US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denounced the release of classified diplomatic cables as an “attack on the international community”.
She spoke after the release of some 250,000 messages from US envoys around the world by the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.
The cables offer candid and sometimes unflattering views of world leaders and frank assessments of security threats.
But Mrs Clinton said diplomats often needed confidentiality to be effective.
Comment deleted by poster before posting because of unreasonable ire and unchristian thoughts toward US Army private Bradley Manning.
I hate to say it, and don’t I condone the actions I am about to suggest, but I think this WikiLeaks guy has about 6 months to live. I am willing to bet he is now officially on someone’s hit list if he is not legally apprehended before hand.
I can’t help but think this matter is not being given anywhere near the gravity it deserves and that it is close to becoming a matter for the military. Perhaps the President will gaze into his Teleprompter and discover the correct course of action.
#1 Do you think invading Sweden is on the cards?
The really disturbing aspect of this, is the revelation that our classified traffic is so vulnerable to compromise. Apparently the source of the leak of all these thousand’s of classied e-mails was an Army Spec. 4.
He won’t be a Spec 4 much longer.
[blockquote] Attorney General Eric Holder said there was an ongoing criminal investigation into the release and anyone found responsible would be prosecuted. [/blockquote] [Edited by Elf]. If secrets cannot be kept secret, then external actors will be reluctant to aid the United States in its efforts. That of course is the whole point of releasing these documents. It’s not about providing information. It’s about restricting the freedom of action of the US. Ironically, it’s the security of the western world that will be affected – and that includes the security of the Swedes who protect and facilitate the release.
carl
#1 I concur.
However, I admit that the leaks I have read demonstrate we have a vibrant state department. It’s interesting that they must keep private aspects of our foreign policy. Not many people, however, would find satisfaction with the idea of Iran being the impetus for Arab countries to side with Israel. Plenty might be disturbed by our state department’s openness.
We have some talented people serving our democracy in foreign countries, and they aren’t always the military.
#5 carl
“If secrets cannot be kept secret, then external actors will be reluctant to aid the United States in its efforts.”
That is certainly true, but does this mess owe something to putting all that secret information [including presumably some of ours] on an intranet all of which is accessible by only a few trusted three million people? Whose bright idea was that?
[Edited by Elf]
I already knew most of the major stuff that’s supposedly so shocking from reading my two favorite mags/sites… Forbes, and The Economist. All Wikileaks is doing is proving to the world what a bunch of plonkers most of the world has for so-called leadership. A lot of the other, lesser, incidents that’ve been revealed that people are tut-tutting about are further confirmation of the same. The fact that the human race continues to exist is solely due to the mercy of God. No joke. That’s Dogma, friends.
Evidently some well-read people agree with the assessment of the Wikileaks ‘scandal’ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/praveenswami/100065779/wikileaks-secrets-reveal-the-paranoid-mindset-of-internet-activists-obsessed-with-conspiracies/
[7] Pageantmaster[blockquote]how very Christian of you carl. [/blockquote] You are right. It absolutely is.
carl
RE: ““And then they should be shot†– how very Christian of you carl.”
Um — Pageantmaster — whoever American leaks classified information is committing treason. There are — or I thought there were — consequences for a citizen’s deliberately distributing classified information to a country’s enemies. Surely we have not all just decided that one gets to aid and comfort the nation’s enemies with impunity? Are there no limits?
As far as whether any of this particular stuff is shocking — I agree wholeheartedly with Senior Priest. I thought we all already knew this stuff anyway? I *do* feel very sorry for the informants who have been exposed. But other than that I can’t think what’s all that important in the actual “stunning information” [heh] that has been revealed.
NOW — back to Carl’s point — or at least I think what Carl means. The American distributor of the information to the Wikileaks flasher has demonstrated in spades that he is very desirous to do harm to the US. So the fact that as of yet it is highly doubtful that he has actually succeeded in doing any harm doesn’t mean that he won’t distribute something actually truly harmful — devastatingly harmful — to American security the instant he gets his hands on it.
*That’s* the real danger in all of this — the fact that there are American citizens who are very desirous to harm America by distributing anything deadly that they can possibly find. There is, of course, quite a bit of pretension and delusions of grandeur on the part of both the Wikileaks guy and the US leaker. But just because they’re pathologically smug about what they have purportedly accomplished doesn’t mean that they can’t actually do real harm at some point, like a toddler with a pistol.
“Attorney General Eric Holder said there was an ongoing criminal investigation into the release and anyone found responsible would be prosecuted.”
That’ll scare ’em. I mean, you can help kill a couple hundred people and get a whole 20 years when prosecuted by this guy. So what’s the most that can happen to a “leaker”? 6 mos. probation?
With real and sincere regret, I agree that the young soldier who leaked this information should now be on trial for his life — with his execution a very real possible penalty in a court martial. For heaven’s sake, if [b]any[/b] dereliction of military duty may be a capital offense then surely this is it.
The nation entrusted to him our most sensitive diplomatic information. He was highly intelligent and professonally trained, so he cannot say that he didn’t understand the serious consequences of his actions. He took an oath to defend the country yet he betrayed it, acting (it appears) from the basest of motives: spite.
And so, as a warning to any other traitors (what else can they be called who betray the nation’s trust?), if he’s found guilty in a court martial administered under the proper rules of evidence, I think he should be shot.
I despair sometimes at those whose answer to everything is to shoot it.