I'm perfectly alright with WikiLeaks. The guy deserves a Nobel Prize.

Leaking confidential information can put some people and even the actual government in a vulnerable position. As far as I'm concerened, there are some things the government should absolutely keep confidential, and as citizens we should accept that. They should be more discerning in what they "leak" (and if the government should be more discerning about who has access to certain information).

I think this is very well said - and I'd say it's even self-evident, although others would disagree with me.

However, up to this point, I haven't seen anything that would actually rise to the level of putting people or the US as a whole in danger. Whether the "poison pill" does that or not obviously remains to be seen, but as of now, most of the information seems like stuff that it would be convenient to have secret, and not anything that would be required to prevent injury or etc. For me, convenience isn't good enough - and might actually be a hindrance to overall safety.

For example - the lists of key locations, entities, etc.? I mean, obviously we don't want major communications hubs or underwater pipelines being destroyed by terrorists, but if our best efforts to keep those areas safe were "hope the enemy doesn't know/figure out the importance!" then the areas were never truly safe to begin with.

In that way, and somewhat in accordance with Kevin and what I discussed before, this might actually be a good thing, in a perverse way.

I know this is from back in August. However, I think that if there was some danger to the troops with this information being out in the public domain, we'd have heard about it by now. As usual, the military/state Dept. are not people of their word.

Hypergeneralize much? I'll admit it: When I see a statement like this, I assume the speaker is speaking from significant bias, not facts, and is therefore not worth paying attention to.

This may well be true, so far at least. My problem is that I have absolutely no confidence in someone like Assange making judgments about what might or might not put people at risk. At least the military and the State Department are the people who, in our system, have been given the responsibility for making the judgments, and who have (or should have) access to all information relevant to making an informed judgment.

Well, the statement was rhetorical rather than a statement of fact. And suggesting that the government lies to its people (and often) is something we know is a fact.

I can't imagine how we can really function as a free and Republican society if the government is not held accountable for lying to the people.

As far as the comment, it seems to be the case that back in August, one of your chief objections to the Iraq documents leak was that it would put soldiers in harm's way. It hasn't been documented to have done that yet, so wouldn't it be prudent to label the government's predictions for gore and death due to these leaks was more spin than reality?

To hell with the system. If the system is not serving our interests, it's not a system worth having.

Or it's entirely possible we haven't heard anything because the powers that be adapted to the situation and avoided any potential pit falls.

The system is absolutely serving our interests if its protecting us, and that includes sometimes withholding information.

No, my objection was that it might put soldiers (or others) in harm's way and that I do not trust someone like Assange to make the decisions about whether that outcome is likely or not or possible or not.

No, I don't think that's prudent. I think that's more dismissive and biased than prudent.

If we determine that the system isn't serving our interests, then we change the system. We don't, I hope, rely on vigilantes with no accountability to anyone.

What did they even have to adapt to? We have the cables in their entirety. Surely someone would have talked about this by now?

What are they protecting us from? Situations created by our own foreign policy?

So your logic reads:

The government told us that a possible outcome was this.
This didn't happen.
Therefore, the government is full of shit.

That's like saying to a skydiver, "If you jump out of this plane, you might die."
The skydiver doesn't die.
Then he comes back bitching at you because you supposedly lied to him.

I was going to write out a long response but then read both MC and ASTalumna's posts and they said what I'm thinking...so...what they said.

Except for yes, situations created by our own foreign policy. Backtracking and CYA are fine when safety is the issue.

No.. more like this:

The church told us that the Earth was flat, so that if we tried to circumnavigate it, we'd fall off the edge of the Earth.
We sailed around the Earth and it turned out to be round.
Then we came back bitching because we were supposedly lied to.

The Wikileaks, IMHO, are damaging to U.S./foreign relations in the sense that certain ambassadors/diplomats may refrain from being so candid with us in the future due to fear of a leak. That could end up having disastrous consequences. It also makes the U.S. look negligent in securing classified info.

Other than that, Wikileaks seem to be all show, no go. I also fail to see how any of the released documents "help" Americans or foreign nationals. More people Seem to be enchanted with the fact Assange leaked the docs, not necessarily with the content itself. Where's the good stuff at? The documents that talk about how rising cancer rates in the 20th century were linked to the polio vaccine, or the CIA cable giving the order to kill JFK or MLK JR?

There's plenty there. It's just that we're so desensitized to all of the bad stuff which goes on and that no one is ever held accountable, that we just don't care.

It's also that there's just so darn much that it's tough to focus on any one thing. Do you think the video of the American helicopter killing civilians in Afghanistan was something that needed to be covered up?

You're comparing something that's physical to something that's situational. If I told you that a ball isn't round, you'd tell me I was crazy, and clearly lying. And even if you didn't know, you could do your research, find a ball and prove me wrong. But if I told you that when I throw a ball to you, you'll always catch it, that's not something I can predict, and not something that you can say with any certainty, will always happen.

Apples and oranges, dude... apples and oranges.