Re: Clay Shirky's nuanced position on Wikileaks

On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Karl wrote:



But the reason I am conflicted is that the guys actions were illegal,
 
they were?  What law did he break?  Other than apparently having sex without a
condom in Sweden?
 
 
**well his source in our government who gave the docs to him was violating a ton
of federal or military laws about disclosure of classified info.  There is also
federal laws that could be applied to the Wiki guy as well, and in the case of
any of the documents relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, there are wartime
espionage provisions that could in theory be applied.



and could seriously endanger people’s lives.  
 
did they?  Who's lives were endangered?

**with the state department cables, that is not as likely, but the Afghanistan
documents released the names of confidential informants in Afghanistan who would
certainly be killed by the Taliban.  And even the state department memos have
potential to reveal sensitive info that could be life threatening.
 
 
His pure transparency statement does not work for me.
 
I can certainly grant that he may have blatant anti-American motives,
 
**clearly.  He even says so.
 
but you can't deny our government has become overly secretive
 
**that’s hardly a justification.  And I would argue that our government has
always been overly secretive.  They have not gotten worse as much as we have
gotten more exposure due to the modern communications.
 
.  Any light shed on them is welcome in my opinion.
 
**perhaps.  But with a guy who hates us doing the reveal, he cares naught about
the damage causes and who is hurt.  Is he the one we want deciding that?

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot