some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both secret and noforn.
Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.”
If you read through the NYT article and others, you can see the scope of this information, which reveals all sorts of things that could damage U.S. relations with numerous countries, and render the conduct of U.S. foreign policy far more difficult. What Wikileaks has done is nothing less than a direct assault on the United States. The release of these documents has the potential to be more damaging than many types of terrorist attack. There should be no question that Wikileaks as an organization is a clear enemy of the U.S., and it should be treated as such. Instead of tolerating these attacks and doing little beyond issuing a condemnation, the U.S. government should do everything within its power to destroy Wikileaks, as it would any other non-state entity launching attacks on the U.S. It's time to stop tolerating this enemy that has repeatedly acted with impunity against us.
During the Clinton and Bush years we had a useful program known as extraordinary rendition, which President Obama foolishly shut down -- at least as far as we know. If, like many of Bush's policies, we are still doing something similar, this would be an ideal way to deal with some of the key enemies running Wikileaks. They could simply disappear, with the side benefit that interrogation might yield information regarding which traitors in the U.S. are supplying them with documents. If that isn't possible, there should be a strange rash of fatal accidents and random murders among top level members of Wikileaks. Other options should also be explored, such as legal measures, cyber warfare, disruption of financing and anything else either covert or overt that can be used to destroy the organization.
UPDATE
Republican Congressman Peter King of New York appears to essentially agree with me -- although naturally he can't be quite as specific about actions we might take.
"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I'm also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization," King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.
"By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever," he said. "To me, they are a clear and present danger to America."
The word "horseshit" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteNot so much. We should be pursuing those who leaked the documents, but we should not be attacking wiki-leaks itself.
ReplyDeleteSo we should encourage our government to support secret assassins and torturers in the tradition of totalitarianism, instead of insisting we as a people be dedicated to promoting morally and ethically superior ideas as the way to defeat repressive ideologies and religious fundamentalism - the way the founding fathers intended? You're a dangerous fascist.
ReplyDelete"Not so much. We should be pursuing those who leaked the documents, but we should not be attacking wiki-leaks itself."
ReplyDeleteWe should do both.
"So we should encourage our government to support secret assassins and torturers "
Under certain circumstances, yes.
"instead of insisting we as a people be dedicated to promoting morally and ethically superior ideas as the way to defeat repressive ideologies and religious fundamentalism "
That sounds like a great plan. I'm sure our enemies will be impressed.
"You're a dangerous fascist."
I seriously doubt you have the slightest knowledge of what a fascist is. Generally people who call others fascists don't. Nothing I've argued has anything to do with fascism. I know this is probably difficult for you to understand, but fascism doesn't mean ideas involving violence that you happen to disagree with.
We shouldn't be attacking wikileaks for publishing what it got, any more than we attack the NYT or WSJ for publishing information about the plame scandal, or for publishing the pentagon papers. Journalistic integrity is a wonderful thing, let's not destroy it in the name of security.
ReplyDeleteWikileaks isn't a news organization. It's an organization whose primary purpose appears to be to damage the U.S. through obtaining and publishing classified information. It has deliberately targeted the U.S., and its leader is not shy about expressing his desire to cripple the U.S. war effort. It has gone way beyond anything journalists do. In my opinion it should be regarded as an enemy entity. We should have already acted to destroy it before this latest incident.
ReplyDeleteThe NYT, WSJ, and other news outlets can't ignore the story. I don't blame them for reporting it and covering the documents, because once the classified information is released on the net, there's no way to put it all back under wraps. It's a big story and they have an obligation to cover it. But there's a huge difference between reporting on classified information that has been exposed, and collaborating with & soliciting traitors to expose it in the first place.
What if the materials had been sent to the papers in the first place? Would they be labled as a terrorist?
ReplyDeleteNo. And they weren't sent to the papers because the papers aren't anti-American entities with an agenda aimed at damaging the U.S.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't label Wikileaks as a terrorist organization. That was Rep. King's idea as a legal tactic. Obviously they aren't terrorists. But they don't have to be terrorists to be dangerous enemies who can do significant damage to the U.S.