Greetings EEVBees:
--Our gracious host has asked "So you also think the New York Times, and others who also published cables are guilty of the same crime? If the actual person who leaked the cables had do so through some other online service (lets say an ISP, or web host et.al), should the head of that service also be guilty of the same crime and be labelled the same way?
--In this particular case it does not really matter at all what I think. This kind of case has already been litigated. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Government could not exercise prior restraint of publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York times. The NY Times has repeatedly published stories revealing intelligence programs that were tapping into Al Qaeda cell phones and programs tracing Al Qaeda financing, and quite apparently has every legal right to do so, even though this helped the terrorists to kill even more people. However the persons (unnamed sources) who leaked or stole the classified information, would still be subject to prosecution, if their identities were to be "leaked". And, I am just guessing here mind you, but leaking the identity of the leakers, would probably not meet with such a vociferous defense, nay? Now, with regard to the Assange WikiLeaks case, Mr. Assange's guilt or innocence would turn on whether or not he received electronic documents that were dropped on his doorstep, as in the Pentagon Papers case, or whether Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks actively penetrated US computer systems. In the first case he would be innocent, and in the second he would be guilty. It does not matter if the computer system belonged to Joe Blow or the US. If Mr. Assange was a passive recipient he is an innocent journalist, if he entered someone else's system without permission he is a thief, just as with the UK phone hackers. But Mr. Assange cannot be innocent merely because some folks like the cut of his jib. I just do not think, he is a Saint, but I of course agree that he should not be punished just because some people do not like his actions. And, Mr. Assange might even agree with my contention that he is an Anti-American Anarchist.
--Dave has also said "Name the people who have been killed as a result of these leaked cables. Did it not occur to you that maybe this leak has done your country a favour?, by exposing a huge vulnerability in your system for keeping this stuff confidential? and hence giving an incentive to improve the security? How many had access to this stuff?, IIRC it was at least several million people?"
--Taking the second question first, let me say that, I believe I already answered the question about being notified of a hole in fence when I stated "I take the point. Poptones is correct that revealing the leaks was a service", I just do not think it was necessary or a good thing to publish every single one. Nor do I believe that Mr. Assange was attempting to do my country, or any of the other "Free" countries mentioned in the Emails any favors. If DJ were to go on vacation and leave his front door unlocked, I would try to get the Police to check it out and lock the door, and I would not post pictures and the address on the internet as a "favor".
--Trying to connect any single one of the Taliban's numerous Afgani, and US murder victims directly to a particular leaked cable would be a difficult task, and obviously would probably be of even more help to the Murderers. But this would only be a concern for people who care about such things. But that a number of human beings were put in dire jeopardy by these leaks, is to my mind, beyond dispute. Please see the below link to a UK Telegraph article on the subject.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7915426/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Pentagon-says-informants-lives-at-risk.html"But The Times reported that after just two hours of combing through the documents it was able to find the names of dozens of Afghans said to have provided detailed intelligence to US forces. The Times cited one 2008 document that included a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection. The man, who names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors, is identified by name, along with his father’s name and village."
--Of course, I agree that the US State Department must bear a large share of the responsibility for putting the lives of "friendlies" in danger. Stating, of course that I understand that DJ and others on this thread dispute the notion that anyone innocent could have possibly been harmed by this information.
"Happy for you to desoldering, please."
Wun Hung Lo 1948 -
Best Regards
Clear Ether