News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobG
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The leak of US embassy cables by Wikileaks has ignited a global diplomatic crisis, raising questions about the impact of exposing candid diplomatic discussions. While some argue that transparency could benefit nations like North Korea and Iran by revealing global sentiments towards them, others believe it undermines trust in diplomatic communications. There is speculation about potential resignations among diplomats, particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although many assert that no wrongdoing occurred and resignations are unlikely. Countries worldwide, including France, have condemned the leaks, framing them as attacks on state sovereignty, yet many governments continue to support the US. The situation highlights the delicate balance between transparency and the necessity of discreet diplomacy in international relations.
  • #51
I disagree Danger. Monique and several others misunderstand how the law works because they are not thinking logically about it and are instead just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful reality. Again, one does not need to be physically located in a country to be subject to some of its laws and one does not need to be the trigger puller to be a murderer. These are realities, whether you like them or not, and they must be understood and accepted for this discussion to remain productive.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
russ_watters said:
Again, one does not need to be physically located in a country to be subject to some of its laws and one does not need to be the trigger puller to be a murderer.
No but one generally does need to be of a country to commit treason against it.
It would be a little unfair for the Capt of the USS Nimitz to be charged by the Russian navy for activities against the interests of the USSR
 
  • #53
Ivan Seeking said:
I have to think that before this is over, Assange will be dead. At the least, he will be locked away permanently.

CRGreathouse said:
That's pretty strong. It's not even clear to me that he did anything wrong, legally speaking. (It would obviously be illegal was he an American, but that's neither here nor there.) Do you know anything on the matter?

You're taking too limited a view. It may be US documents that were leaked, but it affects more than just US officials.

For example, the release was bad for Ahmadinejad. We may not care; in fact, it could be good for Iranians to see the path that Ahmadinejad's taking in a new light. As much as the world worries about Iran attempting to gain influence in the Arab Middle East, it appears that those efforts have been unsuccessful. Instead of gaining influence, Iran is more isolated than ever. That is going to have an effect on the Iranian people and on Ahmadinejad's political future.

It's more than the US (and more than just Iran) that resent having the 'sausage' of diplomacy spilled out for everyone to see. I think Assange would have legitimate reasons to fear for his life.
 
  • #54
NobodySpecial said:
The leaks so far suggest that the US believes
Putin is the real power in russia
Berlosconi is a ladies man
Merkle is boring
Kharsi is a crook
China wouldn't be too happy about a permanent US military presence in N Korea

You have to wonder if some of the future leaks include the defecation location of bears and the religion of the pope

You win teh internets!
 
  • #55
zomgwtf said:
I am 100% sure this falls under the espionage act. Whether that act itself is still constituitional remains to be answered. All that needs to be proven is that Assange intended to harm America by publishing it, which I am pretty certain he is. It may be hard to prove this though since he pushes himself as doing this only for openness of information.

It's not clear to me that there's anything wrong with Assange violating the laws of a country where he neither resides nor holds citizenship. Surely I have violated the laws of North Korea (not wearing one of the approved haircuts), Saudi Arabia (eating during Ramadan), China (visiting the Dalai Lama's website), and Thailand (criticizing, on principle, its king).

But as I have no ties to these countries it's not obvious that I have done wrong -- in fact it seems that I have not.
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
You have it backwards: whether he is an American is what is "neither here nor there". Whether he is an American has no bearing at all on the legality of what he did. It's illegal and he can be arrested and tried (or perhaps just killed since it could also be considered an act of war).

So, presumably, I could be arrested by any of the four states listed in my post above. But can Thailand/DPRK/PRC/Saudi Arabia extradite me or otherwise act on this desire to arrest me? Or, more to the point, can America do anything* to Assange in (say) Switzerland?

* Legally, that is; of course they could send assassins easily enough.
 
  • #58
russ_watters said:
I disagree Danger. Monique and several others misunderstand how the law works because they are not thinking logically about it and are instead just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful reality. Again, one does not need to be physically located in a country to be subject to some of its laws and one does not need to be the trigger puller to be a murderer. These are realities, whether you like them or not, and they must be understood and accepted for this discussion to remain productive.
One could equally well argue that the opposite response is a knee-jerk reaction to a distasteful reality.

But to the point, the following case is illustrative and informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States" , also known as the Pentagon Papers Case.

The Nixon administration wanted to prevent that the NY Times would publish a classified study from the Defense Department about US activities Vietnam. The court ruled against the government censor: the First Amendment protects the freedom of press. The New York Times had the right to publish the classified documents.

If the United States or another country want to take Assange to court, they are free to attempt that. History has shown that court cases based of the Espionage Act has not led to significant convictions. A civilized country would go this route, instead of taking the law in its own hands and going out assassinating people with divergent views.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
An interesting take on how the leaks affect the Arab world - WikiLeaks and the Arab public sphere

Arab leaders routinely say different things in private and in public, but that their public rhetoric is often a better guide to what they will actually do since that reflects their calculation of what they can get away with politically. Arab leaders urged the U.S. to go after Saddam privately for years, but wouldn't back it publicly for fear of the public reaction. It's the same thing with Iran over the last few years, or with their views of the Palestinian factions and Israel. But now those private conversations are being made public, undeniably and with names attached.

The leaks pose some interesting dilemmas. Al-Jazeera has a lot at stake, as it has a reputation as the only independent news source in the Middle East (regardless of the opinion most Americans may have of Al-Jazeera). Their coverage has been very restrained so far. Covering something like this may be their biggest challenge yet.

But, public reaction in the Arab world has a good chance of affecting how Arab countries will behave in the future. That could be positive (for the US) in that they'll be more willing to stand up to Iran, or it could be negative (for Israel) in that they'll be more aggressive in demanding a better deal for Palestinians.
 
  • #60
Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION. This man fully was attempting to do this he said things along those lines many times and it makes what he did fall fully under the Espionage Act.

As well what you said earlier about not being charged with treason if you're not American is bs too. Two Germans were charged with treason I believe back in WWII.

As well you may break laws in other nations you don't hold citizenship but they have to apprehend you and bring you back and convict you of the crime with the entire world watching. Good luck to North Korea doing that, whata rediculous notion.
 
  • #61
zomgwtf said:
Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION.
I was talking about treason: "the crime of betraying one's country".

As well what you said earlier about not being charged with treason if you're not American is bs too. Two Germans were charged with treason I believe back in WWII.
Do you have a reference? According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason" , the person was a German-born naturalized U.S. citizen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
zomgwtf said:
Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION.
So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.
 
  • #63
Monique said:
I find it beyond words that people are suggesting Assange should be killed for releasing the documents, especially when the word "just" is used. It matters what laws apply to him: U.S. laws about treason don't apply to him. Laws against the release of classified information are aimed at those who initially release the information, which wasn't Assange. He spread the documents, but so did countless other media.

I was just making an observation. You don't screw with the US [nevermind the other countries involved!]. If he has done real damage, there will be severe consequences. End of story.

They guy responsible for the leaks could be executed by a firing squad. [At least, I am all but certain this is true]
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Ivan Seeking said:
I was just making an observation. You don't screw with the US
Although the current score seems to be Castro 638 : USA 0
So he probably doesn't have too much to worry about so long as he doesn't upset Mr Putin or the Isrealis.
 
  • #65
NobodySpecial said:
So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.

There are way too many incorrect interpretations of the word Treason floating in this thread... Here is the correct definition:

Wikipedia.org said:
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. ... A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Treason is an act of betrayal by a person against his/her sovereign nation. Foreign nationals are not tried for treason (because the country is not their sovereign nation), and foreign nations definitely do not try each other for treason! Conveniently, in the context of the United States, "treason" is defined in the constitution itself:

Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
 
  • #66
NobodySpecial said:
Although the current score seems to be Castro 638 : USA 0
So he probably doesn't have too much to worry about so long as he doesn't upset Mr Putin or the Isrealis.

Really, and have you seen what Cuba looks like lately? Many thousands have risked life and limb [many died] to make the 90 [70?] miles voyage to the US on everything one can reasonably imagine, including a raft made of inner-tubes. Cuba was all about the Soviet Union, not Castro. If Assange has China protecting him, then I will concede the point.

Saddam tried to have Bush I assasinated. And as GWB said, ~ "well, he did try to kill my dad"
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Ivan Seeking said:
Really, and have you seen what Cuba looks like lately? Cuba was all about the Soviet Union, not Castro.
I'm just saying that if you were listing enemy countries where you had to fear them sending highly efficient hit squads to kill an individual target then the USA isn't top of the list.

From historical form the most likely secret three-letter agency response to Assange would be for them to bomb Austria by mistake
 
  • #68
russ_watters said:
CNN refused to accept because of the terms Wikileaks wanted to impose. IIRC, the issue from the Pentagon Papers is that the news media is protected.
Not that I want to defend them (him), but why isn't Wikileaks considered news media under the same law?
 
  • #69
NobodySpecial said:
I'm just saying that if you were listing enemy countries where you had to fear them sending highly efficient hit squads to kill an individual target then the USA isn't top of the list.

Attacking Cuba [to kill Castro or for any other reason] would have almost certainly been the start of WWIII. There was also the risk of destabilizing the country. The two situations are completely different.
 
  • #70
Ivan Seeking said:
Attacking Cuba [to kill Castro or for any other reason] would have almost certainly been the start of WWIII.
The CIA has admitted to and published details of it's many attempts to assassinate Castro.
Although the execution of many of them make you suspect that they are using roadrunner cartoons as a training manual.
Should Mr Assange receive a gift of a box of exploding cigars or a wetsuit coated with fungus then he can guess who is after him.

The 638 is the estimate of total attempts to kill castro - by the US, Cubans plus a few ex-girlfriends and a few husbands.
 
  • #71
russ_watters said:
The Secretary of State works directly for the President, so it is up to him to decide to fire her. We don't have that power, only the power to not re-elect the President she works for.

Are you contending that popular opinion has no bearing on a public official's will to act on a situation? Regardless of anyone's opinion on Obama, but if the public was showing no confidence in Hilary Clinton to represent the US abroad, he would replace her.
 
  • #72
The proper term is espionage, not treason.

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act


Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html
 
  • #73
Does anyone know why we can't find the guy? Is he in a bunker somewhere?
 
  • #74
russ_watters said:
No actually the opinion of the average American is only tangentially relevant. The Secretary of State works directly for the President, so it is up to him to decide to fire her. We don't have that power, only the power to not re-elect the President she works for.

The SecState's job is all about international relations, so the most important "feeling" here is in how members of foreign governments view the US and SecState. If their respect is compromised, then her ability to do her job is compromised and she should be fired. But that is apparently not what is happening.

The public opinion on wether she should be fired will probably follow the sentiments of foreign governments: a black eye for her is a black eye for America and Americans wouldn't like that and would pressure Obama to fire her. But again, utlimately that is a reaction to the problem and not the problem itself.

fss said:
Are you contending that popular opinion has no bearing on a public official's will to act on a situation? Regardless of anyone's opinion on Obama, but if the public was showing no confidence in Hilary Clinton to represent the US abroad, he would replace her.

I think you skipped the most important parts of Russ's post.

And I think a few people miss the important part of this story. It's not about Assange, nor is it about the actual details that were revealed. It's an attack on the diplomatic process itself.

Watch what happens to some of the foreign government officials that had their comments leaked. Enough of them lose their jobs and Clinton will lose hers, too. As Russ mentioned, that doesn't seem to be happening yet (aside from Canada's ambassador offering to resign), but I'll be surprised if it doesn't start happening soon.
 
  • #75
Greg Bernhardt said:
Does anyone know why we can't find the guy? Is he in a bunker somewhere?
They say he changes locations every fews days, he's on the run.
 
  • #76
mheslep said:
Not that I want to defend them (him), but why isn't Wikileaks considered news media under the same law?
There is no law protecting 'news media' - there are first amendment considerations which mean that politicians (which in the US also means prosecutors) are generally unwilling to stand up in court and demand that a jury prosecute some one for printing the truth.

The 'official news media' term is a rather clever political trick to try and differentiate between major news networks, which you definitely don't want to upset, and individuals on the internet that you do want to prosecute.
It's the same way that you can arrest somebody for photographing the police by claiming it's wiretapping while leaving the major TV news crew next to them alone.
 
  • #77
russ_watters said:
No, it most certainly would not be an act of terrorism. What definition of terrorism are you using?

according to wikipedia, the definition is pretty broad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

but i think it's pretty clear that what is being discussed here is a political assassination. using violent means as a clear signal to others who might be thinking of doing the same. if you're a journalist, this would be a lot to think about.
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
I think he may not be concerned because:

1. He isn't talking like he's concerned.
2. He isn't taking action that implies he's concerned.
3. In the past, he's not just avoided looking concerned, but has actually not taken appropriate action so I don't have default trust in him like you apparently do. See: the Xmas bombing and Ft Hood incidents.
I'm not looking for fretting. The problem is itself largely an image problem so the overt response is a large part of what is important.

Why would he stand before a camera as POTUS, and tell our enemies that the information they have just obtained because of illegal acts, is indeed highly sensitive? Would that be smart, or useful to anyone but our enemies? And we have no way to know what is going on behind the scenes. [Perhaps wikileaks knows!]. Did you know Clinton had asked for DNA samples from world leaders? In spite of the rhetoric from the right, these people aren't stupid.

With Bob Gates as his Sec of Defense, [and Biden at his side for that matter] do you really think Obama doesn't understand any significant concerns about US security and the security of our allies?

I trust him because I know he is smart, dedicated, talented, he has good counsel, and I don't believe the nonsense generated by the right-wing media. No, as POTUS, he isn't going to be passive about US security interests.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
NobodySpecial said:
So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.

Prosecute America.

Prosecuting a nation vs. prosecuting a man... great comparisson.

Anyways if you gave a specific American who was guilty under some German espionage act or whatever they have over there in Germany they certainly COULD try to get that person. Key word is try. I don't even know why you are asking this question the answer is so obvious it seems rhetorical.
 
  • #81
NobodySpecial said:
There is no law protecting 'news media' - there are first amendment considerations which mean that politicians (which in the US also means prosecutors) are generally unwilling to stand up in court and demand that a jury prosecute some one for printing the truth.

The 'official news media' term is a rather clever political trick to try and differentiate between major news networks, which you definitely don't want to upset, and individuals on the internet that you do want to prosecute.
It's the same way that you can arrest somebody for photographing the police by claiming it's wiretapping while leaving the major TV news crew next to them alone.
There's more than a 'political trick' at work here. There are legal reasons, stemming from freedom of the press, that must define who is and who is not a press actor. The NYT published this stolen material. Wikileaks published the stolen material. The definition of published is not changed by the size and scope of the publisher.
 
  • #82
Ivan Seeking said:
Why would he stand before a camera as POTUS, and tell our enemies that the information they have just obtained because of illegal acts, is indeed highly sensitive? Would that be smart, or useful to anyone but our enemies? And we have no way to know what is going on behind the scenes. [Perhaps wikileaks knows!]. Did you know Clinton had asked for DNA samples from world leaders? In spite of the rhetoric from the right, these people aren't stupid.

With Bob Gates as his Sec of Defense, [and Biden at his side for that matter] do you really think Obama doesn't understand any significant concerns about US security and the security of our allies?

I trust him because I know he is smart, dedicated, and talented, and I don't believe the nonsense generated by the right-wing media. No, as POTUS, he isn't going to be passive about US security interests.
As far as I know the Obama administration has done basically everything short of sending the military after Assange to first stop him from releasing the files second to return the files and now to dampen the possible effects.

It's been mentioned in the news many times perhaps russ will only be satisfied if Obama makes a huge public speech about everything and then threaten Assange?
 
  • #83
mheslep said:
There's more than a 'political trick' at work here. There are legal reasons, stemming from freedom of the press, that must define who is and who is not a press actor. The NYT published this stolen material. Wikileaks published the stolen material. The definition of published is not changed by the size and scope of the publisher.

NYT co-operated with the US govn't and was not intending to cause any harm to America. Can you say the same about wikileaks?

This has already been addressed in this thread. The NYT is not guilty under the Espionage Act, wikileaks probably is but it's a case of showing intent to harm the nation. This precedent has already been set.

Another hurdle is whether the Espionage act is even constiuitional...
 
  • #84
zomgwtf said:
I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.
She speaks English so well that you wouldn't know that it's not her first language, it could just be not knowing the right term.
 
  • #85
NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge :eek: I'm fine with getting back on-topic with the espionage act now...
 
  • #86
I have a feeling that the wikileaks situation is going to be bumped up a notch after Assange claimed he had giga bytes on BOA


http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtourya...merica-shares-recover-from-wikileaks-assault/

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Forbes technology reporter Andy Greenberg he plans to release thousands of documents related to a major U.S. bank that could bring the institution down for good. I argued earlier this week the unlikeliness of that happening but speculation that Bank of America was likely the firm Assange was alluding to was enough to drive shares down.
 
  • #87
Mech_Engineer said:
NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge :eek: I'm fine with getting back on-topic with the espionage act now...

Not to defend what he was saying because I think it was a horrible analogy but he's not talking about treason. He's just talking about one nation prosecuting a person from another nation who isn't in the nation doing the prosecuting.
 
  • #88
Mech_Engineer said:
NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge
It was in response to the claim by various people that an australian national publishing US secrets in another country was somehow treason.
 
  • #89
NobodySpecial said:
It was in response to the claim by various people that an australian national publishing US secrets in another country was somehow treason.

No, it was a response to my post which said:
Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION. This man fully was attempting to do this he said things along those lines many times and it makes what he did fall fully under the Espionage Act.
Bolding mine.

Clearly, not talkin about treason here.
 
  • #90
Is that THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act Act? Again, how does that apply to people outside the US? Its not an international law. Its a US federal law, made for citizens, right?

Which international Espionage Act are you talking about violating? If he had committed these acts on US soil, then I could see its application. Otherwise I don't see any problem.
 
  • #91
Hepth said:
Is that THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act Act? Again, how does that apply to people outside the US? Its not an international law. Its a US federal law, made for citizens, right?

Which international Espionage Act are you talking about violating? If he had committed these acts on US soil, then I could see its application. Otherwise I don't see any problem.
Yes that is the one, no I am not talking about any international act.

Why do you assume America can not prosecute in this case? Do you have case precedent to back that up? Or any sources? There are plenty of people well studied in this that say there will be no problem the only problem now is building the case.

I mean did you even read the Act? Where does it say an American citizen? Espionage can be charged against foreign nationals that'd be rather stupid if it couldn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
What was posted on Wikileaks on the Indo-Pak-US scenario is what the Indians had suspected all along: US's unyielding support for Pakistan. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-us-backed-isi-demand-on-2611/136371-2.html?from=tn

I haven't gone through the entire thread, so I don't have any opinion on what should be Assange's fate. But if what Assange did was illegal then why can't the US government (and other nations) just request all the local and international media not to give further coverage to the leaked documents?
 
  • #93
Reshma said:
I haven't gone through the entire thread, so I don't have any opinion on what should be Assange's fate. But if what Assange did was illegal then why can't the US government (and other nations) just request all the local and international media not to give further coverage to the leaked documents?

Why would they listen?
 
  • #94
Office_Shredder said:
Why would they listen?
It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.
 
  • #95
zomgwtf said:
I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.
Evo said:
She speaks English so well that you wouldn't know that it's not her first language, it could just be not knowing the right term.
It was brought up in several English-speaking media, as you've read I know exactly what treason is and that it doesn't apply to Assange. Others appear to be more confused. I never ruled out that he could be trialed for Espionage, but in order to do so international governments first would have to turn him over to US custody. I'm curious to see how that is going to be handled, this is going to be all about politics.
Reshma said:
It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.
Exactly, don't blame the messenger.
 
  • #96
Reshma said:
It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.

Not sure what you mean. To quote BBC News:

No-one has been charged with passing the diplomatic files to Wikileaks but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of classified US documents.

While it is still not clear if Manning is responsible, he is clearly a suspect and if he will be found guilty, he will not "get away with it".
 
  • #97
Borek said:
Not sure what you mean. To quote BBC News:
I just don't quite agree with the way Assange is being made the epicentre of the diplomatic crisis. US diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Indo-Pak have always been murky. The leaked files, IMO, have just shed further light into the situation and didn't come as a surprise to me at least on the Indian issues. The fact that cables from US embassies in several countries were leaked, means the espionage trail goes much deeper. What if the classified data appeared on some other website other than Wikileaks?

While it is still not clear if Manning is responsible, he is clearly a suspect and if he will be found guilty, he will not "get away with it".
Well the magnitude of the recent leaks seems much higher. I am sure there are several others responsible.
 
  • #98
I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.
 
  • #99
  • #100
Reshma said:
The fact that cables from US embassies in several countries were leaked, means the espionage trail goes much deeper. What if the classified data appeared on some other website other than Wikileaks?

Actually, it doesn't. One of the factors seen as contributing to 9/11 was that US federal agencies didn't communicate with each other very well. The response was to share information freely over classified networks. US government agencies have a one-stop location to find information from other US government agencies.

It improves information sharing, but also means a one-stop shop to steal and/or leak information. Which is why it only includes information up to Secret level - there's only so many risks the government is willing to take to improve information sharing. And only having access to Secret documents is why none of the information being leaked is incredibly shocking.
 

Similar threads

News Is Wikileaks Justified in Exposing Tax Evaders?
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
HiWhat are these Wikileaks cables? Were these some paper/electronic
Replies
3
Views
2K
News WikiLeaks & Anonymous: "Hacktivism" & Freedom of the Internet
Replies
24
Views
5K
News Is WikiLeaks a Cyber-Terrorist or a Whistleblower?
Replies
9
Views
3K
News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security
7
Replies
338
Views
36K
News The US Digital Service, aka DOGE
Replies
2
Views
1K
News How should nations handle diplomatic relations with enemies?
Replies
7
Views
3K
State Dept Warns Students: Don't Discuss WikiLeaks on Social Media
3
Replies
133
Views
14K
News Michael Moore's Sicko Banned in Cuba, Too Rosy
Replies
47
Views
9K
News Condoleezza Rice named as Bush's nominee for new Sec. of State. Good god
Replies
33
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top