Whoever sent the documents to wikileaks has almost certainly committed treason, and the almost is just in there because there are times when an organisation may want to say something without being held responsible.

Another interesting facet is to question what right does Julian Assange to decide what people should or should not hear? (as an aside, he sounds like a Bond villian)

The release of the data is both a 'big fucking deal' and not the end of the world.

The problem with releasing specific documents is that wikileaks doesn't have the context for some of the stuff they're going to release - so while the information in a specific set of docs may not mean anything to the person reviewing it, it may allow intelligence sources to be identified, with lethal consequences to them. This will make it less likely that someone will be willing to work with the CIA or the like in the future, which could be pretty huge if that's the spy that could have confirmed that country X just gave Al Quaida bioweapons or the like.

Regarding the whole 'embarrassment' thing, it'll blow over. If there's a cable where the US Ambassador is saying that the leader of Country Y is acting like a dick, it's not exactly going to be a shocking revelation to Country Y

It may be that we Brits will only find out about the contents of this from the internet (at least initially) - the government has issued a D-notice to all of the press.

A D-notice (or DA notice) is a "request" to the press not to publish something (see http://order-order.com/ and search down for D-Notice).

Regardless of how you feel about the other releases, this one definitely shouldn't happen because apparently it's mostly diplomatic information. If there's one thing that requires secrecy and discretion to work it's diplomacy. The great irony is that by releasign this information, even if it's pretty shady stuff, Assange is discouraging ALL forms of diplomatic discussion between countries since nobody's gonna want to negotiate on serious issues if it turns out that their positions are going to be published for the world to see in a year or so rather than fifty years (if at all).

All in all, it's an awful idea.

I actually kind of hate wikileaks. They haven't done a whole lot of good in their run.

The idea that nothing should be classified is fucking ludicrous imo

@Invictus - I agree that this information shouldn't be released. But how the hell was one junior member of staff able to (allegedly) access and COPY this stuff in the first place. How stupid was it of the powers that be to allow this sort of thing to happen?

In the UK, simple physical security of the pc (only allowing physical access to the screen, keyboard and mouse and not the floppy disk drive or USB ports) prevents this sort of thing happening (mostly, there's hard-of-thinking-management everywhere of course - especially in our tax offices).

The Wikileaks website itself is currently suffering a DDoS attack, but wikileaks say that several newspapers already have the information, so even if the site goes down the stories will still come out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858637

(Oh dear - Der Spigel just released some of the material - Hillary Clinton and the King of Saudi Arabia are going to be embarrassed.)

@Invictus - i find a lot people are worried about what will happen if "someone" is offended by "our private club's" internal decisions or discussions.

Well if you're not proud of what you're doing I say stop doing it. I don't see why my private club shouldn't be willing to state publically what they think/do.

Now sure a country representing the will of a people and their national interest is not a private club - everyone gets forced into being a member or 'citizen' by default - but there is no reason they shouldn't be held to the same standard.

The only case where information should remain private is when it would endanger a person right to a fair trial - cause, at least in this juridiction, if the trial isn't fair you can't be convicted. So, for example, if the media is reporting that you killed some guy, even if they are correct, everyone now believesd you killed the guy, so there is no jury who can fairly try you...

I stand firm in the belief that you shouldn't have been such dicks in the first place.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works, orthaic.

No i don't, I know that practically the world would work differently if everything everyone said was public.

This is not how the world currently works, but i can see no reason why the SHOULD be the case.

Read the New York Times article on the leaks. It's pretty shocking. I would bet that this set of leaks will be the most damaging since it's far and away the most approachable. The previous ones were data on stuff like specific military encounters and other technical data which only elites and wonks would be seriously interested in. Also they weren't that surprising. Here you have the King of Saudi Arabia saying the President of Pakistan has a rotten head and details of a secret plan for the United States to "steal" Pakistan's nuclear material. That's much, much easier for the press to latch on to.

Pfc. Bradley Manning must be getting real nervous in his cell. All these leaks create nothing but instability in international relations and now that they're in the popular press it's likely that the stories will do real damage to even the sound parts of American foreign policy. I mean, shouldn't there be a plan to take Pakistan's nukes in case there's a crisis and they're about to be captured by terrorists?

They've scapegoated a 20-something year-old Private for the downloading the leak. For downloading?? Who the heck was in charge of the "secure" server?

"Scapegoated" is hardly the right word here. There's pretty strong evidence he's the one who downloaded the data and gave it to Wikileaks. I'm sure his superiors are in some hot water themselves, but this kid almost certainly was the one actually turning over these documents and therefore needs to face justice.

Uploading or not securing the information in the first place is the bigger crime.

Scapegoating is a perfect word.

Punishing him for a crime he committed is scapegoating? Holding him accountable for his actions is scapegoating?

Not securing the information might not actually be a crime, but releasing it certainly is.

If you don't know what scapegoating is, you should use a dictionary.

Scapegoat - a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scapegoat

Who needs a dictionary?

The person(s) that released classified information to people not authorized to receive it, committed a serious crime, possibly even treason and should be punished for it.

The person(s) that failed to properly secure data, should be punished for failing in their job/duty, but that is not necessarily a criminal offense. Loss in rank, position, salary and such would seem appropriate.

But that doesn't change what the first person did. If a person leaves their bike unlocked, that doesn't make it okay to steal the bike.

The biggest issue in the confidential diplomatic information to be released next week is that diplomacy information like that is quite delicate. Other than old military material released before this will really lead to problems. Military material, as horrible it might be, is known to be direct and inhumane. Noone who is sane really ecpected something different. But confidential diplomatic material is something totally different. Every diplomat knows that these materials exist, everyone knows that these might be pretty harsh but nevertheless everyone who is a ally wants to be seen as a friend, not as a idiot. Even if he is a idiot or at least acts alike. Noone, especially in big scenarios, wants to be backstabbed although backstabbing is part of the game in real world diplomacy as well. The damage that will be caused by this material will take years to be fixed. And I'm pretty sure the US administration is quite furious about that.
Julian Assange and other Wikileaks guys should better look out for a very good place to hide if they go on to do what they do without compromise. Not that I don't appreciate their work but they really start to risk their lifes here. Not that I would assume the actual US goverment would kill them but I guess there are a lot of people within the administrative and espionage institutions that would plus everyone would point to the US if something would happen to them. So this might be an option to attack the reputation of the US for its opponents as well...

Let mossad handle 'em. No more wikileaks.

transparency is the highest value any organization can aspire to. Mr. Assange is doing a great service to humanity.

It's sad that you're that naive.

So are you completely transparent in your game communications? Or do you deceive others to get what you want? And would you like all your diplomes to be out there for everyone to see? Then why should the NSA, CIS, MI6, Mossad, and other intelligence srvices as well as our diplomats release everything they say or learn to the world?

@Ernst_Brenner-They were protecting themselves against the wrong enemy and the "scapegoat" probably wanted notoriety, within the hacker community. Now he's gonna get it in the neck, but so should his (so called) superiors. When it came to computer security, they were insufficiently paranoid.

@Alderian-Doubtless his superiors *will* get it in the neck (they'll probably try to scapegoat somebody else too).

@Draugnar-They say the ability to hold two opposing views in your mind at the same time is a sign of mental maturity - I think that what wikileaks has done today is a bad thing, but I also think that the fact that it was able to acquire, hold onto and publish this information, even though the most powerful government in the world wanted it stopped, is a good thing. Why? Because if the conspiracy theorist were correct, Julian Assanga and his cohorts would have been made to disappear long ago.

I'm not so naive as to think that my government hasn't been and isn't involved in some stupid scary shit (SSS) at my expense that I would prefer to know about, be able to protest, and if possible prosecute. There is absolutely nothing my government could do that I don't want to know about. You don't think it's possible to live without secrets? Shame you are so cynical invictus.

You're right Draug. Let's do away with all those organizations. I don't consider the game of Diplomacy to be a metaphor for real life or real organizations. I think using transparency is a reasonable and admirable and even effective strategy for playing the game, but it is just a game and as when playing any game, I try to follow the spirit and letter of the rules.

Invictus, is there ever a prosecutorial account you don't swallow hook, line, and sinker? Unless you're on one of the legal teams involved in this case, you have no idea whether the case is strong, weak, or fraudulent. All you know is what was leaked, ironically enough.

my two cents...

freedom of speach is very important in a democracy providing it is used responsibly. The analogy oft quoted is that one should not shout fire ina crowded cinema, freedom of speech should be restricted if lives are put at risk. Howver, from what I've seen so far the wikileaks do not put lives at risk directly, they embarrass various people, but fear of embarrassment shouldn't be a good reason to restruct freedom of speech.


With regards the arguement about who decides what could or couldn't be construed as putting lives at risk, i think the papers and wikileaks should redact anything which puts individuals at risk or face tough sanctions, however the authorities shouldn't claim that the leaking of the Saudi King's comments could put lives at risk. I;m pretty sure that the Iranians probably already know what the neighbours think of them.

"Howver, from what I've seen so far the wikileaks do not put lives at risk directly" [sic]

I know they claim to have sanitised the Afghanistan intel, but as I understand it, it was still possible to piece sections together and thus work out the identity of some informants. These peoples lives are now in grave danger.

I agree most heartily Maniac, it is depressing reading some of the posts above, seems a lot of people have bought the US governments disingenuous line that wikileaks is putting lives at risk rather than embarrassing the hell out the US government. Im sure wikileaks is coming im for a bashing on FOX etc right now, they like Invictus will sallow this national security trumps all line. The funny thing is that later on, say a year has passed and wikileaks does the same thing to some Russian or Chinese documents those same people and media groups bashing them now will be praising them for fighting the good fight for freedom and shining a torch on evil doers deeds.