

Wikileaks Must Be Stopped - jacoblyles
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080202627.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

======
mr_eel
"Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security
information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the
United States' enemies."

That is _not_ their stated goal. They aim to expose and distribute material of
interest to the public, not national security information in general.

"These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably
constitute material support for terrorism."

Yes, 'likely' and 'arguably'. Except that it's difficult to see how the
Espionage Act applies to a group outside of the US. Also material support for
terrorism actually means supplying _materials_ i.e. money, weaponry or
physical goods. Which they obviously are not doing.

"On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC News that Assange had a
"moral culpability" for the harm he has caused."

Oh please. This is coming from people who have been involved in the direction
of military actions that have needlessly killed civilians. They don't have the
moral high-ground here. Additionally; I'd like to see this harm quantified in
some way. Thus far there has been much talk about damage, but no evidence.

I'm all for holding people to account, but these kinds of statements seem like
FUD to me.

"Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United
States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with
him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military
assets to bring Assange to justice..."

Well firstly, lets establish what law he has broken shall we? That is a rather
extreme option, with it's own set of complications.

This article is full of lots of tough talk, but blithely ignores the
complications of international law and dipolmacy. It also fails to ask one
simple question; does the Obama Admin. see it in their best interests to
arrest Assange?

------
mixmax
As a European this comments really pisses me off _"In other words, we do not
need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the
world."_ The political hatred the US has gotten from around the world stems
largely from the idea that the US can do whatever it pleases wherever it
pleases.

Also

" _The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his
communications and disrupt his operations. "_ Julian Assange is a good hacker,
he made the first free portscanner (precursor to Nmap), co-invented Rubberhose
deniable encryption and wrote the Usenet caching software NNTPCache. I highly
doubt the United States is monitoring his activity.

~~~
isamuel
Yeah, the idea that the U.S. should blow apart its international alliances to
apprehend someone whose activities are protected under American law is
slightly insane. Then again, the author has a history of such things.

~~~
adin
I hope not. Unfortunately the US doesn't have the best "track record" for
respecting other countries laws. Off the top of my head the "extraordinary
rendition" program and the SWIFT data records comes to mind.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States)
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html)
[http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-
tortur...](http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-
cia-rendition)
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/15/swift_processing_hal...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/15/swift_processing_halt/)

------
beloch
I work in cryptography. This field has taught me something rather applicable
here:

It is far better to know your secrets are in the hands of your enemy than it
is to not know when they are in the hands of your enemy.

If your secret stuff is released on Wikileaks, you know about it. You can take
steps. e.g. Evacuate your informants before the Taliban whack 'em. If the
Taliban get their hands on a list of CIA informants, without the CIA knowing,
those guys would be screwed. As it stands they've got a fighting chance.

Wikileaks or sites like it are now a fact of life. If the CIA disappears
Assange into some banana-republic torture-hole or simply assassinates him, his
fate would most likely be leaked to Wikileaks successor. The cat is now out of
the bag.

The U.S.'s only real option here, aside from investigating how that data was
leaked in the first place, is to attempt to improve their ability to cope with
leaks when they do happen. Time often makes all the difference, so they would
be well served by developing a relationship with Assange. e.g. "You give us a
48-hour heads up when you leak something from us and we'll forgo atomizing
your brains with precision guided explosives." It's not like Assange would
have a choice if presented with such a deal. However embarrassing his
assassination might be for the U.S., it will ensure that the next Wikileaks
plays ball.

------
mahmud
FWIW, this guy and his employer earn their living by foaming in the mouth "for
America".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute>

~~~
jquery
Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by "foaming at the mouth"? I read
the wikipedia article you linked to and nowhere was that mentioned.

~~~
mahmud
He is someone whose job is to find/conjure-up all sorts of enemies and threats
facing the United States. His employing think-tank takes a political leaning
that's so far to the right, that they see nothing in this world that isn't a
"vital interest" or a "mortal enemy". They see the world through the lenses of
a globalized Monroe Doctrine. They profit materially from pain they inflict
upon people; either emotional pain in the fear they evoke in the American
masses, or the real physical pain in others when they launch recreational
wars.

So, this hired-mouth can cry foul all he wants. Those old enough to exist
before the Iraq invasion remember similar tunes. As for his opinion, it's
nothing but an invoice line-item; commissioned by the Gun and Oil interests,
draped in a flag and fig-leafed with God.

------
steveplace
Yes, I will engage in a little ad hominem, only to give context to the
author's surrounding beliefs:

 _Marc A. Thiessen served as a speechwriter for United States President George
W. Bush (2004-2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2004)_

The argument is very well laid out and I'm not qualified to mount a case
against his claims; however, it does have a slight political tinge to it.

------
ShabbyDoo
"The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his
communications and disrupt his operations."

So, a member of the American Enterprise Institute is privy to the US
Government's electronic spying capabilities? And, he's complaining about the
release of intelligence-related secrets? I don't actually think he knows for
sure that Wikileaks' communications are monitorable, but the statement is
laughable.

~~~
drhodes
It would turn into an encrypted Wack-a-mole, evolving the state of the art for
information dissemination. The author clearly believes that the DoD has magic
computers, or the equivalent of a digital nuke.

------
agentultra
I'm far more threatened by Mr. Thiessen's implication that surveillance should
be the sole domain of government than I am of Assange's attempts to thwart
such secrecy.

Governments should not have unchecked powers of surveillance. We all know the
myriad ways that can go wrong. Somebody has to be watching these people and
that's just what WL is doing.

Don't trust anyone to have your best interests at heart.

------
baddox
I laughed when the author cited _a US law_ claiming the United States' ability
(specifically the FBI) to legally _violate international law_. That's like me
citing my own personal law that says I may legally violate state laws and
burglarize any house I want to.

~~~
die_sekte
There's a US law about invading an international court to free US citizens.

There are a bunch of reasons why the US is hated by quite a few people, most
of which boil down to: (a) many US presidents are war criminals (b) the US is
a very big "western" nation that likes to start wars (c) the US doesn't play
nice with international standards and organizations.

------
gloob
I find it bizarre that so many people suddenly care so much about the lives of
a couple hundred civilians in Afghanistan. Between the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, and nary a
tear was shed by a reporter anywhere, but suddenly God knows how many people
are out for this fellow's blood.

The world's a funny place.

~~~
pradocchia
> but suddenly God knows how many people are out for this fellow's blood.

It's propaganda, in aggregate. The stated rationales don't matter. All that
matters is that the idea gets lodged in the public mind, that Wikileaks is a
legitimate threat, an enemy of the state, a rogue organization. Maybe it is,
maybe it isn't. It doesn't matter, so long as enough people believe it.

Why I don't know. What's the next play? When I heard the term "cyber warfare"
in the past, I wouldn't have thought of this, but here we are.

------
electromagnetic
The thing that concerns me is how panicked governments seem to be over the
release of documents and their reaction is insane (IE seemingly trying to
block out all free speech and free right to publication, etc) that I can't
help but wonder what they're not wanting to be leaked.

Someone without secrets doesn't worry about things being leaked. What secrets
do these governments have that are huge to the point that they seem to be
wanting to violate their own laws to block this guy.

~~~
amanfredi
You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide, eh?

~~~
electromagnetic
Not particularly no, it's a nice thing to have and it certainly helps as a
private citizen, however this is generally confusing anonymity with privacy.
I'm comfortable sharing things online because I'm anonymous, because I'd
prefer people in my personal life not know about certain things. However I
don't keep this information to myself for an illicit benefit, however people
don't have a reasonable expectation or justification to know what I'm doing at
10pm on a wednesday night. My boss does have a reason to know what I'm doing
at 10am on a Wednesday, in fact he showed up at my job site - didn't concern
me, because I wasn't doing anything I shouldn't have been.

However I have a reason and a reasonable expectation to know what my
government officials are doing, or _at least_ be able to appoint someone to
supervise them. Yet I'm told 'tough shit' because my government for as far as
I can see is embezzling my money to areas of government I have no legal rights
to even have a trustworthy official even monitor them.

Security Intelligence Services is watchdogged, but why aren't members of my
parliament as closely watched as fucking _spies_! Spies have _a lot_ to hide,
and they have _justification_ to hide it, my MP _does not_ have a reason to
hide things from me because they got my vote.

------
petercooper
I've been surprised recently how many worldly people have been cheering
Wikileaks and think what they're doing is OK. This isn't a judgment on anyone
- just surprise. I'm as big an infojunkie as anyone ;-)

Is there significant support amongst the intelligentsia for nixing laws like
the Espionage Act and Official Secrets Act that the government and military
rely on?

~~~
briandoll
"Is there significant support amongst the intelligentsia for nixing laws like
the Espionage Act and Official Secrets Act that the government and military
rely on?"

It's not that there is widespread support for nixing those laws, but since the
US government has been using those laws rather broadly (most notably during
the invasion of Iraq), I'd say there is support for revising those laws.

Laws that protect secrets are a sort of Schrödinger's cat, though, in that in
order to decide if they are a secret, you have to know the secret. So all
government declared secrets are both secrets and non-secrets at the same time.

It will be a long time before the Iraq invasion documents are declassified,
far too long from now to consider it ammo for those that want a more
transparent government.

I'm not defending Wikileaks nor their supporters necessarily, but I would
guess that this is the link of thinking with exposing (some of) these
documents. For some documents, clearly they are exposing things just to
provoke people and draw media attention, for which they have been insanely
successful.

------
b-man
I would like to see how this guy would react if it was an American citizen
leaking information about _random_enemy_country_. Should the federal
authorities of said country have the right to violate foreign soil?

~~~
mkramlich
Exactly. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. It is well-known that the US
has been spying on other countries for a long time. There is a track record of
involving citizens of foreign countries to engage in acts which are considered
treasonous by their own countries standards and, if they had been our own
citizen, treason in our own as well. What the US calls "treason" against
itself would just be called "smart intelligence gathering" by the other
country.

~~~
rmc
It is well-known that all countries has been spying on other countries for a
long time. The USA is not special here. Just about all countries spy on each
other and have done for millenia.

------
vincentpants
Wikileaks is the only place in the world where you can be a whistleblower
without the threat of censorship or persecution. Sounds like two of the best
things to happen to democracy in a long time.

~~~
petercooper
.. until you're suspected of being the whistleblower, of course:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10529110>

------
Synthetase
"The Web site must be shut down and prevented from releasing more documents --
and its leadership brought to justice."

The latter imperative might be achievable.

The former is the height of delusion.

~~~
patrickaljord
> The latter imperative might be achievable.

It might be, but so might putting a replacement online a couple of days later.

~~~
sliverstorm
'The latter' would be 'leadership brought to justice'. Read carefully.

------
msredmond
Commentary is really scary for his lack of understanding of the actual law
that could be applied to this (whether or not you agree with what was done,
there's a difference between that and what's legal/what's not). For a great
breakdown of whether or not its legal, see
[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-
wi...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-
and-the-first-amendment/)

------
takeshee
Interesting Op-Ed, but I think it's criticism is misplaced. Wikileaks in this
case is a provider, much like YouTube. Although their intended goal is to
bring to light embarrassing and/or immoral actions by governments, they have
no contractual obligation to the United States. Holding them accountable for
information provided by 3rd parties seems a stretch at best, and if
successfully prosecuted, all news media should be wary.

The op-ed's criticism should really be placed on the provider of these
documents, and those that decided he could be trusted with a security
clearance. He had a contractual agreement with the government, was informed of
the consequences of breaking his oath, broke it, and should be prepared for
the consequences.

The government knows the best way to prevent future cases like this: prosecute
the leaker to the fullest extent they can. If the leaker is executed as a
traitor, everyone with clearance during war-time will carefully consider
breaking their oaths knowing that it will cost them their lives. Harassing and
intimidating publishers will have little to no effect on future leaks, and is
probably a waste of the governments time to pursue.

------
DanielBMarkham
I am struck by four things.

1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-
protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not
normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in
jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off
he's accomplished.

2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just some guy
running a web service. That's awesome if you're Assange, but for the rest of
us, we have to live with the world that results with whatever he decides to
leak or not.

3) Anarchy is not the same as openness. Openness says I demand full insight
into what my government is doing. If not me personally, then somebody I
elected or appointed. Anarchy says any type of secret is bad and open air
always beats secrets. Governments can't function without secrets -- even your
local small town has to have secret meetings to discuss personnel issues and
such. Wikileaks is, to my mind, opposed to this cornerstone of government.
That's anarchy.

4) If Assange wants to play this game, he should think long and hard about
where it's going to lead him. Right now he's having a field day because
records are centralized and available electronically. But for every move there
is a counter-move. I know if I were running a covert op anywhere in the world
there's no freaking way I'd put anything on a computer anywhere. If he would
rather have millions of little secrets offline and out of sight, that's what
we're going to get. Which makes the entire intelligence community _even
harder_ to manage for those folks managing it. Is that better than what we
have now? It's the exact opposite of what he says he wants.

There's a certain amount of cocky self-promoting asshole about Assange. As
much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this
isn't the way to make it happen.

~~~
mcantelon
>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off

This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss
people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog
article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random
pundit.

>2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals

I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are.

>3) Anarchy is not the same as openness... Governments can't function without
secrets

Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is
serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that
blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in.

>4) If Assange wants to play this game, he should think long and hard about
where it's going to lead him... If he would rather have millions of little
secrets offline and out of sight, that's what we're going to get.

Opsec has a cost. The more expensive it is to keep the secrets needed to
maintain questionable military practices, the less chance these practices will
continue.

>There's a certain amount of cocky self-promoting asshole about Assange. As
much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this
isn't the way to make it happen.

I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day.

~~~
rick888
"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are."

Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave
away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it
was freedom of information?

"Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is
serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that
blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in."

That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets.

"I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day."

Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

~~~
mcantelon
>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave
away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

Specific examples would be great.

>If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it
was freedom of information?

The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the
most fitting comparison.

>That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets.

Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging.

>Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

Most people recognize the difference between dropping bombs on civilians and
revealing the names of those involved in the killing trade.

~~~
rick888
"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the
most fitting comparison."

That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the
Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely
nothing to do with it.

"Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging."

Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden
name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets
around here

"Specific examples would be great."

This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.

~~~
rick888
"Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in
occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi
regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed."

And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to
the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but
wikileaks is willfully looking the other way.

"If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I
would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I
don't involve myself in these things."

That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that
you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been
cheating at all of the games).

"That makes two of us, it seems."

There are actual names in the documents released. I'm not going to make your
point for you. If you want to continue to look foolish, it's fine by me.

~~~
mcantelon
>And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to
the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but
wikileaks is willfully looking the other way.

If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in
the occupation. This involves risk.

>That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk
that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has
been cheating at all of the games).

If you decide to gamble, you put your money at risk. You know the odds are
stacked against you: you just don't know to what extent. The rational choice
is not to play.

~~~
plinkplonk
"If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in
the occupation. This involves risk."

Isn't this true? Why is this being downvoted? Anyone who informs for one side
in war against the other _has_ involved himself in the war and can be expected
to be punished if the other side got to know about it. This was true during
the American War of Independence and is no less true now. Reconciliation might
happen _after_ the war, not during the war.

This applies to people informing against the Taliban as well as against the
American/NATO occupation force. Which side is "good" is somewhat irrelevant.
Which side you find "good" probably depends on where you were born more than
anything else.

------
elblanco
What I think everybody has lost site of is that Afghanistan, pre 9-11, was a
country that facilitated an environment that allowed people who would normally
be local village thugs to turn into James Bond villains that rammed airliners
into buildings on the other side of the planet killing thousands of civilians
drinking their morning lattes.

The Afghan war was most certainly not a war of colonial aggression or some
bullshit diversionary war in the wrong country and _nobody_ has floated any
realistic options other than occupying the country as way to prevent more
buildings from being knocked down. It's not even entirely clear that even
_that_ minimal goal has been accomplished.

The point of all this wasn't to spread Democracy to the oppressed people of
Afghanistan and give them clean water and schools. It was to eradicate an
environment that facilitates and encourages people to plan and execute complex
operations intent on killing us as part of an insane world domination plan to
bring forth a new Caliphate on this Earth in order to establish a particularly
hard-line version of Islam on humanity.

It just so turns out that our best estimate of what will stop the festering
insane world domination cancer that grows there is a nice dose of Democracy,
schools and economic growth. Perhaps that's wrong and misguided, but I have
yet to hear of a plan that doesn't include "better government and stronger
economy" that has any chance of working. And you can't have those things
without some semblance of security. And you can't have security against people
who want to establish a global Caliphate through a plan of killing and
terrorizing civilian populations without killing a few of those assholes in
return.

 _I mean, what's the alternative? Go door to door and politely pass out flyers
asking them nicely to stop having aspirations of killing the infidel to
cleanse the world? I wonder how long the Peace Corps would last amongst people
who's idea of a reasoned response to "let's drill a well for the village" is
to cut their head off with a dull knife and send a video of the decapitation
to their family._

I'm not sure I really understand how to have a productive debate concerning
this issue with people who think that the proper response to 9-11 should have
been a shrug of the shoulders and enhanced sanctions.

I don't think anybody wants us to be at war there -- the ass end of the Earth.
It's not like we're getting any material benefit from it -- quite the contrary
in fact. But I objectively think that anybody who holds naive ideals that you
can execute an invasion, conduct security operations, stabilization
initiatives and nation building in such an inhospitable, economically hopeless
part of the world and not end up with dead civilians is a moron. And I most
certainly haven't heard of a reasonable plan that would exclude such
unfortunate casualties. Cries for NATO to get out are _never_ followed by a
plan for what to do after that that would prevent the social and economic
degeneration of the country into what we had to deal with in the late 90's and
early 2000s.

To be perfectly honest, nobody really cares if Afghanistan soft crashes into a
fractured state of tribal warlords who kill far more civilians than any
occupation force could ever hope to do. Afghanistan will never be an advanced
industrialized society.

What we all care about is if they soft crash back into a regime that supports
complex and grandiose terror operations outside their borders. And due to
woeful mismanagement the entire conflict, it's not clear where they'd land,
but it's not likely to be a peaceful agrarian society.

~~~
OpieCunningham
Plenty of people have floated and tested ideas other than occupying the
country as methods of preventing "more buildings from being knocked down".
Indeed, nearly all terrorist plots that have been prevented have used these
methods: investigative policing.

For someone seemingly so versed in the issue, I'm surprised of two things:

1- That you're apparently unaware that there are two primary schools of
thought re: anti-terrorism. One is grand military force and the other is
investigative tactics. The former is nearly beyond cost prohibitive (some
might argue it IS cost prohibitive), of a highly questionable efficacy, and
results in orders of magnitude more civilian deaths than the instigating cause
(9/11). The latter has been demonstrated to be highly effective at preventing
attacks.

2- That you're equally unaware that the killing of families in far off lands
results in an increased number of surviving family/friends who take up arms in
opposition to those responsible. There is now a wealth of information spanning
years detailing the primary motivating factors of insurgents, most of which
revolves around revenge for the death of family/friends and little of which
has anything at all to do with Caliphates.

And lastly, it is the definition of naive to believe that "we're not getting
any material benefit" from the war. You may not be, but many corporations have
massive financial benefits and most politicians have re-election benefits
(both pro-war and anti-war politicians, though primarily the pro-war variety).

~~~
elblanco
1\. Without going into particulars of military vs. softer responses, how then
do you propose we conduct an investigative policy of counter-terror activities
in a country hostile to our investigators without first establishing an
environment a softer policy can survive in?

2\. I'm certainly not unaware of that. All possible effort should be made to
not kill innocents as it does indeed feed the terror machine. I would
certainly like to see persons responsible for indiscriminate civilian deaths
dealt with. But unless you are aware of a method, technological or otherwise,
of identifying bad civilians from good civilians in a population _a priori_ to
bad civilians doing bad things, and of removing those people from the face of
the earth without endangering the room full of people they shield themselves
with, sometimes innocents will simply be caught in the cross-fire.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it happens. Apparently your decades of
counter-terror experience says something different, please share an actual
operational plan from intelligence gathering to final capture/kill of a
notional bad-guy if that's not the case.

Outside of your naive and fantasy filled ruminations on how to conduct
counter-terror operations, you do seem to be entirely ignorant of the reasons
why we are conducting operations in Afghanistan in the first place and it had
everything to do with establishing a Caliphate.

"Like the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, of Iran, Osama bin Laden made his
anti-Western passion and plans clear in print years before gaining prominence
through a frontal assault against America and its friends. The Encyclopedia of
the Afghan Jihad, a multivolume guide to paramilitary and terrorist activity,
written by his followers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, signaled bin
Laden's intention to wage an anti-Western campaign far beyond Afghanistan and
Pakistan.

The encyclopedia was probably compiled and published in Peshawar, Pakistan, in
late 1992. Because it doesn't provide a date or an exact place of printing (an
intentional wartime evasiveness pervades the writing), one must make guesses
about its provenance based on the text and on conversations with Pakistanis,
Afghans, and Arabs. The encyclopedia, "one of the Sources of Energy for the
faithful," was designed to transfer the knowledge and spirit gained from the
"first brick of Islamic justice"—the successful war against Soviet
communism—to a larger, more important campaign against the West, which bin
Laden's statements have referred to only as kufr ("unbelief"), a classical-
Islamic way of denoting geography by faith. The next jihad against America and
its Muslim allies would, the authors of the encyclopedia prayed, lead to "the
establishment of a castle of the Muslims, a [new] Caliphate"—a reference to
the ruling politico-religious office of Islam's "golden age." For many
fundamentalists, if not for the common man, the caliphate remains, at least
sentimentally, the ideal geopolitical expression of Muslim universalism—an
empire free of Westernized nation-states, where the shari'a, the holy law,
reigns supreme, thus guaranteeing the union of Church and State and the
brotherhood and strength of the faithful.

The aim of the encyclopedia and many smaller paramilitary and terrorist
manuals that have appeared since 1992 is to democratize terrorism, to give to
any true believer a portable guide to waging holy war worldwide. The
encyclopedia has been found in print or on CD-ROM wherever al Qaeda has sent
its cadres. Bin Laden and his followers also sought to accomplish
philosophically what the Shi'ite Ayatollah Khomeini aspired to but never
achieved: taking Islamic radicalism mainstream by forcing and dominating the
discussion of holy war among the various strains of Sunni fundamentalism,
which has become a significant force in every Middle Eastern country. Though
unquestionably the most influential Muslim of modern times, Khomeini could
never transcend the seventh-century division of Islamic society into those who
recognize the legitimacy of the caliphal succession to the Prophet Muhammad
(the Sunnis) and "the party of Ali" (the Shi'a), who believe that only
Muhammad's son-in-law and his descendants can rightfully rule the Islamic
world."

[http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/01/gerecht....](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/01/gerecht.htm)

 _And lastly, it is the definition of naive to believe that "we're not getting
any material benefit" from the war. You may not be, but many corporations have
massive financial benefits and most politicians have re-election benefits
(both pro-war and anti-war politicians, though primarily the pro-war
variety)._

It's just money spinning around the drain. What I mean by not gaining material
benefit is that it's not like NATO troops are returning home with chests full
of loot like returning Roman armies on the frontiers. There's no new input of
valuables into the economies of the nations participating in Afghan counter-
terror operations.

~~~
OpieCunningham
Perhaps in the same method we investigate any and all other situations where
we are not at war. As I stated, the efficacy of investigative anti-terror
tactics is well established (these are what you call the "naive and fantasy
filled ruminations). The efficacy of invasion and occupation via military
force is not only not well established but is also turning into the cause of
increased resistance and terror tactics (these you would apparently call
"reality-based methods"). You failed to address these critical distinctions
and your misplaced insistence on focusing on a Caliphate that now has little
if anything to do with the bulk of terrorist activity is likely the cause of
your failure to recognize the futility of waging war against a concept.

It doesn't take plundering a nation by the military in order for a war to have
massive wealth producing opportunities for those involved in promoting it and
deciding to under take it. As I said, you may receive no chests full of loot -
but hundreds of corporations are, to the tune of hundreds of billions of
dollars. There is unquestionably a massive financial incentive for everlasting
war. Meanwhile, the war you gain nothing from produces the opposite of what
you seek (less terrorists).

------
fleitz
I mean pretty soon he'll start doing things like exposing secret tapes of the
president ordering break ins. If that happens the WaPo will have to ask Bob
Woodward to start doing journalism again.

Wikileaks is the best thing to happen to freedom since the Citizens'
Commission to Investigate the FBI.

------
jokull
First of all, why were 91,000 documents secret? I wouldn't really know, but
isn't that something like half of all the significant events in the war so
far? Doesn't that make this whole operation kind of veiled from the public
eye? THIS is what Wikileaks is exposing; the fact that routine events in this
war are being kept secret for no apparent reason, not just a few justified
occurrences where secrecy is necessary. It should be the burdon of the
governing bodies to justify making something a secret, but from these
documents it looks like they're slapping a "confidential" sticker on every
other file just for the heck of it.

------
rrc
Whether it's terrorism or leaks, neocons - like this author - appear to
frequently endorse head cutting as an effective method of battling hydras.

------
mkramlich
That article was so full of double standards it was hilarious. Many of the
things he accused WikiLeaks of doing, the US military is also doing, and often
more directly and at a higher level of magnitude. Also, at the end I noted the
author works for AEI. Not surprising.

------
tzm
The reaction to WL seems to be driven more by fear and a lack of control. I
question whether the blowback from leaks is greater than the unintended
consequences and misguided efforts of military action as a whole.

This issue is the result of what you could consider a natural process as
access to information becomes more efficient. Just an observation.

------
damoncali
I get the sense he thinks this a big political game. (after all, war is just
the imposition of political policy via force).

Having spent some time with the folks he is pissing off, I don't think it's an
understatement to say that he may just get himself killed.

~~~
mkramlich
That will be the ultimate proof of whether he's truly a threat to any powerful
interests. If he suddenly disappears or has an accident one day, that will
likely be the other shoe dropping.

------
adrianwaj
I hope Wikileaks can leak things about "Palestine" regarding where and who are
benefiting from all its aid - not that anyone will care that much. Is there a
disproportionate focus on the USA? China's another country that could use some
leakage.

------
tlerce
Bizarre how he so broadly paints the world with America's laws.

------
Groxx
Is it just me, or is The Washington Post getting worse?

------
DjDarkman
Assange is a hero to democracy, the government dirty secrets must be
uncovered!

Those informants aided the war, they aided civilian slaughter that many US
troops did for fun, so I guess if they get killed, they had it coming.

The war is [supposably] over, why does the US need to have so many secrets?
Are they embarrassed that their army is full of sadistic murderers?

These short sighted people that write articles like this eat propaganda.

------
Chirag
Knowing is always better than not knowing.

~~~
Ardit20
Perhaps. That we do not know.

------
Ardit20
I am not American, so I do not know this author, but wow, this guy is evil!

From Wikileaks, I mean Wikipedia:

Marc A. Thiessen (born 1967) served as a speechwriter for United States
President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
(2001–2004). He is the author of the 2010 New York Times bestselling book,
Courting Disaster.

"Thiessen's first book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and
How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" - I think the title is probably
all you need to know about him and the book.

"...a former military interrogator, and author of How to Break a Terrorist,
characterizes Thiessen's book as "a literary defense of war criminals"

"...many Catholic thinkers strongly disagree with Thiessen's assertion in the
book that <strong>waterboarding</strong> is permitted by the teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church." <i>Emphasis Added</i>

"Thiessen's promotional tour for Courting Disaster included a confrontational
interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour and an interview with Jon Stewart on
The Daily Show"

Man if he is shouting at John Stewart, you know the guy is evil.

He is all that I and am sure most Americans by their univocal rejection of the
last government despise. He stands for all that made the last decade so dark.
He is the f __* criminal.

Now as to the article. I am amazed. Override International Law? What on earth!
What is he somewhat superior than everyone else? Does he think the US is so
great that it can afford to pick a fight with freaking Europe? Or is
International Law applicable only to others, or is law for that matter
applicable only to others?

Man this guy is not only Evil, but an enemy of the people. If the Devil did
exist and took the form of man, it would resemble him like a mirror image.

------
itistoday
Wikileaks, like Wikipedia, is one of the healthiest things to come out of the
internet. The service it provides to the United States and the rest of the
world is invaluable. The only group I see threatened here is that great
"military-industrial complex," and that's fine by me.

------
binspace
Wow, that article had government propaganda written all over it. Now I'm
really glad somebody is standing up and exposing some questionable secrets.

America should be a government for the people by the people. I'm sorry, but
hiding murders of children is not for the people.

