I can agree the military/State Dept can and does over classify documents. I can agree the best solution is tighten up security and avoid future leaks, though I am not sure how we could ever achieve 100 percent prevention. Of course, the private who allegedly stole the documents should be prosecuted.

It is common practice in the military to classify an entire document if it contains even one line of classified information. It's either that or publish two documents and force the user to flip back and forth between docs that can never be filed together. Flipping back and forth is cumbersome and confusing for a technician doing, for instance, maintenance on a nuclear weapon system.

@Nova: I, too, carried a top secret clearance for more than 20 years. Two points: (1) The spies assuming a fact is far different from having that fact confirmed in detail by an official document.... best to leave an element of doubt. (2) The Guardian and other publishers do not have the authority to determine what is classified and what is not. Neither do they have the whole picture and sometimes a group of seemingly insignificant information when assembled as a whole becomes classified. Redacting names and places is a responsible action, but may be insufficient.

Morally and ethically, publishers should not be publishing information that can undermine national defense and put lives at risk.

In this instance, the victim of the theft was the US State Department, a victim that is not going to get a lot of sympathy from anybody. When the victim becomes an individual who is not a public figure, where is the protection for the individual? Are they fair game simply because the documents/images stolen from them are entertaining?

.
Entertaining? Hardly!
In my opinion the most shocking thing about the US Wikilieaks documents is how poorly written they are.
.

I've been defending Assange from prosecution in this thread because I'm a very strong believer in free speech and an open Internet even when it is occasionally abused. There is an overwhelming tendency among governments today to shoot the messenger by any means, fair or foul, usually in the name of "security". That is not to say, however, that I think Assange is a good guy; on the contrary, I regard his publication of this material as both egotistical (i.e., he knows what's best) and irresponsible (how can he possibly know what bits and pieces might, in fact, be dangerous).

Take the national defense issue out of what Assange is doing and my concerns pretty much go away. But I continue to think/hope/pray that as these situations develop into policy, the individual is not left to the mercy of "everything is fair game, private or not, stolen or not." I don't think that was ever the intent of free speech or censorship and would represent a loss of individual rights.

@Artic: Alas, our diplomats are likely US educated, and they are politically appointed. What can I say?:)

Now here's a joke: U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

Here's what Julian Assange has to say for himself in the Australian: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

I love the bit about Sarah Palin saying he should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden". If that's the case then he is pretty safe given their ineptitude on that task.

This is exactly what free speech is about. The person delivering the message doesn't have to be reasonable and responsible. We don't get to choose what is fair game and what is not fair game. The founding fathers were wise in granting free speech regardless of their intellect and class or whether it violates national security or not. Free Speech is there to arouse suspicious in our government and to KEEP THEM HONEST.

It strikes me as odd that the government tries to suppress free speech and other liberties in the guise of national security. Just recently, they went after the preacher in Florida because he was going to burn Koran's on Sept 11. They said that if he burns them, it would pose a threat to national security. They even went as far as creating death threat letters to keep him from practicing free speech. In the end, he back down, the government won and it's just another example of how they are trying to take our liberties away from us with this over used excuse of national security.

It's becoming quite clear to me that this country doesn't practice what it preaches and what is written in the constitution by our founding fathers.

I kind of disagreed with what this preacher tried to do. I'd feel offended, myself, if someone burnt up a pile of Bibles. Free speech, yes; offending speech, very.

Plus, TJ's actions seemingly disagree with what God is preaching, that of love. I'd feel unloved if someone burnt the Bible; why should the Muslims feel loved by God if someone burns the Koran?

And, from past experience, we know how dangerous fanatic Muslims can be.

So I feel unloved when radical idiots burn the American flag, when proclaimed atheists demand "Christ" be taken out of Christmas, creches removed from public places, Christmas season be renamed "Holiday Season," any reference to God be removed from all schools, sports events, etc. The list is endless. And the Christians, through all of this, protest mildly and b**ch about it but nothing happens. But because Muslims have established that they are dangerous fanatics and will blow up stuff and kill people, they are given deference in all such matters. In other words, throw a hissy fit and kill people if you don't get your way and everyone backs off. Doesn't sound much like free speech to me. Sounds like rule by nut cases.

I think this is going too far offtopic. Reel it in, please.

Back on topic, my own belief is that the US has gotten its head on backwards with respect to free speech. The original intention of free speech was as a political safeguard against tyranny - guaranteeing free speech is supposed to prevent the government from silencing criticism and opposition to its policies and practices. However, in modern practice it is primarily used to protect commercial interests (e.g. to protect the publication of pornography, scandal, and other profitable-but-skanky materials) and expressions of low-brow ideological positions (e.g. the right to call groups you dislike nasty names). Ever since the Bush administration, many forms of political free speech (the kinds that ensure the open exchange of political ideas or transparency in government) are now suppressed or denied. Possibly there are certain secrets that need to be protected in time of war - I can see that. But the government has now locked in an unsolvable, never-ending, undeclared war against a possibly imaginary terrorist foe - under those conditions national security is just a sham to do an end run around political freedom of speech, and the gov ought to lose any right to protection.

I personally think that Asange (like many political activists, regardless of side) is a bit of a self-centered, megalomaniac jerk, but I'm disgusted by the obvious political maneuvering that's being used to screw him to the wall.

I think GWB was a real turkey. His economic policy nearly collapsed the US economy and his foreign policy was a disaster. His pre-emptive war doctrine was a huge mistake.

Obama just caved on taxes at the same time his working group to address the deficit is recommending Draconian cuts to social programs. He is weak. I wish I had my vote back.

Republicans are greedy and the Democrats are no better.

There! I have free speech and it is uncensored.

Craig, can you delete that last post please? (just kidding... :D)

Seriously though - if you said anything that was meaningful, accurate, and an embarrassment to the government, you might find yourself on the no-fly list, or you might find your phone tapped, or you may suddenly get arrested for some minor thing (or find that some woman you slept with suddenly has a keen interest in prosecuting you for rape). I remember a case from a few years back where a photographer who took a video of police using excessive force woke up in the middle of the night to a SWAT team breaking down his door because - get this - he had an outstanding court appearance ticket for (I think) a traffic violation in a different county. The government currently has all sorts of way to make your life utterly miserable if you exercise free speech in ways it disapproves of. it's just an unpleasant road we're heading down as a nation.

Yeah, it happens. Been there. Petty bureaucrats that are sometimes out of control mostly, not that it doesn't happen at higher levels, too. In every case it is wrong. Frankly, I would fear their campaign staffs more than I would the government.... campaign staffs are better at it.

What disgusts me is that Paypal, Visa, and MasterCard have all cut Assange and Wikileaks off; almost certainly under pressure from State to do so. At a time when the US is rapidly losing its international clout and reputation in the rest of the world after their banks led the way to an international meltdown that is still reverberating, they're flailing around bullying Sweden into the Pirate Bay trials, having TSA close down (by confiscating their domain names) at least four web sites at the behest of Disney, pursuing Assange for trumped up charges, feeling people's boobs or balls in airports -- the list goes on. The only constitutional right that seems inviolate is the right to bear arms. It's out of control.

And the hackers strike back. The hackers vs. the government... and anyone who supports the government, apparently.


http://www.switched.com/2010/12/08/a...own-wikileaks/

When the US, thought to be responsible for the DDos of Wikileaks, started that war, they didn't know what they were getting into. You can bet now that TSA will come up with something horrible as a response, not that they're likely to win against a bevy of angry hackers -- it'll just be a PITA for the rest of us.

Freedom of speech is like sudo. ;)

Seriously, you have the power to do virtually anything with free speech. You can do good stuff (sudo chmod +x), or bad stuff (sudo chmod -x), or neutral stuff. If free speech is truly what it sounds like, you have the power to delete everyone's data, and you have the power to make everyone's data public. You also have the power to keep yourself quiet, or make good changes (sysadmin).

Just found this article on Reuters. WikiLeaks!