whoever leaked it should be celebrated as an international hero. the US government needs to have it's pride stripped if it's going to start acting neutral in ANY international dispute whatsoever.
the guy who did it can't be found because:
A) wikileaks uses a highly encripted anonymous drop-box. i think they couldn't reproduce where it came from even if they needed to under order of law.
B) wikileaks is run by journalists. facts are checked. sources are protected. i'll say that i don't know very much about the australian legal system, but here in the states we have shield laws which allow a journalist to protect their sources unless there is a "clear and present danger" in keeping the source anonymous.
that means that the government needs to be able to prove in court that the danger is both real and imminent for a shield law to be cast aside.
the biggest problem i have with this is simple. 9/11 resulted from various government agencies each having fragments of indicators that would have tipped them off. afterwards, it was mandated that information be shared to prevent the problem from happening again. now they want to make it the way it was again because much more information is subject to being leaked.
it's ludicrous. it's a system where it's easier for a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds to occur, and the US government wants to return to that method so that information they don't want the public knowing stays secret.
if you ask me, that's making a black and white decision. choosing to endanger peoples lives rather than let everyone know your dirty little secrets. it makes me sick.
the guy who did it can't be found because:
A) wikileaks uses a highly encripted anonymous drop-box. i think they couldn't reproduce where it came from even if they needed to under order of law.
B) wikileaks is run by journalists. facts are checked. sources are protected. i'll say that i don't know very much about the australian legal system, but here in the states we have shield laws which allow a journalist to protect their sources unless there is a "clear and present danger" in keeping the source anonymous.
that means that the government needs to be able to prove in court that the danger is both real and imminent for a shield law to be cast aside.
the biggest problem i have with this is simple. 9/11 resulted from various government agencies each having fragments of indicators that would have tipped them off. afterwards, it was mandated that information be shared to prevent the problem from happening again. now they want to make it the way it was again because much more information is subject to being leaked.
it's ludicrous. it's a system where it's easier for a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds to occur, and the US government wants to return to that method so that information they don't want the public knowing stays secret.
if you ask me, that's making a black and white decision. choosing to endanger peoples lives rather than let everyone know your dirty little secrets. it makes me sick.
