I think we are about to learn a lot about our world - Wikileaks...

[Twisties]

FBOW.

 

Wikileaks info coming out - NYT synopsis

 

Looks like there will be some blockbusters.

 

So, you know the rules: Political Threads: What keeps them open...

 

What do you think? Is this good, bad or indifferent? How large an impact are we likely to see: A passing storm, or fundamental upheavals and long lasting impacts? What kind of impacts: Is the day of government secrets over? Will we see a war or cold war as a result of this, or what?

[Antimatter]

The media will try to mine the information for some juicy tidbits about soap-opera type stuff, but overall most people won't care about the in-depth stuff. Understanding the innuendo require a person to do some research about the political or geographic situation, something most people can't be bothered to do. Most US citizens know who won 'Dancing With The Stars', I doubt more than 25% can point to Afghanistan on a map. Heck, I doubt 15% can.

[John Ranalletta]

It's never a good thing when government employees employ treason to reveal secret information - information they expressly vowed to protect.

 

It's obvious to some that there are factions inside the Department of State, CIA and military who are actively working against the interests of the US. Until they are found out and prosecuted for treason as was Pollard, it will continue.

 

It also means we are virtually incapable of waging any war successfully and should return all our soldiers to US soil.

[decorbin]

If he were leaking info about any other country on the face of the earth if he would still be alive?

 

I agree we need to find those he got the information from and deal with them harshly.

[Bob Palin]

If he were leaking info about any other country on the face of the earth if he would still be alive?

 

I agree we need to find those he got the information from and deal with them harshly.

I thought it was already known who the information came from and he is awaiting a court martial (at least for the first leak). It's crazy to give 3 million people access to the system and then not expect it to leak.

[Couchrocket]

What do you think?

 

I think the freedom we enjoy, and the open society that comes with it, will end up being the very tools that are used to destroy us.

 

 

LOL, I just watched the video clip... they can't post 'em because their system has been hacked. What a hoot. Live by the . . .

[Mike]

My experience has been that some of what ends up classified is not worthy of the classification. In my military days, I was regularly part of highly classified briefings on military and terrorist threats. Some of it was breathtaking stuff and compromising it would have put lives at risk, but some--admittedly not a lot--was no more revealing or incisive than what was being reported in the major news media at the time.

 

But, overclassification is a problem that can be dealt with by smart people within the government. Revealing any classified information, in my book, makes you an enemy of the United States. How and if our clandestine services and/or justice system deals with this sort of thing is a decision made by people with a lot more pull than I have, but I despise those who would, for whatever reason, knowingly compromise classified information.

 

Many years ago I prosecuted an airman who attempted to sell classified information about the SR-71 to the Soviets. Counterintelligence agents learned of his overtures and interposed their own agents, who posed as members of the KGB. The stuff that the airman was trying to sell was extraordinarily sensitive, information that would have put the lives of aircrews and their families at risk.

 

The cretin's motive? He bought himself a nice car and got himself in over his head financially. Putting the lives of his fellow servicemen in peril was apparently not too great a price to pay, in order to catch up on his payments. Almost without exception, the people who do this sort of thing are excrement.

[Bob Palin]

If I read the report right none of the leaked stuff is TOP SECRET (if there is such a designation), it's mostly SECRET and some is SECRET(NOFORN) (non-foreigner)

[Twisties]

The argument that the releases put our policy and practices at risk can not be refuted. On the other hand, if knowing about them puts them at risk, perhaps they were ill-advised to begin with? Obviously I am not talking about releasing an operative's identifying info, but the bigger picture items. Should we be stealing the passwords of UN officials, for instance?

 

I think there is a valid argument/discussion about the appropriate limits of secrecy in a "democracy" and "open society" that we have not had much in recent years. As well, the limits of our clandestine operations, and the workings of our foreign policy. Possibly not since the late 60's or early 70's.

 

We will surely pay a price for these releases, but maybe the outcome of the conflagration will be a renewal of integrity?

 

I am not convinced that the Wikileaks folk think they are doing anything but a public service, in fact I am perfectly certain they believe just that. So far I haven't heard about the motivations of the US suspect.

 

To me, this argument about treason and betrayal vs public service and working in the public interest is at the core of what is interesting here, practical impacts aside for the moment.

 

 

[Fubar]

Most US citizens know who won 'Dancing With The Stars', I doubt more than 25% can point to Afghanistan on a map. Heck, I doubt 15% can.

Only 25% of Americans can find the US on a map! 2.5% might find Afghanistan. Or anywhere else.

[Alan D]

It's never a good thing when government employees employ treason to reveal secret information - information they expressly vowed to protect.

 

It's obvious to some that there are factions inside the Department of State, CIA and military who are actively working against the interests of the US. Until they are found out and prosecuted for treason as was Pollard, it will continue.

 

It also means we are virtually incapable of waging any war successfully and should return all our soldiers to US soil.

 

Agree 100%

[Alan D]

If I read the report right none of the leaked stuff is TOP SECRET (if there is such a designation), it's mostly SECRET and some is SECRET(NOFORN) (non-foreigner)

I was a radio operator in the Army. Operating freq, call signs, destinations and crypto settings were only confidential. That knowledge could cause damage and loss of lives if in the wrong hands. Every operator understood that.

[Twisties]

Here's a Newsweek Piece that begins to explore some of the less obvious impacts.

[John Ranalletta]

It seems you are minimizing the gravity of the offense. Does that imply you support either or both the leaks and the publishing of same?

[pbharvey]

We communicate with foreign nations via cable or is there a more modern definition of a cable? I thought a cable was a telegram sent overseas.

 

Those responsible for the leaks should be tried for treason.

[lawnchairboy]

NYT today addresses the term "cable" in an article which teases some of the leaks out already....

[Antimatter]

My perception of our current government (not administration) is that there are too many 'public/private' relationships where persons in government often grease the wheels for a corporation, with an understanding that they will be well compensated when they decide to move to the private sector. In light of that, I would rather have an entity like Wikileaks exist to keep the folks who work in the government from getting too comfortable.

 

I regularly question the great amount of secrecy in our current 'global war on terrorism'. I think we're doing damage to our own democratic form of government in the name of security, and I'm afraid that we will give up much of what made us a great country.

 

Let me ask you this; the last big document dump Wikileaks did was in regards to the Iraq war. It dominated the news cycle for about a week. How many of us remember that well, and how much of an effect has it had on our current military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Shaman97]

The 'spicy' side of the leaks is the specific information, such as the Afghan VP taking $52M out of Afghanistan.

 

What's more of a concern is the bits and pieces that may be revealed by the WilkiLeakers. In and of itself, sensitive material may or may not tell the whole story. What's concerning to me is that the information that may not be useful on it's own merit, may be the final piece to a puzzle that our enemies may not have had; this gives it to them on a silver platter.

 

Whenever a person has a clearance from Confidential to TS++, if they do not have a 'need to know' any other classified information, they do/should not get it, regardless if the info is below the clearance they have received. It goes to the idea of 'compartmentalization'. The WikiLeaks site leap-frogs all of those safeguards, and can doi us no good at all. What ills it will cause have yet to be determined, and we will likely never know a causal effect of the leaks from any source, friend or foe.

 

However you look at it, it's not a good thing for the US and our allies.

[Selden]

I can find Afghanistan on a map, but I had to look up FBOW.

 

In general, I'm in favor of open over closed, but these cables were written with the assumption that they were privileged communications, and inevitably they are going to contain some language that was never intended to see the light of day. On the other hand, if there is a requirement for open communication, you tend to get pablum, so confidential communications are a necessary evil. Using inter-departmental leaks as weapons has been going on for a long time, especially involving State, Defense, and the CIA.

 

That said, I'm very skeptical of the motives of Julian Assange. Perhaps my memory has clouded over, but the Pentagon Papers were leaked because they revealed cover ups and systematic deception by the Johnson administration. Most of the WikiLeaks material, on the other hand, seems to be being released purely for embarrassment, and because it's in digital form, is far more easily mined than print.

 

It's another area where the Internet is a Pandora's Box. The leakers can be sought, caught, and punished, but the problem is not going to go away.

 

[Survived-til-now]

My experience has been that some of what ends up classified is not worthy of the classification. In my military days, I was regularly part of highly classified briefings on military and terrorist threats. Some of it was breathtaking stuff and compromising it would have put lives at risk, but some--admittedly not a lot--was no more revealing or incisive than what was being reported in the major news media at the time.

 

 

The latest set of leaks is rather different because I understand it includes the content of diplomatic (or possible rather undiplomatic) messages. Until we see exactly what is there it is difficult to guess the damage.

 

The fact that some US diplomat thinks one or other of our politicians is an idiot or weak shouldn't worry anyone too much. Diplomats are there to give frank and sometimes painful assessments to their government and I doubt that today's content is very different in nature to that which passed before and during the early stages of the Second World war.

 

What is more worrying is the report that one country was alledgedly urging war on another whilst publicly maintaining a neutral stance......

 

We rely on those other (hidden) routes of communication, such as spying and diplomatic messages to achieve a balance. I am only too conscious of the fact that a NATO exercise was mistaken by the Russians for the real thing and they were about to go to war thinking they were about to be attacked. What saved the day was covert intelligence and diplomatic opinion arguing that the military assessment was wrong.

 

Anything that threatens those vital sources of information is a real danger to us all. Wikileaks is no friend when it comes to our national security. The people who have perpetrated these leaks need to be found and prosecuted.

[Bob Palin]

Whenever a person has a clearance from Confidential to TS++, if they do not have a 'need to know' any other classified information, they do/should not get it, regardless if the info is below the clearance they have received. It goes to the idea of 'compartmentalization'. The WikiLeaks site leap-frogs all of those safeguards,

Actually the US government circumvented all those safegaurds when it openely put this information on a network available to 3 million people from the lowest ranking soldier to the prez. They did this because one of the key findings about the non-detection of 9/11 was that there was too much compartmentalized information for anybody to see the big picture.

[Bob Palin]

It seems you are minimizing the gravity of the offense. Does that imply you support either or both the leaks and the publishing of same?

I didn't make any judgement at all, just reported the facts.

 

There's no one answer to the question of support, if information released directly affects the safety of troops on the ground it should remain secret. Details of the stupid, bigoted, immoral and possibly illegal activites of various governments are great to have in the open, perhaps it will discourage them from those activities in the future. On the whole I prefer open government and tend to believe that far too much is kept secret to cover up underhand activities.

[Dave McReynolds]

After reading a sampling of leaks in the newspaper this morning, the biggest danger, it seems to me, is a future loss of frankness in discussions among diplomats and world leaders. It must be embarrasing to have a smiling picture shaking another world leader's hand, while the caption underneath advocates blowing up their nuclear reactors.

 

I know how much I hate it when a politician spouts platitudes rather than answering a question in a news conference; it's a complete waste of time for everyone involved. But that could become the norm in private as well as public communications if either party feels that the private communication could be made public.

[Woodie]

I agree with Dave M. The long-term impact will be less information, and less accurate information, being placed into the information gathering system. (CYA - don't document it!)

 

The ripple effect of this will be more significant: The US may make policy decisions based on incomplete, or incorrect information, or thus erroneous analysis. (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

 

I suspect the impact in less open societies will be substantially greater than in "open" societies like the US. Openness is a good thing, as it provides a direct feedback mechanism to the government, to help it figure out when it made a bad decision, and to encourage correction. At the same time, having an organization/person who is outside our (US) society, and thus more or less immune to reaction, concerns me. What's his angle? Altruism? I have trouble buying that. Egotism? More likely, but not definitive.

 

It seems to me that "Diplomacy" has everything to do with NOT embarrassing other people! This blanket dump of information, with no apparent purpose or value beyond that has and will disrupt the diplomatic game for everyone, particularly for anyone who wishes a relationship with the US.

 

[beemerboy]

 

I think the freedom we enjoy, and the open society that comes with it, will end up being the very tools that are used to destroy us.

 

 

I agree. Hell, we're already losing a lot of our freedoms with each passing year.

[notacop]

Seems like we excel in subterfuge and then try to hide from the truth of it when the evidence comes out.

Does hypocritical enter this at all?

The proverbial Glass house syndrome?

Like the guy that doesn't speed, rarely gets a ticket, the guy who does speeds cries about being stopped. Has a million excuses. Balderdash I say.

[AviP]

Seems like we excel in subterfuge and then try to hide from the truth of it when the evidence comes out.

Does hypocritical enter this at all?

The proverbial Glass house syndrome?

Like the guy that doesn't speed, rarely gets a ticket, the guy who does speeds cries about being stopped. Has a million excuses. Balderdash I say.

We (Israel/UK/US) just killed another Iranian nuclear scientist. Now while we will never know if this was justified or not, and no government is honest to it's citizens or neighbors, this stuff still happens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11860928

[AdventurePoser]

I'm sure the "other side's" diplomats say some pretty outrageous things about us. The tragedy is that we cannot safe guard our secrets. How embarrassing, at the least, and how dangerous, at the most, for those identified as providing information for us.

[Survived-til-now]

We (Israel/UK/US) just killed another Iranian nuclear scientist. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11860928

 

Did we (the UK - I mean)? I didn't get that impression from the link you gave. Just as dangerous as the leaks are personal suspicions aired as statements that others might take as being in some way informed.....

 

or are you employed by the US intelligence services and about to press "send" on an e-mail to Wikileaks?

[pbharvey]

We (Israel/UK/US) just killed another Iranian nuclear scientist. Now while we will never know if this was justified or not, and no government is honest to it's citizens or neighbors, this stuff still happens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11860928

 

snipped from the article:

The scientists were targeted by men on motorbikes who attached bombs to the windows of their cars as they drove to work, officials said.

 

wow

[TyTass]

Is it proper for a nation to actively engage in assessing the the strengths, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, tendencies, personalities of leaders, etc? Seems painfully obvious to me, but ...

 

All, and I do mean all, nations (with the exception of some in the third world) do so. The alternative is to become completely isolationist and to simply hope no one takes action against your nation or your assets abroad. It means going into every negotiation with other nations (who also aren't open) completely naive as to their intentions, capabilities, etc. It means not being able to know who you can't trust but who you can and more importantly how far. It means being blind.

 

Do really you want to live in a country that doesn't have any secrets? Don't be ridiculous! It won't be your country for very long. The world wars (particularly WWII) taught all modern nations never to be that blind again. Despots and zealots are still out there. The price paid for not knowing what they are capable of has been proved far too high for all of humanity.

 

Should we have an intelligence agency? Let's not be so naive as to through the baby out with the bathwater.

 

All this said, can there be abuses? Yes. Will there continue to be abuses? Yes, most likely! And that is why we in the US have Senate and House oversight committes. If you have no faith in those organizations, well that's another issue entirely.

[azkaisr]

We (Israel/UK/US) just killed another Iranian nuclear scientist. Now while we will never know if this was justified or not, and no government is honest to it's citizens or neighbors, this stuff still happens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11860928

 

snipped from the article:

The scientists were targeted by men on motorbikes who attached bombs to the windows of their cars as they drove to work, officials said.

 

wow

 

Wonder what kind of moto they used?

[philbytx]

Bob,

 

I signed the Official Secrets Act when I worked for HMG.

It was viewed as a serious deal then as it was both a legal document AND you gave your word! I don't remember anyone then or since ever discussing what we worked on or saw. I still don't.....!

 

Perhaps it is generational.....

[Huzband]

We (Israel/UK/US) just killed another Iranian nuclear scientist. Now while we will never know if this was justified or not, and no government is honest to it's citizens or neighbors, this stuff still happens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11860928

 

snipped from the article:

The scientists were targeted by men on motorbikes who attached bombs to the windows of their cars as they drove to work, officials said.

 

wow

 

Wonder what kind of moto they used?

 

Chinese, no doubt.

[Survived-til-now]

Bob,

 

I signed the Official Secrets Act when I worked for HMG.

It was viewed as a serious deal then as it was both a legal document AND you gave your word! I don't remember anyone then or since ever discussing what we worked on or saw. I still don't.....!

 

Perhaps it is generational.....

 

Me too, and sadly there seems to be an idea around that leaking state secrets is somehow OK - all in the cause of Freedom of Information.

 

It paralyses decision-makers and encourages management by committee - a luxury you cannot afford when the bullets start flying.

 

Reading the last few posts on this thread - have you noticed how Avi's assertion that we (US/UK/Israel) were responsible for the assasination has planted in people's heads and become accepted? I'd want proof before I'd accept that statement not an unspecific assertion by the Iranian President - and even then I wouldn't repeat it because it is not helpful to our national interests. For all anyone knows it could have been someone else entirely hoping to pin blame on our countries....

 

No one seems to have noticed the bit in the BBC report that says one of the scientists was in the wrong field of physics for nuclear work (and therefore expendable, so who does that point the finger at?). As for the other scientist - who knows? I sure don't need to know....

 

 

 

 

[pbharvey]

Bob,

 

I signed the Official Secrets Act when I worked for HMG.

It was viewed as a serious deal then as it was both a legal document AND you gave your word! I don't remember anyone then or since ever discussing what we worked on or saw. I still don't.....!

 

Perhaps it is generational.....

 

Two fundamental problems we face. There is no shame in lying or being dishonest. Integrity needs to be part of our culture again.

[Bob Palin]

Bob,

 

I signed the Official Secrets Act when I worked for HMG.

It was viewed as a serious deal then as it was both a legal document AND you gave your word! I don't remember anyone then or since ever discussing what we worked on or saw. I still don't.....!

 

Perhaps it is generational.....

Since this post is addressed to me and several people have referenced it I want to make it clear that I have still not expressed any opinion as to whether leaking the documents was the right thing to do.

 

The truth is I don't know the answer, I understand what Philby is saying, I've signed similar agreements myself (though not the UK Official Secrets since I worked for the USAF). I'm currently under a commercial non-disclosure which I'm careful to comply to. On the other hand when a government becomes so corrupt that its people cannot accept it any more are they not compelled to take action? It seems like that is what happened in 1776.

[Survived-til-now]

Since this post is addressed to me and several people have referenced it I want to make it clear that I have still not expressed any opinion as to whether leaking the documents was the right thing to do.

 

The truth is I don't know the answer, I understand what Philby is saying, I've signed similar agreements myself (though not the UK Official Secrets since I worked for the USAF). I'm currently under a commercial non-disclosure which I'm careful to comply to. On the other hand when a government becomes so corrupt that its people cannot accept it any more are they not compelled to take action? It seems like that is what happened in 1776.

 

Bob

 

It's great that we both live in countries where we are free to express our views or choose to with-hold them. But what are you suggesting? I may have views on our politicians but I sure don't feel I live in a country with a government so corrupt that I would give away state secrets... and as you are referring to 1776 the government to which you refer was in England.... I don't follow your line of thought.

[Bob Palin]

It's great that we both live in countries where we are free to express our views or choose to with-hold them. But what are you suggesting? I may have views on our politicians but I sure don't feel I live in a country with a government so corrupt that I would give away state secrets... and as you are referring to 1776 the government to which you refer was in England.... I don't follow your line of thought.

So if you feel that way the answer for you is easy - leaking the secrets was unjustifiable treason - off with his head. I don't know what the motivation of the leakers was, has Manning said anything about it?

 

My reference to 1776 was for the US crowd who always seem to forget that their country was founded by a revolution that was illegal in the eyes of the then government - they made a decision that the government was evil enough that they needed to overthrow it. And they can't make a "things were different then" argument because they are always harking back to the documents that the revolution produced as being the ultimate truth.

 

So, if you consider that the government is sufficiently corrupt is revolution justifiable? Guy Fawkes thought so and paid the price. Cromwell too.

[Antimatter]

Bob,

 

Perhaps it is generational.....

 

Nonsense. From Daniel Ellsberg and including guys like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen there have been plenty of boomers who've betrayed their government. The difference being that in two of the three cases stated above they did it for cash.

[Survived-til-now]

Thanks for the additional thoughts......

 

I don't have much sympathy (as in none at all really) with servicemen who take an oath of alleigance and then break it... If the perpetrator can argue he was being made to do something illegal then that is different because servicemen have it drummed into them that mere "orders" is not sufficient for a defence....

 

It seems to me that your line of reasoning hinges on the "greater good" and if that were the motivation then it is going to be hard to defend the sheer scale of the release and the time-period covered by the documents.....

 

In the meantime, I haven't yet seen anything that is particularly shocking once you pare away the press hype.... perhaps the real stuff is yet to come?

 

On a separate line of thought though - surely Wikileaks is in receipt of stolen material and is an accessory to a crime?

[Bob Palin]

On a separate line of thought though - surely Wikileaks is in receipt of stolen material and is an accessory to a crime?

Wikileaks central hosting is in Sweden where the law prevents the government from asking about journalistic sources.

 

We should not forget that WikiLeaks is not specifically an anti-US/UK organization, they have released an enormous amount of information from dissidents in China, about government massacres in Africa, hushed up bank failures in Iceland etc etc.

[philbytx]

I DID say perhaps .....and the generational reference was, in part, a nod to the Twittering, Texting, "bare all" and "15 minutes of shame/fame" culture in which we are all currently enmeshed.

 

No shame and limited accountability is a sad mix

[Twisties]

On a separate line of thought though - surely Wikileaks is in receipt of stolen material and is an accessory to a crime?

 

There generally seems to be a large distinction between those leaking government data, and those publishing it here in the US. Analysis I've read suggests that legal scholars feel that publishers have never been prosecuted, that they are protected by our constitution, and that the courts are very unlikely to uphold any action against them, including WikiLeaks. Much question as to whether WikiLeaks has even broken any US law at all. Reports that the Justice Deptartment is at wits end trying to figure out how to move against them.

 

Since US government info is not copyrighted, I don't know if theft actually applies in the normal sense. Such data is protected by the other laws regarding it, and there seems to be little doubt that whoever released it can be held accountable. Not likely for treason though. Never the less, I think the releaser(s) will potentially face long sentences, should a case against them result in a conviction.

 

 

[Motodan]

There is no drama here, we all know there is more and less to every story. We all know everyone has multiple faces and say/do what is in our best interest as it is needed. We all, peasants and kings a like, have different opinions and state different views when the cameras aren't rolling...so what?

[yabadabapal]

The thing that I am watching closely is the forthcoming cooperative global reaction to this issue. As far as what is in those leaks, I have no idea but my sense is that these classified docs for the most part are not top priority and that all parties involved or quoted are equally guilty of global political posturing and they all know it. The real drama that has yet to unfold I believe is going to be a Global Information Control Agreement (GICA) which will be to some degree one of the first realizations to limit global information to the world wide web as a means of controlling information, and equally controlling and limiting reaction. China and other countries are evidence of this to a much broader spectrum. Joe Lieberman in fact along with some members of congress called Amazon to request that Amazon stop serving as a host and of course Amazon Immediately dropped wikileaks from their host servers. My ultimate concern is not about the wikileaks event but about the reaction and implementation of global guidelines and strategies to control information on a subtle and continuous basis.

[Selden]

Much question as to whether WikiLeaks has even broken any US law at all. Reports that the Justice Deptartment is at wits end trying to figure out how to move against them.

If any statute applies, it would seem to be the very broad Espionage Act of 1917. Applying it to Private Manning should be fairly easy, but it's difficult for me to see how the legal system extends this to a citizen of Australia. Unless, somehow, we can twist the arms of the Australians, as apparently was done with the Spanish legal system (for completely different reasons ).

[Antimatter]

The thing that I am watching closely is the forthcoming cooperative global reaction to this issue. As far as what is in those leaks, I have no idea but my sense is that these classified docs for the most part are not top priority and that all parties involved or quoted are equally guilty of global political posturing and they all know it. The real drama that has yet to unfold I believe is going to be a Global Information Control Agreement (GICA) which will be to some degree one of the first realizations to limit global information to the world wide web as a means of controlling information, and equally controlling and limiting reaction. China and other countries are evidence of this to a much broader spectrum. Joe Lieberman in fact along with some members of congress called Amazon to request that Amazon stop serving as a host and of course Amazon Immediately dropped wikileaks from their host servers. My ultimate concern is not about the wikileaks event but about the reaction and implementation of global guidelines and strategies to control information on a subtle and continuous basis.

 

There's no need for a global agreement when you can do through economic coercion. The relationships between government and big corporations are so blurred that it's easy for the political will of one to become the economic reality of another. A good example of this would be the US government's use of it's regulatory power to prosecute Qwest when it refused to play ball with the NSA. In most cases the big corps will go along with repressive and intrusive government policies if it lets them have access to lucrative markets (think Google & China).

 

So a standing US Senator using his authority of the government to intimidate a private entity is nothing new.

[Dennis Andress]

Professionally, this sucks. Personally, I have to wonder about the morality of releasing information that would likely cause harm to others.

 

Traditionally Espionage has resulted in one political entity being compromised by another. The scale of the information released by Wikileaks has compromised so many governments it is unlikely that any will gain an advantage over another. Diplomacy could suffer though, as some of the compromised states are isolationist by nature, and may feel weakened or threatened.

[plext]

Applying it to Private Manning should be fairly easy, but it's difficult for me to see how the legal system extends this to a citizen of Australia. Unless, somehow, we can twist the arms of the Australians, as apparently was done with the Spanish legal system (for completely different reasons ).

I don't think that that twist would have to be overtly robust.

 

The government here announced earlier in the week that it is investigating which, if any Australian laws have been broken.

 

I suspect that they are somewhat upset by the release of this information because it highlights the fact that nobody in the rest of the world really cares what the Australian government thinks.

 

Not sure why that upsets them, certainly nobody here has been interested in their views for quite some time.