>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>Do you really not see a problem with "WikiLeaks publishes things it believes the public has a right to know." and "I do not advocate publication of documents that really are secret for a reason, for instance national security" ? And so the decision of what is "really secret" is to be made by a junior grade cipher clerk? If he were giving documents to the North Koreans for money is that okay too?
>
>I have no doubt classified status is often used to hide information that is just bad PR, but the idea that somehow Wikileaks is a better arbiter and that our security should in any way be subject to their getting it right is stunning in its naivete. Wanting ammunition for political purposes is not a justification for allowing people who have received a security clearance and taken an oath to violate that oath by "leaking" information they think "the public has a right to know"
>
>"The public" isn't clamoring for the information. The people who want talking points for political advantage are.

We come to this from fundamentally different points of view and that is going to make constructive discussion difficult. Agreed? The same is true in the matter of Beane v Holzer and Baird. Here is a try. You don't have to agree, and probably won't.

I am not saying WikiLeaks is a better arbiter. What I think they do is try to get the information out there, information that has been suppressed. For instance, the true scale of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, something our leaders have not been mentioning in loud voices. You already see where I'm going with this, don't you? This is in fact the role of journalism in its purest form. (An endangered species -- please, let's not digress down that rabbit hole right now). Maybe I am being too indulgent but I believe WikiLeaks is respectful of the intelligence of the public. They just believe that for us to decide intelligently we need both sides of the story, not just the airbrushed government version. And don't you dare tell me they wouldn't do that. They have been doing it forever, under all Presidents, under all Generals. There are a lot of things they don't want us to know. So yeah, I am by instinct on the side of those who want us to know, not those who don't.