Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[zomgwtf]

How can you or anyone in this thread possibly know the 'intent' of the the NYT?

As I said they have clearly outlined the process they've gone through in order to publish this information, it's been available since they released the some info and they've been working with various govn't organizations in order to limit what is said and not said. They are ALSO trying to limit what wikileaks says and releases. Perhaps you should re-read the thread.

Since I'm assuming that people are going to keep running with this instead of looking up the info themselves here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29editornote.html?_r=1&src=mv&ref=world

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself.

It is extremely clear they do not intend to harm the USA which has been set by case precedent to be required for charges under the Espionage Act to hold.
Compare that with:

Assange has said that "his intent is to harm the United States"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone think Assange, while a high profile target, won't be the end of leaks if caught? I feel this has a type of P2P stickiness around it.

Just like the kid in S. Korea, IIRC, who started that one virus that was so damaging a couple of years ago, I think this is about precedence. It needs to be demonstrated that actions like those of Assange come with huge consequences. US security interests cannot be held hostage by a bunch of nuts or people out to harm the US. That cannot be allowed.

The real problem is the source of the leak. That guy is toast.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must say, after 911 and everything that we've been through, it is hard to believe that a PFC can cause so much trouble with a thumb drive. In my mind, that is the worst crime of all - that this could even happen.

 

[Monique]

[..] and they've been working with various govn't organizations in order to limit what is said and not said.

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

 

[zomgwtf]

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

Why?

 

[talk2glenn]

It is extremely clear they do not intend to harm the USA which has been set by case precedent to be required for charges under the Espionage Act to hold.

Intent to harm is a standard, not the standard. If the Times believes that the leaked information could harm the United States or help its enemies then copying, publishing, failing to return, and doing pretty much anything else with it is a criminal offense, and the courts have never held that there is a 1st amendment exception for reporters, dissenters, whistle blowers, or anyone else. The national security exception is broad concerning speech about classified materials.

DOJ doesn't prosecute reporters as a matter of policy, not law. Don't make the mistake of concluding that therefore the DOJ cannot prosecute reporters. It can, and if a case was sufficiently egregious, I'm sure it would. In this case, the Times took steps to protect itself by communicating with the government before publishing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

 

[mheslep]

Probably by reading the news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...26/AR2010072605410_2.html?sid=ST2010072605658

Words don't necessarily equal intent. And even if the NYT intent differs substantively from Wikileaks in this particular case, it is definitely not clear there's a difference between Wikileaks here and the NYT in prior cases, like the bank transfer tracking case, where the NYT defied government request to not publish.

As far as I know, the NYT and other papers nearly always 'consult' with the government on big issues like the release of secrets. That may well be for a couple of reasons: 1) to cover their backsides, and simply appear responsible when they intend to publish regardless of the consequences, or 2) simply to get a response from the government to enhance the buzz of story they're going with anyway.

 

[zomgwtf]

Words don't necessarily equal intent. And even if the NYT intent differs substantively from Wikileaks in this particular case, it is definitely not clear there's a difference between Wikileaks here and the NYT in prior cases, like the bank transfer tracking case, where the NYT defied government request to not publish.

As far as I know, the NYT and other papers nearly always 'consult' with the government on big issues like the release of secrets. That may well be for a couple of reasons: 1) to cover their backsides, and simply appear responsible when they intend to publish regardless of the consequences, or 2) simply to get a response from the government to enhance the buzz of story they're going with anyway.

Would those other instances have fallen under the Espionage Act? This is a very specific instance I'm not sure if other cases would fall under the Espionage Act...

 

[zomgwtf]

Intent to harm is a standard, not the standard. If the Times believes that the leaked information could harm the United States or help its enemies then copying, publishing, failing to return, and doing pretty much anything else with it is a criminal offense, and the courts have never held that there is a 1st amendment exception for reporters, dissenters, whistle blowers, or anyone else. The national security exception is broad concerning speech about classified materials.

DOJ doesn't prosecute reporters as a matter of policy, not law. Don't make the mistake of concluding that therefore the DOJ cannot prosecute reporters. It can, and if a case was sufficiently egregious, I'm sure it would. In this case, the Times took steps to protect itself by communicating with the government before publishing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

This is all true but people in this thread are asking how could the government go after Wikileaks without going after the NYT. I've provided the reason (I think... at least) This isn't to say that the government couldn't go after the NYT just that the case between wikileaks and NYT is very, very different and not comparable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

Not at all. It is called responsible journalism.

Things have always been done this way when it comes to sensitive issues. Conversely, if the NY Times thought that there was an illegal government conspiracy in play, esp one that harms the nation, it would be their civic duty to publish that information.

Once the cat was out of the bag, there was no reason for papers to withhold the information. As one journalist put it, at this point, their choice to publish or not carried no consequences.

 

[Monique]

Why?

Clearly you must have a different view on press censorship. The fact that the United States is on position 20 of the Press Freedom Index 2010 is illustrative of the issue: access of information and editorial freedom are handled differently in the US. I guess that might cause some differing views.

 

[mheslep]

Would those other instances have fallen under the Espionage Act? This is a very specific instance I'm not sure if other cases would fall under the Espionage Act...

Obligatory (and obvious) IANAL here, I don't know. But it sure seams like the bank wire transfer tracking case would have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Enactment"

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.​

at least the last clause, by giving potential Al-Qaeda a heads up they were be tracked through financial actions.

 

[M.Dowson]

Actually I don't like all these 'conspiracy' ideas. Either you do not even try to mess with lying, or just be prepared to be knocked off. They knew what they did so they shouldn't be surprised on the mass media reaction.

 

[talk2glenn]

This is all true but people in this thread are asking how could the government go after Wikileaks without going after the NYT. I've provided the reason (I think... at least) This isn't to say that the government couldn't go after the NYT just that the case between wikileaks and NYT is very, very different and not comparable.

Oh, well in that case, you're absolutely right. There's a big difference between the conduct of the Times and the conduct of Wikileaks.

Wikileaks is the enabler. It is receiving and disseminating classified material. If the Times had taken no action, the information would still have been released.

Wikileaks could be argued to be a co-conspirator. It actively promotes and encourages the illegal sharing of classified information. This is probably the route the government will want to take to avoid an Espionage Act trial, once it convicts Manning and depending on how strongly Wikileaks plays in his conduct.

The Times contacted the government before publishing, and cooperated in redacting much (going by the published news stories) of the data the government found most damaging. Wikileaks publishes raw data, and makes no effort to forewarn or cooperate with the government before releasing it.

Clearly, there's no reason to pursue the Times in this case, and plenty of reason to throw the book at Assange.

 

[Hepth]

The Times contacted the government before publishing, and cooperated in redacting much (going by the published news stories) of the data the government found most damaging. Wikileaks publishes raw data, and makes no effort to forewarn or cooperate with the government before releasing it.

That's actually blatant lie or misinformation. Wikileaks had gone through the same method of contacting the US Gov concerning both the Iraq and Afg. war leaks. They wanted to protect the US and any of its operatives by having the US Gov go through what they were going to publish, just as the NYT did. The Us Gov refused.

"As the secretary has indicated, we have an ethical and moral obligation to take measures to protect the people that might be endangered by the release of this information," said Whitman. "But we are not going to negotiate minimizing or sanitizing classified documents. They are property of the United States government and they should be returned and removed from the website."[\QUOTE] http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Pentagon-Rebuffs-WikiLeaks-on-Review-of-War-Documents--100996339.html"

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/08/20/wikileaks-lawyer-says-pentagon-has-been-given-codes-granting-access-to-unpublished-secret-documents.html"

 

[mheslep]

Stephen L Carter, Professor of Law, Yale
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...e-should-espionage-act-be-used-against-him/2/

Indeed, as several observers have pointed out, an interpretation of the Espionage Act sufficiently broad to encompass what WikiLeaks has done would surely cover as well the newspapers that have published the documents. If Assange’s actions have damaged the security of the United States, then the same argument presumably applies to The New York Times

Ok I'll be looking for my law degree in the mail any time now.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Difference being the NYT is still out to make a profit and it can be influenced by the government in one way or another, whereas Wikileaks is not out to make a profit and its primary (only) purpose is to disseminate information.

 

[Evo]

Wikilinks openly solicits illegally obtained information, this puts it in a different category from a news agency that is the recipient of unsolicited information, from what I've read, I forget what the legal term used was.

 

[Mathnomalous]

How the information is obtained is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is whether or not the information presented is truthful.

 

[talk2glenn]

That's actually blatant lie or misinformation. Wikileaks had gone through the same method of contacting the US Gov concerning both the Iraq and Afg. war leaks. They wanted to protect the US and any of its operatives by having the US Gov go through what they were going to publish, just as the NYT did. The Us Gov refused.

Excuse me? I'm a "blatant liar"? That's particularly amusing given the absurdity of your claim that Wikileaks has "gone through the same method" as the Times. Assange and company have about the same level of tact as you; they've never exercised the kind of courtesy and restraint in anything that's practiced by the Times.

In regards to the leak of Afghanistan documents, the initial document dump was not censored in any way. The media response to this was extremely negative. After the fact, Wikileaks claimed that it was still sitting on several thousand additional documents, but hadn't released them yet because it was checking them "line by line" for names of parties that might be placed at risk. To date, no such documents containing any such redacments have been released. Why they would release 92,000 documents raw, while hanging onto 15,000 more, is anyones guess. My thoughts? They made the whole "more documents being carefully reviewed by our highly qualified experts" thing up when they saw how badly they looked.

In regards to the leak of diplomatic cables, Assange contacted State through his attorney to ask the government for information about who might be placed at risk and why. The audacity of this move is beyond the pale, and is in no way shape or form similar to the way the Times or anyone else in the States handles these sorts of things. Why would the government share additional classified material with Wikileaks? Further, by the time this request was sent to State, Assange had already widely distributed the raw, unredacted files to numerous parties, including foreign and domestic media outlets. At this point, he had already destroyed any chance of the government retaining any semblance of confidence in the sanctity of the original data. Why would State possibly cooperate with the tool at this point, compromising additional data and lending him the appearance of credibility and respectability, while simultaneously undermining a later criminal case for leaking classified materials?

 

[Galteeth]

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

In other news, Santa Claus revealed to be a myth. :)


But seriously, wikileaks offered to redact sensitive info on the war stuff to minimize the danger to individuals. The pentagon refused, not wanting to legitimize them. In my view, the "harm" is on the pentagon.

To me, this is more of a "mask is off" kind of moment. It's not so much about what was revelaed, but about the reaction by the government and the media. It has become abundantly clear that no one really believes in the notion of freedom of the press.
The internet is a threat to the corporate contriolled media. They can't pretend anymore.

In my view, Assange is a hero. Funny so many here who in theory support the search for truth aren't comfortable with it when it comes to politics.

 

[Galteeth]

Excuse me? I'm a "blatant liar"? That's particularly amusing given the absurdity of your claim that Wikileaks has "gone through the same method" as the Times. Assange and company have about the same level of tact as you; they've never exercised the kind of courtesy and restraint in anything that's practiced by the Times.

In regards to the leak of Afghanistan documents, the initial document dump was not censored in any way. The media response to this was extremely negative. After the fact, Wikileaks claimed that it was still sitting on several thousand additional documents, but hadn't released them yet because it was checking them "line by line" for names of parties that might be placed at risk. To date, no such documents containing any such redacments have been released. Why they would release 92,000 documents raw, while hanging onto 15,000 more, is anyones guess. My thoughts? They made the whole "more documents being carefully reviewed by our highly qualified experts" thing up when they saw how badly they looked.

In regards to the leak of diplomatic cables, Assange contacted State through his attorney to ask the government for information about who might be placed at risk and why. The audacity of this move is beyond the pale, and is in no way shape or form similar to the way the Times or anyone else in the States handles these sorts of things. Why would the government share additional classified material with Wikileaks? Further, by the time this request was sent to State, Assange had already widely distributed the raw, unredacted files to numerous parties, including foreign and domestic media outlets. At this point, he had already destroyed any chance of the government retaining any semblance of confidence in the sanctity of the original data. Why would State possibly cooperate with the tool at this point, compromising additional data and lending him the appearance of credibility and respectability, while simultaneously undermining a later criminal case for leaking classified materials?

Because they don't want their operations compromised, if that was what suppossedly the big deal was?

I think Assange wanted the "why" as to who was at risk so the government wouldn't just blankly state a bunch of names they didn't want released. It seems like a sensible move to me.

 

[Evo]

Assange is an idiot, pure and simple.

Assange also confimed that no leaked records would ever be withheld to protect any nation's interests.

He doesn't care about anyone, anywhere, except himself.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/11/just-what-is-wikileaks-aim.html

Is he really so full of himself that he doesn't understand the delicate balance needed in order for the world's nations to have some semblance of a network to work together? Does he realize the damage he's doing? Is he that delusional to think that destroying trust between nations is a good thing? What a moron.

I'm surprised that you find intelligent people calling him out for his stupidty unusual.

 

[Hepth]

Excuse me? I'm a "blatant liar"? That's particularly amusing given the absurdity of your claim that Wikileaks has "gone through the same method" as the Times. Assange and company have about the same level of tact as you; they've never exercised the kind of courtesy and restraint in anything that's practiced by the Times.

I didn't call you a "blatant liar", calm down man. The "or cooperate with the government before releasing it." was just not entirely true was that I was pointing out. That's why I said "or misinformation". Perhaps I was too solid on my "same method" as they're definitely NOT the same method. Though Wikileaks claims to have used similar methods to get in touch with the DoD as they tried initially to go through the NYT.

BUT it appears that its still contested whether or not Wikileaks, through the NYT, contacted the DoD about reviewing the material.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks

Wikileaks(WL) claims to have tried to get to DoD through NYT, but its all so unclear. Pro-WL sites portray it as if WL tired, prior to release, to get through to DoD. Then after initial release of the ones WL deemed fit to publish, they get a response from Gibbs through NYT saying to "not publish information that could lead to people being physically harmed." Then Assange replies that they'll take review if the the Gov will give it for the remaining documents(ISAF).

The pentagon claimed they had never, at all, been contacted by Assange. Then Assange produces a letter showing they had, and even responded saying they wouldn't go through the material. Now Anti-WL sites are claiming that it was all a lie, and Assange never actually was willing to have them (ISAF) review it. Soem going so far as to say the letter was a fake. Its all a bunch of lies on both sides most likely. And I'm sure a healthy handful of miscommunication on the government's side.

Though there is ONE claim

A second WikiLeaks lawyer, Julie Turner of Palo Alto, Calif., told Declassified on Friday that earlier this summer—after news stories began to appear about the arrest of a U.S. soldier alleged to be a WikiLeaks source, but before WikiLeaks published the first tranche of its trove of Pentagon documents on the Afghan war—she had engaged in an after-hours call with State Department officials in which she gave them reliable contact information for WikiLeaks, whose leading figure, Assange, is notorious for being hard to reach.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...to-unpublished-secret-documents.html?from=rss

That appears, though she could be lying, that they DID try to contact them, or at least give them a channel to Wikileaks, prior to the original release. But I doubt the contact info ever went up the chain to someone who really cared.

My thoughts? They made the whole "more documents being carefully reviewed by our highly qualified experts" thing up when they saw how badly they looked.

I doubt that, but it is possible.

Why would State possibly cooperate with the tool at this point, compromising additional data and lending him the appearance of credibility and respectability, while simultaneously undermining a later criminal case for leaking classified materials?

Because if it's truly in the best interest of the US's operatives to be able to censor what is going to be released, the US should do so? It's not a matter of credibility. I don't think ANYONE believes the releases are fake, or altered. And I don't think it would undermine any criminal case. Its akin to a hostage situation. Just because you give the kidnappers food and water during negotiations doesn't mean you approve of what they're doing. Its all about damage control, which I think the pentagon knows really isn't all that much.

 

[Hepth]

Is he really so full of himself that he doesn't understand the delicate balance needed in order for the world's nations to have some semblance of a network to work together? Does he realize the damage he's doing? Is he that delusional to think that destroying trust between nations is a good thing? What a moron.

I agree. There are some leaks that I'm ok with, such as the Iraq video of the killing of the embedded reporters. It doesn't compromise national security but rather the infallibility of our military. But some of the cables are the kind of backdealings and frank talk that are needed between nationals to ensure honest communication. Things that aren't illegal but merely shady.

I'm not sure if he's actually that idealistic or really just out to make as big of a disturbance as possible.

 

[Galteeth]

Assange is an idiot, pure and simple.

He doesn't care about anyone, anywhere, except himself.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/11/just-what-is-wikileaks-aim.html

Is he really so full of himself that he doesn't understand the delicate balance needed in order for the world's nations to have some semblance of a network to work together? Does he realize the damage he's doing? Is he that delusional to think that destroying trust between nations is a good thing? What a moron.

I'm surprised that you find intelligent people calling him out for his stupidty unusual.

I can't speak for assange, but... what good is trust if it's based on lies? Don't people have a right to know what their governments are up to? We are talking about more then just diplomats opinions of other diplomats. He is exposing crimes, coverups, wastes of money, secret government programs, etc. I guess there are a lot of people who would rather be in the dark about that sort of thing. I supposse if they are happy with the status quo that could make some sense. Afterall, one could argue it was glasnost that lead to the fall of the soviet union.

Let me ask the WL detractors here some questions. Take the instance where the US bombed alleged terrorist positions in Yemen, and the Yemeni government helped to cover it up. Do you think this should be a government secret?

How about the the hiring of underage prosititutes by Dyncorp, a US contractor in Afghanistan? Is it best for the public not to know these things?

I can see reasons why this information should be kept secret. The question then becomes, where do you draw the line? Should people be barred from revealing anything about US foreign policy? Should this ever apply to domestic policy? Why or why not?

 

[zomgwtf]

Clearly you must have a different view on press censorship. The fact that the United States is on position 20 of the Press Freedom Index 2010 is illustrative of the issue: access of information and editorial freedom are handled differently in the US. I guess that might cause some differing views.

Clearly I must.

Or perhaps you just don't know what information has been leaked so you think this is just some journalism gwanin?

Any developed country would probably try to stop the publishing of classified and secret documents especially when they may jepordize national relations and possibly endanger the military (as with the last leaks wikileaks put out). I'm surprised the government didn't actively stop these articles being published and instead condoned it but said if you must we ask that you restrict this information. They didn't even HAVE to listen, it was just REQUESTED.

Monique what you said in relation to what occurred with the NYT is just dishonest.

 

[Evo]

I can't speak for assange, but... what good is trust if it's based on lies?

The candid discussions between diplomats and heads of state aren't lies. And what is going on between nations is not something that the average person on the street could ever fathom.

Tension between world powers is very real and very fragile. Assange has quite possibly set the possibility of trust between nations back 100 years. Moron.

 

[Galteeth]

The candid discussions between diplomats and heads of state aren't lies.

Tension between world powers is very real and very fragile. Assange has quite possibly set the possibility of trust between nations back 100 years. Moron.

But again, I ask, where do you draw the line? If the US has done embarassing things in some countries, like pressuring politicians to tow the US line with promises of money or threats, or if US paid contractors are engaging in criminal actvities, or if the US is using its intelligence services to support coups, do you think the interest of preserving international relations is greater then the traditional interest of the free press providing information to the citizenry about what its government is up to?

 

[Evo]

Galteeth is on a short vacation due to something we can't discuss, so do not worry that he's been banned.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Assange is an idiot, pure and simple.

He doesn't care about anyone, anywhere, except himself.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/11/just-what-is-wikileaks-aim.html

Is he really so full of himself that he doesn't understand the delicate balance needed in order for the world's nations to have some semblance of a network to work together? Does he realize the damage he's doing? Is he that delusional to think that destroying trust between nations is a good thing? What a moron.

I'm surprised that you find intelligent people calling him out for his stupidty unusual.

That would only apply if nations trusted each other in the first place. Nations spy on each other on a regular basis; nations screw each other on a regular basis (e.g. proxy wars). Even so-called "allies" would not pass on a chance to obtain advantageous information on another ally.

Intelligent people calling him out? Sure, intelligent people distancing themselves from the "rogue" agent; that is actually an intelligent move.

The candid discussions between diplomats and heads of state aren't lies. And what is going on between nations is not something that the average person on the street could ever fathom.

Tension between world powers is very real and very fragile. Assange has quite possibly set the possibility of trust between nations back 100 years. Moron.

And how exactly would you determine the nature of the discussions between diplomats and heads of state, since, you know, you are not privy to those conversations? This idea that the average person on the street cannot comprehend what takes place between nations is elitist and disturbing.

I very much doubt trust between nations advanced much in the last 100 years. What Assange actually did was expose how the powerful and well-connected conduct business, and obviously, these people do not like that because they are cockroaches.

Perhaps if nations were forced to deal in total transparency less shenanigans would take place in the world.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps if nations were forced to deal in total transparency less shenanigans would take place in the world.

Do you seriously think that will ever happen? If you answer yes, I'd like to know what makes you think so. Based on world history. Based on what's going on in the world right now. Seriously.

This isn't a joke. This isn't have a coke and sing songs. This is really serious. The repercussions of this remain to be seen.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Do you seriously think that will ever happen? If you answer yes, I'd like to know what makes you think so. Based on world history. Based on what's going on in the world right now. Seriously.

This isn't a joke. This isn't have a coke and sing songs. This is really serious. The repercussions of this remain to be seen.

I doubt it will ever happen, but I still strive to live in such a world.

It is clear to me we live in a garbage world when we condemn a man who exposed the truth, no matter the repercussions. No, it is not a joke, and this is why billions of people must know what takes place when their "representatives" meet in private, to discuss who-knows-what.

The repercussions? Mr. Assange will likely turn up dead or disgraced as an example to others. Nations will continue doing what they have been doing forever: screwing each other over, except this time they have a better idea who is screwing who.

Edit: what bothers me the most is the hypocrisy displayed by those most hurt by the release of the documents: we, the US. If China or Russia had been the main recipients of the pain, we would be building a Julian Assange monument in Washington, D.C. this very moment. When the US Secretary of State orders her diplomats to "spy" on UN dealings, one cannot doubt there was no trust floating around to begin with.

I hope more people step up and send more sensitive information to Wikileaks. Time to knock down a few corrupt governments, especially ours.

 

[Evo]

I doubt it will ever happen, but I still strive to live in such a world.

It is clear to me we live in a garbage world when we condemn a man who exposed the truth, no matter the repercussions. No, it is not a joke, and this is why billions of people must know what takes place when their "representatives" meet in private, to discuss who-knows-what.

The repercussions? Mr. Assange will likely turn up dead or disgraced as an example to others. Nations will continue doing what they have been doing forever: screwing each other over, except this time they have a better idea who is screwing who.

He didn't expose *truth*, he interfered with the delicate balance of diplomacy. He posted private messages. He's edangered everything that we hope to achieve for world peace. He's a moron. He's already a disgrace to mankind.

Exposing corruption is one thing, destroying relations between countries that could lead to world peace is abysmally stupid.

 

[Mathnomalous]

He didn't expose *truth*, he interfered with the delicate balance of diplomacy. He posted private messages. He's edangered everything that we hope to achieve for world peace. He's a moron. He's already a disgrace to mankind.

A few posts above you are calling me out for my idealism and now you post that gem? World peace? Yes, we strive for world peace, but we know it is as likely as my "total government transparency" ideal.

A disgrace to mankind? Really? Wow... Let us place Julian Assange on the same level as genocidal tyrants and governments. Why? Because he dared challenge the powerful. Please, save the hyperbole.

The man did not interfere with the delicate balance of diplomacy. The man simply showed the world the US Government is just as "cockroachy" as other governments on Earth. Will diplomacy become more difficult? Sure, not that it changes significantly from what it has been in the past.