October 23rd, 2010

Wikileaks again

The latest Wikileaks dump is the most recent salvo in an information counterwar that’s been going on for quite some time. Here’s one of the better articles about it, if you want some information about the major issues and players.

I’ll only add that when I say this counterwar has been going on for quite some time, I mean a very long time. One of the first shots fired was the Pentagon Papers, which helped establish the willingness of the MSM to print what heretofore would have been considered secret documents counterproductive to a war effort in which we are still engaged. I wrote about the phenomenon and its aftermath here:

…[I]t appears that national security whistleblowers are being encouraged to act as virtual moles within their own organizations, remaining in their jobs in order to gain more of the sensitive material and to reveal it as they see fit, according to the dictates of their individual consciences, and often for political reasons. And the idea that there will be any serious legal consequences for the whistleblowers has been weakened; Ellsberg expected to be charged with treason (and was, [although he never came to trial; charges were dropped because of Watergate]), but many whistleblowers today seem to consider such possibilities to be idle threats.

There is now an entire cottage industry dedicated to this sort of thing, composed of self-righteous crusaders against any sort of war in which the US in engaged. Since they can’t pin enough atrocities on the US, their main goal, they now resort to something like the latest Wikileads data, which implicates the Iraqi forces who were allied with us.

Of course, Wikileaks is silent on the much greater atrocities committed then—and now—by the enemy in Iraq, both by Saddam’s government before the war and then the “insurgents.” The folks at Wikileaks have no solution to the problems of aggression, terrorism, evil, or the carnage committed by our enemies, and they don’t care that their work is going to hurt our soldiers and give the enemy aid and comfort and fuel for its own propaganda war. It’s almost as though the enemy doesn’t exist for them, except as victim.

[NOTE: I have not read the Wikileaks data itself, only the descriptions of it.

And here is another piece I've written about Ellsberg, in this case about his "Truth-Telling Project." Here is a description:

“The Truth-Telling Project”–now, what might that be? Wretchard quotes from its web page, which offers the following description of the organization’s purpose and function:

"The Truth-Telling Coalition, comprised of high-level national security truth-tellers, as well as non-profit whistleblower organizations, provides a personal and legal support network for each other and for government insiders considering becoming truth-tellers."

So, according to its own description, the group appears to be an organization dedicated to supporting the spilling of secrets by national security officers in the interests of “truth.”

Please read the whole post.]

16 Responses to “Wikileaks again”

  1. Bryan Says:

    Revolting. We really should treat them as traitors for aiding the enemy war effort.

  2. Tom Says:

    All of these events are scathing indictments of our digital security, and of the cowardly passivity of not hunting down and severely hammering the perps.

  3. nyomythus Says:

    Ellsberg, cross hair that mother.

  4. Oblio Says:

    What Bryan said. In the meantime, NSA or CIA should crash Wikileaks’ servers.

  5. turfmann Says:

    I am not sure which disgusts me more, the actions of wikileaks or the flaccid reaction of our government (not that their response surprises me as our government is lead by a man who is a fellow traveler).

    We need to realize that releasing this information puts our men and women in uniform at risk. If this information results in one of them getting so much as a hang nail I am all for bringing back the hang man.

    When are we going to figure out that we are in the middle of a war with a implacable ideology that has explicitly called for our elimination?

  6. Matteo Says:

    Where’s Mitch Rapp when you need him?

  7. njcommuter Says:

    According to one of the headline articles that has drifted on and off the top-of-page at HotAir, the leaked documents also prove extensive and nefarious Iranian involvement in much of the violence in Iraq and in the surrounding region. They also document the discovery of chemical weapons. Some were new, most were left over from Saddam’s stockpiles (which he had ordered destroyed) and most were cached in ways that suggested that Iranian-backed insurgents had stored them.

    Of course, this news won’t make the Left-Wing media.

    (Oh, and Andrew Klavan has a new vid on PJTV about left, right, and the overshifted center.)

  8. anna Says:

    But there were no WMDs!! Bush lied and people died!!! Bush had daddy issues so he made up some invisible WMDs!! Saddam never had any weapons, only puppies and roses!!

    It does seem to me sometimes that our own government is bent on destroying the country and therefore in large part itself also. Why though? Does this go back to another recurring theme here, that those who profess to hate injustice only want to be the ones on top of the pig pile?

    I wonder how long we have until critical pig-pile-ness has been achieved.

  9. expat Says:

    Here is the latest on Assange from the NYT:


    It sounds like he may wind up in a padded cell or in an Afghanistan cave sharing a pet goat with Osama. Schadenfreude is not a particularly attractive emotion, so I am trying to overcome mine.

  10. colagirl Says:

    I’m so upset and disgusted by this that I don’t even know what to type. I hope that son of a bitch who leaked goes to jail forever, but realistically nothing’s going to happen to him. Our government doesn’t have the will to go after leakers. And of course, each time someone leaks with no consequences, that makes it look more attractive for the next person to do just the same thing. Maybe we don’t deserve to win.

  11. Tom Says:

    It strikes me the Assanges, Ellsbergs et al. are the contemporary equivalents of the anarchists one hundred years ago. There were rather a lot of them, not just the few “successful” ones, who killed McKinley and Archduke Ferdinand.

    There is a lesson here: the amplification of the (nominally unpowered) individual, by use of immoral means, to derange social stability and harm and kill millions. They cannot succeed without abetters; in Assange’s case, leakers (unless he is an extraordinary hacker) and amplifying voices (NY Times, Der Spiegel).

    It also seems clear that the Assanges are sociopaths of the first order, cloaking themselves in principled garb, like Ted Bundy.

  12. Steve Says:

    I would not be surprised if Soros is financing Assange and Wikileaks.

  13. Occam's Beard Says:

    It’s almost as though the enemy doesn’t exist for them, except as victim.

    You don’t get it, neo. We are the enemy.

    Shift perspective from a geocentric to a heliocentric solar system, and you can do away with complicated cycloidal orbits.

    If you assume Assange is a loyal American trying to advance the cause of human rights and transparency, his actions (and omissions) are inexplicable.

    But if instead you assume Assange is a leftist subversive trying to undermine this country, and everything drops into place. Of course he has no interest in Saddam’s transgressions. How would promuilgating those hurt America?

    Simple, really.

  14. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: I never assumed Assange is an anything American. He is Australian.

    I believe I read a while back that Wikileaks is staffed for the most part by non-Americans. Their sources are probably American, but we don’t know their identities.

  15. Occam's Beard Says:

    Neo, oops. My bad. Didn’t know that.

    But a Red is a Red is a Red. And in any case, he’s obviously trying to undermine America, any rubbish about a higher calling notwithstanding.

  16. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: see today’s post on the subject.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge