Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

The Conversation: Was the latest WikiLeaks release necessary?

Clinton

As the Obama camp plays damage control, journalists are asking: Was the latest WikiLeaks release necessary?

Anne Applebaum asks, What was the point? From Slate:

"This stuff is awkward and embarrassing, but it doesn't fundamentally change very much. How about a leak of Chinese diplomatic documents? Or Russian military cables? How about some stuff we don't actually know, like Iranian discussion of Iranian nuclear weapons, or North Korean plans for invasion of South Korea? If WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is serious about his pursuit of "Internet openness" — and if his goal isn't, in fact, embarrassing the United States — that's where he'll look next. Somehow, I won't be surprised if he doesn't."

MP Nunan writes this one off as the political edition of “Gossip Girl.” From the Huffington Post:

"What was the most compelling aspect of WikiLeaks' release of 220 U.S. diplomatic cables -- the latest move by the online whistle-blower to, well, whistle-blow about anything it can get its hands on? Because hey -- information wants to be free, national security and diplomacy be damned?

[…]

It was that in global politics, the U.S. plays the part of the "Gossip Girl" alpha female -- and that high school never really ends."

The Week  aggregates additional thoughts:

"Shame on WikiLeaks [...] and shame on their media enablers [...] These leaks will only endanger our diplomats [...] There's nothing here to get worked up about."

 

Julian Assange Still, the public supports WikiLeaks' Julian Assange; at least that’s what the Nation found in its "30 Media Heroes" readers' ballot. Assange came in at No. 23.

 

 

 

 

 

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

 

MORE CONVERSATIONS:

In a thankful mood today -- well, mostly

Re-'starting' Russian relations with the New START treaty

Racial profiling

Palin-mania

Top photo: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton makes a statement on the WikiLeaks document release Monday at the State Department in Washington. Credit: Evan Vucci / Associated Press

Bottom photo: A photo taken on Nov. 4 shows WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange attending a news conference at the Geneva Press Club in Geneva. Credit: Fabrice Coffrini /AFP/Getty Images

 

Comments () | Archives (5)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Dan Jeffs

Denouncing leaks is not enough

President Obama and his attorney general, Holder should have indicted WikiLeaks founder, Assange for espionage immediately after the first release of classified documents -- and our historical ally, Australia should take action against its treacherous citizen. PFC Manning is definitely a traitor. Sneaking those documents to Assange was treason against the United States for "….adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Instilling fear in potential violators of our national security and world security is an appropriate deterrent, as long as there are consequences -- including Sweden for allowing WikiLeaks to get away with it. Denouncing any of it is not enough when lives are at stake, if not lost already. No one can opt-out of a world steeped in terrorism and insecurity as if it were merely a computer game.

Traitors such as Major Hasan, the Time Square and Portland bombers should be indicted for treason. Indeed, ungrateful and treasonous Americans such as Jane Fonda, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn and Danny Glover should suffer the consequences of their blatant betrayals -- loss of citizenship and banishment at least. Fierce faith and loyalty to country -- defending America and patriotism -- means everything to our freedom, liberty and survival.

Tom

I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. Jeffs. Most Americans have not been in combat or harms way in the intelliegnce community, FBI, a police agency, etc. Many do not understand how leaks, and publication of those leaks endangers others. WikiLeaks knew that they recieved confidential property that was stolen, plain and simple. What they did was criminal. It was not necessary. They hide behind Constitutional freedom of the press. That freedom does not comport with the facts of what they did.

Many Americans are sheep, protected by sheepdogs. Read the link. It gives meaning to those who protect us all.

http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

giorock

The reactions of MOST POLITICIANS to all this shows nothing more than the hate and contempt they have for DEMOCRACY. As far as I'm concerned if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Mr Amatage deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace. All the hate and fear mongering from Politicians deserve public outcry. Truth must always prevail, that is unless you fear it!

God bless Mr Amatage and may he remain safe from all the Lynch mobs hiding behind their political veils.

giorock

The reactions of MOST POLITICIANS to all this shows nothing more than the hate and contempt they have for DEMOCRACY. As far as I'm concerned if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Mr Amatage deserves the Nobel Prize for Peace. All the hate and fear mongering from Politicians deserve public outcry. Truth must always prevail, that is unless you fear it!

God bless Mr Amatage and may he remain safe from all the Lynch mobs hiding behind their political veils.

Don McLaughln

ALL Journalists ... beware ... Wiki is the middleman ... as are all Journalists when information is leaked..
If this man .. who appears to have filtered the release through very responsible traditional outlets ... is a "terrorist" , what about the folks who leaked the name of a US undercover operative? What about those who printed it?

How can a Journalist know .. in advance ... what leaked information will earn them the "terrorist" label and punishment? Think about that... Good by to truth!

And on and on....

AND ... Does it bother you that Americans are threatened not to even read these documents in the newspapers ... or on line? That our children are told that reading and commenting on these openly printed documents could keep them from later employment? Every one in the world BUT Americans can read ...these as they wish.

Where are the "Grownups" in this room?

EXACTLY what principle or Constitutional assignment allows our USG to tell us what to read or not in open literature?

Time for cooler heads to prevail .... or ... we have lost America by foolish and heavyhanded attempts to save her..

Grow up!


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...