But so far, all we have seen are documents which show that diplomats, and people in government or military sending things to each other are simply human. Is calling Angela Merkel 'teflon' an insult or a compliment? I would suspect the 'Teflon Don', John Gotti considered it a badge. Hilary Clinton is aghast that people in the State Department have nicknames for their counterparts.
Are they revealing troop movements? Isn't that WWII stuff? Seems to me when the US invaded Iraq there were reporters already waiting on the shores to film the Marine landings! It was on the Six O'Clock news and no one bitched then. Now America has a carrier heading for the Yellow Sea off Korea. We all know it. Stealth no longer applies.
So here comes my raison d'etre - there might be someone out here in blogland, who believes there is a stealthy movement afoot to take control of the internet. Not just to destroy WikiLeaks, but control of ALL the internet. There is entirely TOO MUCH freedom going on there. Anyone with an opinion can now blog it. And put wicked ideas that politicians are corrupt into the heads of the people. And anyone with a cell phone cam can prove it! Dangerous people!
So is there too much reaction to WikiLeaks?
Will there be a sudden move to take complete control of the internet entirely? The Patriot Act ensured that Homeland Security would be able to monitor everything you do anyway. How much further can they go? Some would like this wild freedom of expression ended.
And here's the trick; to limit your communication in the first place. Rather than wait for the ethereal product to go whizzing through the sky and then defend against it with a midnight raid to your home by men in black. Why not just stop it at its source . . . you.
Someone's idea might be that you can send an email to your neighbor down the street, but not to a cousin from Seattle to Miami. Way too far. Across the seas out of the question. Mohammed to Mustafa? No way. Criticize the government? No way too.
As for leaders calling other leaders names, wasn't it Canada's Jean Chretien who publically called George Bush a moron? No need for stealth there either. Just saying it like it is (was) (still is) Is it new info that we think Muammar Khadafi is a jerk? That the Saudis are sponsoring Al Qaeda? That the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is crazy?
Oh, by the way, speaking of putting people in jeopardy, wasn't it the Bush/Cheney cadre that outed a CIA asset/spy Valerie Plame? By instructions to the treasonous 'journalist puppet', Robert Novak.
Seems to me WikiLeaks can't do worse than that.
addenda - the following day a massive 'denial of service' cyber attack took place against the WikiLeaks website. Thwarted for the time being because they anticipated it and had arrangements in place for temporary service if need be. They also released an encrypted file, called insurance.aes256, and encouraged people to download this file, where it could be made public at any time by with the release of the password by WikiLeaks! Already there are 61 seed sites available. The inner war is on.
update: The war against WikiLeaks seems to be heating up. As if the CIA is changing into high gear. Someone, somewhere is pulling out all the stops. Freedom of speech needs to be quashed. Ebay was influenced to stop renting WikiLeaks any bandwidth on its servers. Sweden is going to arrest Assange because two prostitutes have suddenly complained. Twitter has been threatened. PayPal forced to stop collecting donations. And now Mastercard too. Is this legal? Even a university forum had the warning to students from officials that anyone twittering or suggesting facebook contacts between WikiLeaks and humans could result in compromising future employment! Something ominous about the reaction to WikiLeaks from the powers that be, isn't there?