate though that the situation in Zimbabwe is a lot more dire. If Tsvangirai thought he could pull a fast one and say something he did not sincerely believe -- an action also known as "lying through one's teeth" -- then isn't he responsible for that decision? Why would you blame someone else for pointing this out? There'd be no such thing to point out if he had been honest.
What is it about government? Why does the presence of this organization or any of its members suddenly invert our thought processes? When government is involved, we don't blame the liar anymore for deceiving us, especially when the stakes are high, like we normally would do. No. Instead, we have sympathy for the liar and turn all our blame and spite towards the person who calls them on it and points out the lie. WTF? Are you really that impressed by authority?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Of course they are the same, even to the extent that apparently deep throat was involved in both the Pentagon Papers and some incident in Sweden.
threadeds blog
From TFA
The Pentagon Papers...revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret.
and
Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all.
This premise is flawed. The government's misconduct is clear - they have systematically lied to the people. We're supposed to be a democracy, and that quite simply IS NOT POSSIBLE without the truth. The quicker we all come to grips with this fact the better.
Exactly. Last sentence in WSJ article says: If he is not charged or is acquitted of whatever charges may be made, that may well lead to the adoption of new and dangerously restrictive legislation. The way I understand ths: You live in a free speech state, but if you actually practice free speech, we will hit you with restrictive legislation. Therefor,e with practicing free speech, you are being responsible for it's destruction. So in god's name, don't do it if you want to live in free speech society.
I'm confused, because TFA states "Taken as a whole, however, a leak of this elephantine magnitude, which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S., is difficult to defend on any basis other than WikiLeaks' general disdain for any secrecy at all." Did the author even look at them, or just accept this fact from others, because I've heard of several examples of misconduct. I've also heard of a ton of stuff that's innocuous or laudable, and I personally am uncertain this leak was overall a good idea, but to say that the release brought no evils to light is disengenuous at best.
The most notable that I recall is funding of companies that support child sex slavery. That's a pretty serious charge that was suppressed for political reasons. I don't really follow all the furor over the leaks, but I know there were other similarly damaging issues brought to light, and you cannot truthfully state that there was 'no misconduct' found.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
No, there's another word for that: diplomacy. That's how diplomacy works.
What some people call diplomacy, others call dirty back room deals.
I can't call it diplomacy when the diplomats are called upon to act as a spy. I can't call it diplomacy when it is shown that the government is not acting in the interests of its people but are, instead, acting in the interests of businesses bother foreign and domestic.
Surely, there are grey areas, but I will agree that holding back diplomatic dealings having to do with ending the Vietnam war are different from the materials Wikileaks released. The types of dealings the government is engaged in now is very different from the dealings it was involved in in the past. The motivations and interests are quite different as far as I can see. (I welcome new and factual information if anyone has any... was the Vietnam war motivated by greed and business or was it simply fear of communism?)
Although we elect people and they in turn appoint people we are the ones who pay. Therefore we must be able to see the work being done. I also do not want liars representing me or my country.
Suppose for example that a conservative, hawk type of candidate runs for president and he barks endlessly about beefing up the military at great expense. Without knowing the actual abilities of our military how do I decide if he represents my interests. It makes a vote a joke. It also creates a condition where the state becomes the master having privileges that a person does not. For example they can study me endlessly and in great depth but I am not allowed to study them in any meaningful way. That really sets up a master and slave relationship between the citizen and the government. What kind of military do I want. I want one strong enough to have no secrets and able to slap the snot out of any combination of nations such that they can do nothing about it even knowing when and where we will strike.
Some asshat brought those damn Pentagon Paper shit on the table and we can't really say that it was wrong to disclose them, because in hindsight it was a good thing. Can't argue about that. And that Wikileaks problem looks stunningly the same. Dammit!
We need some spin that disconnects them, the last thing we need is that it becomes public opinion that they are the same and someone makes the connection "If A is good and A is B then B is good".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He'd be a traitor in Australia. To America, he is simply a foreign agent, and must be dealt as such. Or perhaps he's a "stateless" spy? Then, he is the enemy of whoever was exposed by his actions, :-). No doubt, Wikileaks exposed a lot of dirt, but the stuff was also stolen. Espionage is a necessary evil and that's how it must remain. You can't say, "hey Assange did right, but the CIA did wrong"
Does the US have moral superiority? Can they say, "what assange did was right because we never do what he does"? No. I'm sure US spooks listen to 'dip' networks all the time on behalf of the US. Assange does it for kicks or for some holy cause, doesn't matter. He's a spy, nations and people supporting can only do because they benefited form him.
I would support him, but I would not have anything to put up in my defence if the Special Activities Division came for me. Espionage is a fair play among nations, and that's it. Morals simply don't work in this area. Just read The Spy who came in from the cold.
The whole WikiLeaks thing has shown that the secret papers of the US government were not properly secured. And had this information gone to someone other than WikiLeaks (like the Taliban or some foreign government that views us as the enemy) instead of a publicity scandal we would just have people dieing without knowing why.. In fact with how porous the setup was I am sure this WAS happening. But now the Govt is forced to fix that issue (without forcing them they would not have changed, just try to change any government's mind about anything) and we the people are learning some uncomfortable truths that we do need to know.
The fail in the article is the part where he tries to hold Assange personally responsible for a reactionary backlash against the press that may or may not happen. Wikileaks is responsible for the direct damage their revelations bring about, which, so far, is not much. They cannot be held responsible for the damage our nation does to itself in response to Wikileaks. If our leaders decreases the freedom of the press and we let them do it that cannot be laid at the feet of Wikileaks in general nor Julian Assange in particular.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
From TFA: "Mr. Assange views the very notion of government secrecy as totalitarian in nature".
Well, I tend to agree with Assange here. SOME secrets are necessary, but governments have gone way, way, way too far in this area. The whole world needs to get past the notion of secrecy being the primary currency of national and international affairs. So a country's people and/or leaders are offended/embarrassed/hurt/angered over some revelation? Get over it! For the most part, institutionalized secrecy is a vile addiction, not a necessary element of either government or diplomacy.
Again, from TFA: "An indictment of (Assange) could be followed by the judicial articulation of far more speech-limiting legal principles than currently exist with respect to even the most responsible reporting about both diplomacy and defense".
Wait a minute here. So Assange should keep his mouth shut just so the U.S. and other countries don't clamp down on 'journalistic freedoms'? Here's the real upshot of that argument: don't push us or we may become MORE totalitarian. To that I say, Bullshit!
The Internet is doing to politics and diplomacy what it did to recording industry extortionists and Hollywood rip-off artists. The genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle, and the sooner governments realize that there is no more 'business as usual', the better off we'll all be.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
>>There's a word for that: hypocisy.
>No, there's another word for that: diplomacy
Tom-ay-to, to-mah-to.
"Phrasing something diplomatically" in ordinary speech means telling the same truth but using the softest wording. You may be told "we just can't afford an engineer of your caliber in these tough times" rather than "you're fired", but you still leave the meeting understanding you don't show up tomorrow.
Hypocrisy, on the other hand, generally involves lying.
When "lying" is mixed up with "diplomacy", the diplomacy suffers in the long run because people won't trust what you say.
And, by the way, as much as I admire the courage of Morgan Tsvangiri, and concede he's way, way, WAY better than Mugabe, I'm not sure that Zimbabwe will ultimately be served best if he makes it into office on top of a pile of lies. They have a way of coming back to bite.
His argument is: "don't poke the bear!" I'm sorry, but liberties are not maintained by so craven an attitude.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
From TFA: "Mr. Assange is no boon to American journalists. His activities have already doomed proposed federal shield-law legislation protecting journalists' use of confidential sources in the just-adjourned Congress. An indictment of him could be followed by the judicial articulation of far more speech-limiting legal principles than currently exist with respect to even the most responsible reporting about both diplomacy and defense. If he is not charged or is acquitted of whatever charges may be made, that may well lead to the adoption of new and dangerously restrictive legislation. In more than one way, Mr. Assange may yet have much to answer for."
I can understand that Abrams is disappointed that the shield law is being shelved but how is that Assange's fault? Why should Assange be held responsible for legislation that the US congress chooses to vote on or not? Once again a Wikileaks detractor shows that they have an axe to grind unrelated to Wikileaks or Assange. He's old and mad that he's not getting what he wants i.e. Stay off my lawn Julian!
Also...Ellsberg himself says that The Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks are two sides of the same coin. That sounds like a bit more of a credible source for comparisons of mission statement and motives. You know...the guy who actually had the motive.
I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
No, there's another word for that: diplomacy.
Tomaytoe-tomahtoe.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
[Ellsberg didn't release four volumes on the] diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.
Yeah, because undermining an effort to stop a war is a bad thing. That's a diplomatic action that's, you know, doing good in the world. These recent cables on the other hand, reveal the shady underhanded diplomacy of the USA.
-Shoving USA-style IP laws onto Spain
-Bribing, threatening, and then withholding millions in aid to Ecuador and Bolivia so they'd agree to the Copenhagen Accord. But Saudi Arabia gets a free pass, because we need their oil.
These cables were not about stopping a war. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't hinge on Russia or China. It's mostly just saving face for politicians in the USA.
I like America. It's a nice place. But we're supposed to be the good guys. That's WHY I like America. If the USA is being shady, then we need to fix that. And the first step is to know that it's being shady. So simply because these cables are "diplomatic", doesn't mean that they get a free pass.
TFA:
[the leaks] which appears to demonstrate no misconduct by the U.S
Floyd apparently hasn't read much of the actual leaks. In addition to the above, there's also:
-DynCorp, funded by USA taxpayers, bought young male sex slaves for Afghan cops in a "batca bazzi" party. It's a tradition over there apparently.
-They're moving prisoners out of Guantanamo to foreign prisons.
-Under reporting deaths in Afghanistan. It's not going nearly as well as they've said it has. That's lying to the American people.
-Diplomats know that the Saudi Arabians are the primary donors to Al-Queada. Aren't they an ally? Isn't our "strong military presence" in the area supposed to stop that sort of thing?
-The CIA pressured Spain into dropping investigations into the killing of José Couso, a Spanish journalist, in Iraq by American troops.
Plus there's plenty of examples of the USA knowing that others are doing blatantly illegal things, like
The Shell Oil Company claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to every movement of politicians. Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.
Or that China was indeed behind the attacks on Google. Which, of course, most of slashdot was aware of. And here's the thing. Even though we-in-the-know would bet good money that it was China, the ignorant masses would tell us to prove it, and say our claims were unsupported gossip. Which it was. But now we have evidence.
Please, Mr. Abrams, go read the wiki page on the actual content of the cable leak. (and all the fractured sub-sites that hopefully isn't some ruse to hide away the information)
Wikileaks has no concept of responsible disclosure or anything similar.
Who are you people who keep repeating this crap? If you spent less time commenting and more time actually reading you might actually have something to say.
Here. I'll do the work for you.
I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
Those cablegrams got their way out of the Governmental offices. This is a fact not involving Wikileaks at all.
The content of those cablegrams was produced by a number of persons we think wrote the truth down.
Also this fact doesn't involve Wikileaks at all.
Then you have basically two options:
red pill: those files get sold (possibly more than once) to some bad guys that will use them the way they want (more money or more power or both)
blue pill: those files get published to everyone FOR FREE, so none can make nasty things with them any more.
Then if the content is embarrassing, you can blame the authors/actors, not the publisher.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Don't forget the US conducting military strikes in Yemen while saying we weren't. Or that we killed more Iraqi civilians than the government was admitting to. Or that the US knew about Iraqis being tortured and raped but didn't do anything to stop it. The list is huge.
Glenn Greenwald compiled a list of important issues from Wikileaks. One of the main issues is that the press wants to talk more about Julian Assange getting arrested than about world governments' illicit activities.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks/index.html
Also his "legal reasoning" relied on a case that involved american journalists on american soil. Any lawyer that thinks that american laws that affect americans on american soil also apply to non-americans who are in another country, without even discussing that issue, should be called up by the Bar association and have his priveldges revoked. It's kind of like arresting a Spanish bar tender for serving alcohol to a teenager in Spain because New York State said it is illegal to serve minors.
Look, I am an American citizen. The wikileak thing was a douchey act. But it is NOT illegal for a publisher (and if the crime you are accused of consists of publishing, that MAKES you a publisher) to publish secrets. It is illegal to illegaly obtain those secrets, but accepting them as a gift from a criminal is not illegal and never has been.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'm sure he won't mind me pointing out that he works in a United States government intelligence agency. This should really be pointed out at the top of this discussion, which is why I'm hijacking this stupid first post. Dave, how come you never mention this salient fact when you are pushing government propaganda?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Sorry, the article is fundamentally wrong. It is only this kind of indiscriminate leaking that makes it possible for people to get a holistic understanding of what our diplomats are actually doing in our name. For example, the lack of any discussion about pushing Arab countries on human rights issues cannot be brought to the public's attention any other way that I know of.
Below text is not mine, just quoting
Number 1: Do the American People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the $80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I could make a case for recording government officials 24/7.
And you would lose.
If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide.
This is on my brief list of exact sentences where I usually stop reading, but I couldn't help but notice this:
power corrupts, so we need to keep a strict watchful eye on power given to a citizen that other citizens do not have. Like the ability to commit kidnapping (arresting/jailing someone), theft (taxes/fees), and murder (capital punishment).
LOL- even in the UK (Oceania) they don't yet have telescreens on walls in people's houses to record ministers 24/7 for fear they may raise taxes or barristers 24/7 in order to prevent frivolous prosecutions! The case you'd make here is for 1984!
Wake up! It's 1984. - Oingo Boingo, 1983
Wake up! It's 2011. - me, 2010
(Sorry, couldn't resist quoting that sig.)
Chomsky noted twenty years ago that discussion of the alleged dangers of unrestricted free speech was already occurring openly back in the mid-1970s:
"...the issue debated is whether the media have not exceeded proper bounds... even threatening the existence of democratic institutions in their contentious and irresponsible defiance of authority. A 1975 study on "governability of democracies" by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a "notable new source of national power," one aspect of an "excess of democracy" that contributes to "the reduction of governmental authority" at home and a consequent "decline in the influence of democracy abroad." This general "crisis of democracy," the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly." [Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, South End Press, 1989, available online at chomsky.info]
Why does the public have to stand naked in front of the TSA while those to whom we have delegated authority get to hide their actions?
The greatest danger posed by WikiLeaks is to raise the possibility that those who are responsible for our security have higher priorities.
Aside from the other issues I have, the article goes into a lot of detail about how the US might try and convict Assange regarding the publications of these leaks but it misses a very key point. Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he on US soil when the leaks were published, therefore he is not subject to any US laws. Period - End of Story. The person this article should have been written about is apparently Bradley Manning who allegedly leaked the info in the first place. That is the comparison that should be make - Leaker to Leaker. Not Leaker to Publisher. The publisher (Wikileaks the organization as opposed to Assange the person) did nothing wrong, they published info that was provided to them which goes right along with their mission statement. It is not the job nor the obligation of every single person on earth to ensure that US secrets are kept secret. That obligation lies with those who want it kept secret and the people they entrust with it. But the buck stops there.
closed and repressive societies will always have a significant advantage in many ways do to the nature of control by a dictator, but that is no reason to emulate them.
As for the social contract, can you get me a copy? The social contract is what people agree it is, and I seriously disagree with you.
On a side note, WTF is happening with this web site? It is practically unusable, I wait minutes for response and I have a t1 connection! It has taken me almost 10 minutes to post this response.