Woodward and Bernstein exposed a criminal conspiracy at high levels of government. Most of what Wikileaks is doing is revealing work product of the government that was part of the day to day business of the State Department. Clinton really wasn't lying or trying to cover it up when she was saying the work depends on frank opinions of the officers and staff. Just because something is distasteful doesn't mean it's a wrong to be exposed. Would you like it if your Coast Guard record and all it's related data, including medical was posted online? That would be a rough equivalent.
There might be an argument for the parts of the military data showing knowledge of the handful of known but covered up incidents, as those were crimes, but again revealing intelligence data of people who worked for us in the mideast? That's almost complicity to murder, knowing what happens there. When you take a shotgun and fire it into a crowd, you're responsible for all who get hit, not just your target.
I guess, taking that last sentence there, what annoyed me the most was their indiscriminate release of information. "We've got it and you can have it all, no matter what" is not serious investigative or any journalism. The newspapers are the ones who turned it into that.
You didn't touch on the part of the question that asked about corporate information. Wikileaks has stated they have internal documents of several large companies. This is stuff not done in 'our name' by any government, but private enterprise. (Government contracts do not count, they do not direct the ultimate use of the product). This is again, work product, but might include such things as trade secrets, which do have de facto legal protection. There is no grey area to that. If they do do something with those, there might be a lot of hurt.
Assange's paranoia and public attitude don't help their image. Claiming the US Government can make rape charges appear in Sweden are as far fetched as they come, especially when Swedish law is explained in detail, and the fact that statements were taken before the whole affair took off.
There might be an argument for the parts of the military data showing knowledge of the handful of known but covered up incidents, as those were crimes, but again revealing intelligence data of people who worked for us in the mideast? That's almost complicity to murder, knowing what happens there. When you take a shotgun and fire it into a crowd, you're responsible for all who get hit, not just your target.
I guess, taking that last sentence there, what annoyed me the most was their indiscriminate release of information. "We've got it and you can have it all, no matter what" is not serious investigative or any journalism. The newspapers are the ones who turned it into that.
You didn't touch on the part of the question that asked about corporate information. Wikileaks has stated they have internal documents of several large companies. This is stuff not done in 'our name' by any government, but private enterprise. (Government contracts do not count, they do not direct the ultimate use of the product). This is again, work product, but might include such things as trade secrets, which do have de facto legal protection. There is no grey area to that. If they do do something with those, there might be a lot of hurt.
Assange's paranoia and public attitude don't help their image. Claiming the US Government can make rape charges appear in Sweden are as far fetched as they come, especially when Swedish law is explained in detail, and the fact that statements were taken before the whole affair took off.
Reply
Leave a comment