The source behind the leak of the collateral murder video was arrested recently in Iraq for disclosing classified information to unauthorized sources. More from Wired
It seems like this guy genuinely thought he had a moral obligation to turn over this information. However I tend to think that internal foreign policy discussions should be kept between the two parties involved. It's definitely a threat to national security if intimate foreign policy discussions are exposed, but as of now the strong-arm of the law is only coming down hard on Manning. What about Wikileaks? From what I've read the site hasn't disclosed much if anything from the 250k+ classified dispatches, but possession of classified material by non-cleared entities is illegal as far as I know, so why no action against wikileaks? Is this covered under federal whistleblower laws?
As the internet has become a very powerful source of information accessible by virtually anyone it is no stretch of the imagination to foresee these types of instances become more commonplace. Do you think something like this will end up as an example of success for Manning/Wikileaks? Is this something that should be championed as a free-speech and full-disclosure victory?
It's an interesting article that raises a lot of questions to say the least
The article mentions a littany of reasons for the breach, from lax security to personal and job issues in Manning's life to a yearning for the truth to come out (in his words).SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged.
...
He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”
It seems like this guy genuinely thought he had a moral obligation to turn over this information. However I tend to think that internal foreign policy discussions should be kept between the two parties involved. It's definitely a threat to national security if intimate foreign policy discussions are exposed, but as of now the strong-arm of the law is only coming down hard on Manning. What about Wikileaks? From what I've read the site hasn't disclosed much if anything from the 250k+ classified dispatches, but possession of classified material by non-cleared entities is illegal as far as I know, so why no action against wikileaks? Is this covered under federal whistleblower laws?
As the internet has become a very powerful source of information accessible by virtually anyone it is no stretch of the imagination to foresee these types of instances become more commonplace. Do you think something like this will end up as an example of success for Manning/Wikileaks? Is this something that should be championed as a free-speech and full-disclosure victory?
It's an interesting article that raises a lot of questions to say the least
