>>>>>>>>>>>Kind of suspicious timing, isn't it?
>>>And what gives you the right to differentiate between CLASSIFIED documents as okay to publsh and others that are not okay to publish. Once again, you bias is howing clearly regardless of what your mouth is saying...
>>
>>My bias? Excuse me, but wasn't it you who called him a criminal? You seem to have differentiated between what was okey to publish and what wasn't.
>
>
>Sure its easy. Classified Government Documents = no publish on public website . Period...

As far as that goes, I disagree with you and agree with Julian Assuage. Documents can and have been classified for no purpose other than to keep embarrassing information from the light of day. WikiLeaks publishes things it believes the public has a right to know.

My words have been twisted some in this thread so let me make this crystal clear. I do not advocate publication of documents that really are secret for a reason, for instance national security. (One of the most overused phrases in the language, along with "What the American people want is....") And if WikiLeaks put the lives of informants in danger by publishing their names, that is wrong. Tracy convinced me on that point. Even if nothing has happened to them, exposing them to retribution is indefensible.