New Wikileaks Dump is Unconscionable

As of last April WikiLeaks had relesed 10 million pages of information.

I must confess that I have not read all the pages yet.



Right, what movie star is dating what other movie star is newsworthy but there will be nothing newsworthy in 250,000 State Department cables.

I don't think Wikileaks or anybody else has read this stuff yet.

Don't blame Wikileaks for what the media thinks is newsworthy.

Basically this comes down to do you trust or do you distrust. If you trust you don't mind people knowing your information and you don't mind the government and everybody else keeping their information secret.

I don't respect or trust US foreign policy but you do respect and trust US foreign policy.

Wikileaks does not leak information; Wikileaks makes information that other people have decided should be leaked accessible to the rest of us.

The US government is not the only organization who's actions wikileaks enables us to know about.






I don't think Wikileaks has enough money to read most of what they release.

If you want to shut down WikiLeaks you might as well shut down the whole media and we should convict everybody who tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of espionage for giving exposing peoples secrets.

You're living in a fantasy world if you truly believe Assange's goal is not US-centric.

Rather than fixating on the technologists such as Assange

Difficult not to do, given that Assange goes out of his way to be fixated upon.


people like Brad Manning who offer their lives in the service of truth. But Manning is a hero that no Rambo movie will likely applaud. Give thanks and support to this lowly enlistee, if you understand his sacrifice. Bradly Manning has given his freedom for yours.

Oh, find me a bucket I think I'm going to be sick. You truly believe Manning believes in "truth". That his violations of his oath and his bond with his fellow servicemen is about some higher purpose? Come on...
 
Idealism is by its nature incompatible with practicality.
Everything that we have gained in the quality of human life in the last 10,000 years is based on practical applications of Idealism. It seems that science created the prosperity but to motivate engineering first criminality had to be stopped to create an environment in which people get to keep the proceed of their labor.

The law and order people think they are the force that stops criminality. They are wrong, they are just mindlessly ritualistic people who enforce obedience to convention and authority. The law and order people never stopped accepted forms of criminality; only idealists do that. It was idealism that stopped the criminality that is natural among animals but which disables large investment in engineering and tools.

All politics - everywhere, at all time and scopes - is a dialectic comprised of a realist/practical/economic component and an idealist/ideological/moralist component. It is not possible, even in theory, for either component to "triumph" over the other in any permanent, complete sense. And this is a good thing, for such is not desirable: it would represent the total breakdown of politics and so be fatal to human organization.

The desirable thing is for the dialectic to produce useful outcomes by checking the assumptions of idealists and impelling the realists to higher causes.

We don't need criminality as a balance to idealism. We need competition as a balance to idealism because idealism tends to impose it's theories on people while competition Imposes the result of what is essentially a scientific experiment as the trial and error of competition is superior to theory at revealing certain types of truths.

The difference between criminality and competition can get confusing. the Ten Commandments was a good start but situations arose in which the Ten Commandments failed to show the edge between criminality and competition.

Jesus sought to clarify this with ‘"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: y‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 zOn these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Love leads to the desire to alleviate suffering which is the foundation of idealism. "God" trumps law and is a stand in for "everything" and includes the future generations but "God" is not necessary for idealism.

Force is needed because people chose criminality over the idealism that Jesus taught. Using love to understand the ten Commandments make their meaning clearer but still does not eliminate the unclarity of the boundary between competition and criminality.

People are selfish and power hungry and self deluded and neither Jesus nor Communism can construct a world without human character flaws. Greed motivates and motivation is good. Competition lets the efficient or correct techniques grow and kills the inefficient and incorrect techniques therefore competition is good even though the losers feel bad do to their own hurt pride. Jesus and Buddha warned about pride.

How to tell competition from criminality? In this complex economy this question is more important than ever. I think I found the answer. Using your own strengths is competition. Using somebody else's weaknesses is criminality. The distinction between using your own strengths and using somebody else's weaknesses can be very subtle at times but I think it holds up.

A lot of currently legal and accepted practices would become criminal by my definition.

If you are fighting with criminals should you refrain from using criminal tactics? Maybe not but you should at least know you are using criminal practices when you are using criminal tactics. If my country wants to use criminal tactics then I want my country to do so openly. We voters need the option to decide on a case by case basis whether our nations use of criminal tactics is justified and whether our country is serving us the people or is serving special interests who have hijacked the government. This government secrecy is a danger to democracy and promotes criminality by eliminating the punishment of government criminality.

The secrecy costs more than it is worth.
 
What is your oath, countezero?

What do you value and serve, higher than truth?

his violations of his oath and his bond with his fellow servicemen is about some higher purpose?

Yes. I think so.
 
countezero said:
As a former journalist, I can get behind the theory of wikileaks, too. The problem is in the practice. I took pains to avoid gossip-journalism when I was on the job, and that's beginning to feel like what this entire effort really is. What "good" is really being advanced here? Bells points to four cases from the Iraq leaks, to which I would say, if Assange gave two fucks about justice and seeing it carried out, he would have highlighted those examples when he turned them over to the Media to put pressue of military.

Instead, he dumped the documents and highlighted the dubious helicopter attack, because that's more sexy, right?
My general problem with Assange and Wikileaks is that they tout proudly how they like to crush bastards, but they never put the asterisk next to that statement to indicate that they only crush bastards when it's convenient for them to do so. Their so called "investigative" reporting has been nothing short of abysmal. They luck into stuff, and post said stuff. That's about all I gather. Sometimes we get absurdly pretentious statements on their site about how 'AMERICANS LEARNED GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER LIED, TOO BAD EVERYONE ELSE AFTER HIM LIED, HUH AMERICANS?'

There's a general sense I get from their exploits that they think they are doing something that is unquestionably a service to the world, but they don't seem to show a whole lot of care or understanding of the potential ramifications of certain leaks. They treat it as though they're getting one over on people they just don't like, under the assumption they've "beaten" the bad guys and saved the day, but they haven't beaten anybody, they've saved no one, and shit goes on regardless of whatever they post. It does look pretty self-serving when viewed from afar.

countezero said:
As I've already argued, I have even more of a problem with this latest batch, which so far as I can tell, has absolutely no news value whatsoever. It's simply interesting in the way gossip is interesting -- and, as I already mentioned, it lets the usual crowd bang on about their favorite topics. Nothing like the public good is being achieved and the rhetorical cartwheels people like the NYT's Bill Keller are undertaking to attempt to justify publication are beginning to defy gravity. Keller's comments last night on NPR amounted to this is "history in real time" and we have a right to publish so we publish. Not terribly powerful is it?
It seems pretty unlikely that Wikileaks is going to continue to be able to leak high caliber classified data after this. All of this came from one guy, from "Collateral Murder", through the War Logs, and now this. Once it's used up, there will likely be no further major leaks. Wikileaks doesn't have a future fighting the imperialist power, they have a moment in the spotlight exposing its dirty laundry. I'm sure they will get pieces of things here and there, but I highly, highly doubt they will ever get information as significant as this again, or anything even close.

countezero said:
Oh, find me a bucket I think I'm going to be sick.
This is the correct response to pretty much everything hypewaders posts.

iceaura said:
As far as the diplomatic dump, it will of course interfere with sound and beneficial diplomacy in many ways, and that is a serious cost. But the situation obtaining is not easily dismissed as justification - exposure of great evils being perpetrated under cover of illegitimate secrecy, concealed by being wrapped in various flags and patriotic dissemblings, is a difficult matter, and worth a high price.
What kind of "great evils" do you think will be subverted by the release of this information? I think we'll see a some ruffled feathers and awkward political maneuvering, but then it will die down, and life will go on as scheduled.
 
It seems pretty unlikely that Wikileaks is going to continue to be able to leak high caliber classified data after this. All of this came from one guy, from "Collateral Murder", through the War Logs, and now this. Once it's used up, there will likely be no further major leaks.

Thats an incredibly naive statement - I predict you will see more leaks not less as data becomes increasingly easier to compress and save in binary. And while it may be possible to arrest those who are within the jurisdiction of the US, what are the Americans going to do with all the Chinese and Indian hackers out there?
 
Difficult not to do, given that Assange goes out of his way to be fixated upon.

How so?

He announces a document dump and then goes back into hiding. He rarely gives interviews and he stays out of the limelight.

Sooooo, how does he go out of his way to be fixated upon?

People are making this about Assange. It's not about him or his co-founders at Wikileaks (yes, he's not the only one). But people concentrate on him instead of the documents he has released.

Instead of reading the documents, they are too busy complaining about his releasing them.. Then harping on about democracy, etc. They were careful this time. They made sure they took out the names and they also ensured the US Government and other Governments knew months in advance about the release. But hey, that's all beside the point, isn't it? Shoot the messager instead of looking at the message itself. :shrug:
 
But people concentrate on him instead of the documents he has released

He could not release anything without those who leak the information to him from the inside. He is only the messenger
 
You're living in a fantasy world if you truly believe Assange's goal is not US-centric.

No, you are living in a fantasy world if you think Assange's goal is US-centric other than the fact that the US is everywhere. This is about democracy and freedom. I can relate to Assange and you can't so which one of us is more likely to understand his motives?

The US government is both democracy's biggest friend and democracy's biggest enemy.


From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan

When I try to question him (Assange) about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

From Wikileaks about wikileaks
3.2 The importance of principled leaking to journalism, good government and a healthy society

Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better. It can alter the course of history in the present, and it can lead us to a better future.

Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the American people about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practised by their own government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon Papers shocks the world, exposes the government lying and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of both American and Vietnamese lives.

The power of principled leaking to call governments, corporations and institutions to account is amply demonstrated through recent history. The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance.

Today, with authoritarian governments in power in much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever. WikiLeaks interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, as a media publisher WikiLeaks relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice.

With its anonymous drop box, WikiLeaks provides an avenue for every government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to damning information that their institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world. It is telling that a number of government agencies in different countries (and indeed some entire countries) have tried to ban access to WikiLeaks. This is of course a silly response, akin to the ostrich burying its head in the sand. A far better response would be to behave in more ethical ways.

Authoritarian governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even periodic elections, but of something far stronger - the consciences of the people within them.
3.3 Should the press really be free?

In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

The ruling stated that "paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."

It is easy to perceive the connection between publication and the complaints people make about publication. But this generates a perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the invisible. It overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to publish and it overlooks all those who are emancipated by a climate of free speech. Such a climate is a motivating force for governments and corporations to act justly. If acting in a just manner is easier than acting in an unjust manner, most actions will be just.

Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring down administrations that rely on concealing reality from their own citizens.

It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.

Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.

Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:

1. The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
2. All power issues from a central committee.
3. There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
4. Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
5. There is no freedom of speech.
6. There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women is often forbidden without approval.
7. The economy is centrally planned.
8. There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
9. The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
10. There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of Information Act is unimaginable.
11. Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.

While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand, many of these multi-national corporations have nothing like their quality of civic freedoms and protections. This is even more striking when the regional civic laws the company operates under are weak (such as in West Papua, many African states or even South Korea); there, the character of these corporate tyrannies is unregulated by their civilizing surroundings.

Through governmental corruption, political influence, or manipulation of the judicial system, abusive corporations are able to gain control over the defining element of government the sole right to deploy coercive force.

Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a menace to all inside and outside it. Corporations will behave more ethically if the world is watching closely. WikiLeaks has exposed unethical plans and behaviour in corporations and this as resulted in recompense or other forms of justice forms of justice for victims.
 
In my personal opinion, this is one gigantic dis-information campaign. I don't understand how the Government can immediately shut down websites when they're illegally posting copy-written material, but they appear helpless when their alleged classified dirty laundry is being aired on the "internets"?.
 
Thats an incredibly naive statement - I predict you will see more leaks not less as data becomes increasingly easier to compress and save in binary. And while it may be possible to arrest those who are within the jurisdiction of the US, what are the Americans going to do with all the Chinese and Indian hackers out there?
I was speaking of Wikileaks specifically.

I'd wager all else will remain the same, though. Technology doesn't factor much in high profile compromises like the one Manning pulled off. Just because the Internet exists now doesn't mean their frequency will increase. It happens only once in a while, when one of the literally tens of thousands of people with access to the information decides to go off the reservation. The damage is done, the furor blows over, and security practices improve accordingly. Look into the story of the Walker spy ring sometime. The fallout of its discovery was the DoD completely overhauling its COMSEC guidelines as well as a crash development of newer and massively improved crypto gear. You can bet something similar is already underway within the DoD today. Manning is this war's John Walker. He'll probably serve the rest of his life for his antics, too.
 
More on topic: the military is purely for the losers of life. People who feed from the public trough because they couldn't cut it in their real, everday lives.

Not necessarily. A lot of guys I grew up with who came from upper-middle-class families joined the marines. Now granted, none of these gentleman were exactly college material either, more like thrill seekers looking to "blow shit up".

As for my personal experience, I was going to enter the Airforce, I went through the recruitment process all the way up to M.E.P.S. And let me tell you, like 99% of the recruits who were there looked like they grew up on the other side of the tracks if you know what I mean. With that being said, a lot of those down trodden looking recruits scored extremely high on the ASVAB.
 
My general problem with Assange and Wikileaks is that they tout proudly how they like to crush bastards, but they never put the asterisk next to that statement to indicate that they only crush bastards when it's convenient for them to do so. Their so called "investigative" reporting has been nothing short of abysmal. They luck into stuff, and post said stuff. That's about all I gather.

Yes, as journalism. It's shoddy. No analysis. No context. No sense of scale or propriety. But then as you go on to note, the "dump" is all that matters to them, isn't it? That is why I have said from the beginning that this is little more than cheap activism built on flawed thinking and that these people are not really capable of the high-minded moralizing others are trying to give them credit for.

There's a general sense I get from their exploits that they think they are doing something that is unquestionably a service to the world, but they don't seem to show a whole lot of care or understanding of the potential ramifications of certain leaks. They treat it as though they're getting one over on people they just don't like, under the assumption they've "beaten" the bad guys and saved the day, but they haven't beaten anybody, they've saved no one, and shit goes on regardless of whatever they post. It does look pretty self-serving when viewed from afar.

Sure, there is a lot of puerile "us against them" behind wikileaks, and this comes from Assange's background as a hacker. He's a kind of anarchist, fighting the man. Nothing more. Throw his obvious love of the limelight and you really do lose the grand scale people want to believe is there.

It seems pretty unlikely that Wikileaks is going to continue to be able to leak high caliber classified data after this. All of this came from one guy, from "Collateral Murder", through the War Logs, and now this. Once it's used up, there will likely be no further major leaks. Wikileaks doesn't have a future fighting the imperialist power, they have a moment in the spotlight exposing its dirty laundry. I'm sure they will get pieces of things here and there, but I highly, highly doubt they will ever get information as significant as this again, or anything even close.

I cannot remember who, but someone commented that it seems like the stuff is being parceled out for dramatic effect and that the well is indeed running dry. Whether all this pub encourages another lackluster govt. or military employee to attempt another theft remains to be seen, though. But yeah, I tend to think that this has a limited horizon -- and we're already seeing a huge downgrade in the usefulness of material. This latest dump is completely un-newsworthy, except in terms I've already mentioned.

No, you are living in a fantasy world if you think Assange's goal is US-centric other than the fact that the US is everywhere. This is about democracy and freedom. I can relate to Assange and you can't so which one of us is more likely to understand his motives?

The US government is both democracy's biggest friend and democracy's biggest enemy.

Assange claims he swung an election in Kenya? That's hysterical...

How so?

He announces a document dump and then goes back into hiding. He rarely gives interviews and he stays out of the limelight.

Sooooo, how does he go out of his way to be fixated upon?

Oh, come on Bells.

Every time there is a "dump" of information he is all over the news. Interviews with him are even posted in this thread. And Nirakar has him claiming he swung elections. The Ego of this man is tremendous.
 
I was speaking of Wikileaks specifically.

I'd wager all else will remain the same, though. Technology doesn't factor much in high profile compromises like the one Manning pulled off. Just because the Internet exists now doesn't mean their frequency will increase. It happens only once in a while, when one of the literally tens of thousands of people with access to the information decides to go off the reservation. The damage is done, the furor blows over, and security practices improve accordingly. Look into the story of the Walker spy ring sometime. The fallout of its discovery was the DoD completely overhauling its COMSEC guidelines as well as a crash development of newer and massively improved crypto gear. You can bet something similar is already underway within the DoD today. Manning is this war's John Walker. He'll probably serve the rest of his life for his antics, too.

I think the technology factor is very important because the generation that is growing up now is a tech savvy generation. And I'm not referring only to the west but to all the Asians and Arabs and Africans who have joined the geek squad. I predict information will become harder to keep inviolate, as more players jump into the foray. Speaking of wikileaks specifically, Assange is but the messenger, the real gold miners are the ones who go in there and get the data out. There will always be an Assange out there.
 
A few observations about wikileaks.

1. It actually doesn't make the Americans spooks and diplomats look too bad. They are only as duplicitous as you would expect a secret service to be.
Nothing is coming out along the lines of "Let's use Europe, and then nuke them"
Has anyone been surprised at anything revealed so far?

2. Far from making a war with Iran less likely, I think that if Iran persist on their current track, the secrets revealed will make a war more justifiable.

3. Why isn't the person responsible for this site being arrested as a traitor?
Is he/she in hiding?
 
echo said:
There's a general sense I get from their exploits that they think they are doing something that is unquestionably a service to the world, but they don't seem to show a whole lot of care or understanding of the potential ramifications of certain leaks. They treat it as though they're getting one over on people they just don't like, under the assumption they've "beaten" the bad guys and saved the day, but they haven't beaten anybody, they've saved no one, and shit goes on regardless of whatever they post. It does look pretty self-serving when viewed from afar.
The inflated sense of self-importance and lack of acknowledgement of harm I can see, no doubt they have many character flaws. But the "self-serving" is a bit strange. Are you not avoiding acknowledgment of the risks run, the penalties likely, the actual consequences to these guys deliberately chosen by them instead of easier alternatives?
echo said:
What kind of "great evils" do you think will be subverted by the release of this information? I think we'll see a some ruffled feathers and awkward political maneuvering, but then it will die down, and life will go on as scheduled.
That's of course quite possible, if by "life" you mean the current course of industrial geopolitical conflict and maneuvering.

But is that what you would prefer? Is that what you favor? Or do you as many others hope that this wrench tossing will catch hold in some more consequential part of the works?
count said:
Yes, as journalism. It's shoddy. No analysis. No context. No sense of scale or propriety
It's information, not reportage. It's factual. It's not deceptive, not framed.

That puts it ahead of the apparent information base of the majority of US major media "journalism", right there, before the "journalism" has even begun. If the real journalists want to start doing some analysis and context provisioning, they are welcome to begin at any time.

Starting with public corrections and reframings of their former efforts, which will be a bit embarrassing possibly - if they are capable of embarrassment any more.
Kremmen said:
Has anyone been surprised at anything revealed so far?
A good deal of US media conventional wisdom, and many expressed opinions here, have been contradicted by this stuff. Whether that has "surprised" anyone depends on personal circumstance, one would suppose.

For an example of the kinds of frames these leaks threaten:
kremmen said:
3. Why isn't the person responsible for this site being arrested as a traitor?
Traitor to whom?
 
That puts it ahead of the apparent information base of the majority of US major media "journalism", right there, before the "journalism" has even begun. If the real journalists want to start doing some analysis and context provisioning, they are welcome to begin at any time.

Starting with public corrections and reframings of their former efforts, which will be a bit embarrassing possibly - if they are capable of embarrassment any more.

I'm not arguing with you about journalism. It's a waste of time.

But information for information's sake is not always a good thing. Hence, the word discretion. It's not hard to imagine a million personal circumstances that illustrate exactly what I am talking about. That the seriousness and importance of discretion becomes more elevated when we're talking about matters of state, security and war seems obvious.

Ultimately, this is all a bit like policymaking, and policymaking was once famously compared to making sausage. It's an ugly process with some rather dubious ingredients, making sausage. But doesn't it taste good?

A good deal of US media conventional wisdom, and many expressed opinions here, have been contradicted by this stuff.

Like what?

I see no major perception challenged, other than the already discredited notion that the US alone is for tackling Iran. And nothing here surprised me. Oh, I paused at the biometric stuff ... for about five seconds. Then I remembered diplomats have been building dossiers on each other for years. That it's 2010 and biometrics are now included, no doubt for espionage purposes, should surprise no one.

All of which makes the faux rage I saw vented into the five minutes of CNN I happened to overhear in a bar all the more laughable.

Traitor to whom?

By any definition, the army chum who stole these documents violated his service oath and at least half a dozen legal statutes I can think of. I imagine he will get some serious time when he is tried, and rightfully so. Then, of course, there are the ethical and moral issues of his behavior.
 
I think everything must be in the open. And I know how naive is that.

Is it just me or this issue has the potential of getting bigger than 9/11 for US?
 
No, my impression is that it will have a small negative effect on the US in a few countries, and a larger positive one in other countries.
Many thought the US was far more evil than this.

It may surprise people living in the US, but you have replaced Russia and China in many country's minds as an aggressor and a threat to peace in the world.

In fact, I will predict some people asserting that the US is releasing these documents itself.

When I say traitor, isn't the man running this site an American Citizen?

Isn't revealing secret documents an offence in the US?

If he was British, I would want him in prison.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top