I think most of the posturing over what Wikileaks has done in the past is really positioning over what Wikileaks may do in the future. Its important to keep that in mind when trying to understand statements and actions. The Pentagon wants the capability to stop the next leak, not the last one.

Whats holding Assange back? Money, apparently.

Need $700k for our next harm-minimization review. Pentagon won't help.Media won't-but happy to profit. What to do?

As Gawker put it, the harm-minimization review would only cost 700k if they were doing it in bath tubs filled with liquid gold. This is Assange's price for the next leak.

Realpolitik

A first glance at the material presented in the two English-language sources, The New York Times and The Guardian newspapers, reveals dramatically different approaches that each took in reporting on these leaked documents.

The importance of the focus of the public's attention should not be underestimated.

Eric Michael Johnson: Analysis of Civilian Casualties in WikiLeaks Afghan File Reveals Media Bias

I've purposefully avoided taking a position on the "Wikileaks - threat or menace" debate. Here, Rattle does:

I completely agree with Gen. Hayden's comments in this article. Wikileaks has been completely irresponsible. I don't see any positive side to the release of these documents.

Hayden's essay sure throws down a gauntlet at the hacker scene:

And all of this because of some corrupted view of the inherent evils of the modern state, a pseudo-romantic attachment to the absolute value of transparency, a casual indifference to inevitable consequences and a neurotic attachment to one individual's self importance. Rarely have we seen such a dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence.

This isn't just a challenge to Wikileak's disclosure of this particular set of documents. This is a challenge to the idea of transparency itself. In this regard, Stratfor is wrong. The Wikileaks event isn't really about the war in Afghanistan - its about the Internet.

Apparently, this leak wasn't all that valuable to the general public. The event certainly has focused the public's attention on facts that insiders already know about the war, and the importance of the focus of the public's attention should not be underestimated. However, given that there is no great secret here that insiders were unaware of - this event represents an opportunity to debate the subject of freedom of information in a context where there is nothing to loose from siding with the establishment.

The results of this debate, in terms of public opinion, as well as the resulting legal framework within which the state can respond to public disclosures of this sort, will impact future situations in which the leak does matter to the general public, because it does reveal a secret that insiders weren't aware of.

In the world of the eternity service, ultimately, some things are going to be posted there that you'd rather not have out in the open. If you believe that there should be information resources that are beyond the reach of the state, you have to accept that. If you can't accept it, its all a matter of where and how to draw the line - the events of the past few weeks have circled around that very question.

So it doesn't really matter whether or not Wikileaks was irresponsible. It is inevitable that Wikileaks or someone like them is going to do something irresponsible, or at least something that a lot of people think is irresponsible. The important question is what ought to be done about it.

If you stop at simply deciding that you think Wikileaks was irresponsible, you avoid the opportunity to address the more important question being debated, and you concede the matter to a particular side by association.

The leaders of the Republican party have made their case - they would draw the line in such a manner that the military can use any and all capabilities at its disposal... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

RE: WikiLeaks disclosures are a 'tragedy' - CNN.com

I was concerned about this - its interesting to see it reported. From now on a certain percentage of conservatives in the US will permanently associate wikis with liberal commies who are trying to destroy America and will not have anything to do with them or anyone who does. This is an unfortunate consequence for four reasons:

1. It removes certain voices from the collective dialog that open wikis consist of.

2. It makes those minds even more susceptible to propaganda because they will not use objective information if it comes from wikis - particularly if it challenges their presumptions. "An iceberg the size of Manhattan?! Right. Where'd you look that up? On a wiki? Har Har"

3. It means that wikis will be avoided as a knowledge management tool even in closed contexts by these people. Imagine suggesting the use of a wiki right now for information sharing in an southern workplace dominated by fox news fans who are semi computer literate.

4. It means that some future story involving wikis - no matter how benign - will be taken as negative by a certain percentage of listeners, for no good reason.

All these costs would be acceptable if Wikileaks was a wiki - but its not...

Wikileaks isn’t one of Wales’s websites but the “wiki” part of the name confuses people. Wales told me yesterday: “It’s not a wiki and their ethos is very different from mine but that’s not a criticism necessarily.”

Wikileaks, as Wales points out, is not a wiki at all (though it is built partially on MediaWiki, the same software that powers Wikipedia) but the site, which made headlines with its recent leak of documents on the war in Afghanistan, is assumed by many to be linked to Wales in some way.

I had always assumed that wikileaks was a wiki. I've never been interested enough in the site to actually look. Frankly, I'm a bit annoyed at them for picking this name now that I know that they aren't really operating a wiki. Its obviously an attempt to capitalize on the noteriety of wikipedia and to wrap the site in the mystique of crowdsourced web content - when in fact the thing is moderated and mediawiki is merely being used as a content management system.

Jimmy Wales: people think I'm responsible for Wikileaks – Telegraph Blogs

In Merrill’s case, although the letter’s gag order “was totally clear that they were saying that I couldn’t speak to a lawyer” about it, he immediately contacted his personal attorney, and together they went to the ACLU in New York, which agreed to represent him.

“My gut feeling is I’m an American,” Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. “I always have a right to an attorney. There’s no such thing as you can’t talk to your attorney."

‘John Doe’ Who Fought FBI Spying Freed From Gag Order After 6 Years | Threat Level | Wired.com

in America, you have a smaller chance of swapping your lower income bracket for a higher one than in almost any other developed economy – even Britain on some measures. To invert the classic Horatio Alger stories, in today’s America if you are born in rags, you are likelier to stay in rags than in almost any corner of old Europe.

Lots of journalistic fluff in this article but thats it in a nutshell...

This problem matters.

FT.com / Reportage - The crisis of middle-class America

After the Internet publication of tens of thousands of leaked classified documents on the war in Afghanistan, 43% of Americans now say the United States made a mistake in sending troops there, up slightly from just before the release (38%).

In U.S., New High of 43% Call Afghanistan War a "Mistake"

The single-scope background investigation for a top-secret clearance is pretty exhaustive..

NYT indicates that Manning was pretty openly gay, emotionally frustrated and combative... Also, he was fired once from a civilian job because of personality issues, and he got two reprimands — Article 15’s, in Army-speak — for misconduct, including “assaulting an officer.”

It’s hard to imagine that even the most liberal of background clearances wouldn’t have thrown a couple of red flags up when investigating a kid like Manning.

Trying real hard to maintain the maxim that what can be explained by stupidity should never be attributed to malice.

WikiLeaks Soldier: A Complicated Kid | ATTACKERMAN

A hard core look at the issues.

YouTube - WIKILEAKS vs The Pentagon - RAP NEWS

Thiessen telegraphs Pentagon statement as threat - shit is about to go down.

Sounds like a final warning has been issued -- and that the Obama administration intends to take action to stop WikiLeaks from disclosing any further life-threatening intelligence.

PostPartisan - A final warning to WikiLeaks?