Well here we are at H-Hour-minus-0ne, and I do not know if Wikileaks is still under attack, but I hope they are. Wikileaks and Al Qaeda are, to my mind, simply different aspects of terrorism. Both have charismatic, clever cult leaders, neither has a specific geographical location as a base of operation*, both attack multiple nations, yet neither is a nation or truly affiliated with one.
On CNN this morning, Mike Mullen explained why and how Wikileaks endangers individuals and groups, military and otherwise. Essentially, he said that one small item, one little factoid, as Hillary Clinton might call it, could be the missing link that connects two sets of dots and points to people or groups who are serving undercover. Given the heft of this upcoming doc-dump (purportedly seven times the size of the previous one) there is no way that Wikileaks or any government could possibly know exactly what is dangerous within the documents or to whom. If that alone is not a definition of irresponsibility and recklessness, I do not know what is. Yet Wikileaks and Julian Assange persist and in much the same way that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden paint themselves as holy warriors, entitle themselves whistleblowers, a term with a generally positive connotation.
Whistleblowers call attention to violations of law and principles. They serve people who are endangered or violated in some way. Ushahidi , of which Secretary Clinton has spoken, can be used by whistleblowers wanting to report corruption, crime, election fraud, a huge range of possible criminal and unethical behaviors. While it is possible and even probable that some of what Wikileaks has released in the past fits the description above, a good deal goes beyond whistle blowing.
In this country, we have a tradition of respecting military intel. The very first violation of that respect actually provided the name we use for traitors. When we read the history of that transaction and its consequences we learn that Major Andre’s executors shed tears for him, but Benedict Arnold survived as does his name in eternal American disgrace.
There is nothing honorable or altruistic in turning over the virtual maps of the West Points of today. I will not speculate as to what this dump contains because it promises to rival The Bible in volume. If some of the material proves embarrassing to our Secretary of State and her Department, I am sure there is enough international embarrassment to go around and neutralize the remarks to some extent. But if, as Admiral Mullen states, lives are endangered, I think our government, led by the Commander in Chief, should call Wikileaks what it is, a terrorist organization holding nations hostage with purloined communications and documents. They are nothing short of that.
Finally, in light of Mme. Secretary’s focus on internet freedom: Like all freedoms, freedom of communication carries with it responsibilities. I have the freedom to own a gun provided I fulfill the legal requirements in doing so. That does not imply that I may use that gun to murder.
So it is now H-Hour+seventeen minutes and counting. I hope to God they are still hacked, and I hope our government, perhaps in conjunction with international partners has done it.
————————————————————————————————
*Hosting for Wikileaks is by a Sweden-based company. That is as close to a “base” as one gets. They say they have servers all over the globe in undisclosed locations. This is not dissimilar to Al Qaeda operating along the Af-Pak border with Secretary Clinton expressing certainty that someone somewhere in the Pakistani government knows the whereabouts of Bin Laden.
They have already let the it out. To the public it may be shocking, but it really shouldn’t be. Our diplomats were told to get info on some people by our secretary of state is that shocking? Do people really think that other countries aren’t syping on us? Looks like the saudis want Iran stopped more than anyone. I don’t know what this guy thinks he gains out of releasing this stuff. I think it’s time for a drone attack.
LikeLike
It seems everybody knows we need that drone attack except the Commander in Chief who spends his time playing basketball.
LikeLike
He gets off on making our government scramble around. It’s a power thing, I think.
LikeLike
He needs a lesson.
LikeLike
It should not be shocking at all.
HUMINT is a class of intelligence where there is a collective category of information that is sought. No one prescribes – here you go get THIS. The direction is only for HUMINT in general. It is Human Intelligence. Anyone who has even read any novels on inter-state intel and diplomacy knows how this stuff works.
The only stink here is Wikileaks reputation, or should I say, illrepute.
LikeLike
Go ahead, Madame Secretary, open it up on him.
LikeLike
hahahaahaha! a verbal or physical one? or both? that would be a sight to see
LikeLike
Verbal, physical, and official!
LikeLike
Did you notice What is says under the “W”? 😀 LOL!
LikeLike
LOL! I had to zoom in to see it!!!! 😀
LikeLike
It was inappropriate of Wikileaks or anyone before or after to leak this.
Clearances for DoD and State work are there for a reason – to protect people, their ego and their lives.
Wikileaks, in its quest for what IT considers the better route – which i cannot fathom how it claims to have the moral nor political authority for – has committed a serious blunder of global proportions.
While there have not been major reports — and I have not gone digging – what little I could find by looking at a couple of countries is the information is wrongly indexed, and mostly uninteresting. I would not share nor promote links… and I recommend that we do NOT post links which only serves wiki’s agenda.
Unfortunately, Wikileaks has become the big bully of the Internet in this process.
I pray for the safety of all State department personnel.
LikeLike
Dear Still4hill
I have nothing against Hillary Clinton. I am not even from America. But, I do disagree with your comparison of what Wikileaks is doing with what Al Qaeda is doing. And secondly, I read this snippet from Hillary’s speech in a blogpost – on a blog (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/hillary-clinton-vs-sarah-palin-on.html)
“Launching a tour amid uproar over the leak of a huge cache of classified U.S. diplomatic cables by a whistleblower website, Clinton also said she was committed to Internet freedom.
She said it was important that “governments don’t overreact” to information that they do not like being aired in public.
Clinton also said she was a “big believer” in Internet freedom. “It is always better to err on the side of more expression, more information, and then try to counter it with other information,” she said.
“We also have to be very careful that governments don’t overreact,” she said, saying both sides had to be careful when navigating the minefield of Internet freedom.
So, what do you have to say about that?
LikeLike
I am a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. I would walk on hot coals for her, but I do not always agree with her. I stand by my opinion. Hillary thinks differently.
For years we have been warned about cyber terrorism. This is one form it can take when information is in the hands of the nefarious (Al Qaeda) or of the duped pawns thay use (Assange).
LikeLike
Alright. Not agreeing with her is fine. I was referring to th hypocrisy of saying the above in a speech some day and then getting the State Department to ask its employees not to visit Wikileaks, getting Amazon to remove Wikileaks from his server, to get Mastercard and Paypal to throttle its financial support.
Either don’t champion the freedom of speech and go ahead and ban Wikileaks or do champion it and then stick by it. Doing something and saying something don’t go well together. But I guess, that’s just politics and not Hillary.
LikeLike
Well, I also think that attitudes and policies re: the internet are fluid. Every time we deal with new technology, the way we use it officially evolves. The press never photographed FDR in a wheelchair or even referred to his disability in stories. That has changed. The televised Presidential debates have changed sinc ethe day Nixon showed up so bady v. JFK.
When Secretary Clinton made that speech, she was referring to true public information, not to classified or secret documents that could pose danger. In that speech, she said that governments were blocking access to her words as she was saying them. I did see several IPs from Chinese universities here on this site looking at that speech in the ensuing days. Nothing she said that day was meant to be secret.
LikeLike