A bit of Friedman's personal political leanings "leaked" into his books/essays, but they are interesting enough that I was able to ignore it.
I don't see anything in the info on Wikileaks that makes me consider Ohanian's conduct remotely inappropriate.
FWIW the Geopolitical perspective Friedman advocates in his books is perfectly useful as a tool for analysis and does not dictate any particular approach to governance or diplomacy.
Undermining governance, diplomacy, while promoting corruption.
But by all means take the public facing statements as they are crafted.
EDIT: My comment was previously under the assumption that Wikileaks was posting linkbait, but that role falls to the OP of this submission, not Wikileaks. Sorry!
What you'll find will bore you:
RECAP: I have never worked for Stratfor, I've tweeted screenshots from my inbox with every exchange -- they invited me to their office during SXSW, I got a tour and they asked me for a quote to consult, so I gave it to them, but it went nowhere. We hadn't talked since.
I'd been a big fan because no one else reported on Caucasus as well and I was living in Armenia at the time. When the Wikileaks revelation happened years later, I did not renew my subscription.
Here's a bonus upload of a program from a panel at Booz Allen I was on (that was a paid gig) in 2007. http://imgur.com/MXtxvEZ
Nonetheless, Adrian Chen wanted an interview, so here it is:
This is the landing page for the leak: http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html
Linkbaiting is on the submitter. Wikileaks has done no disservice here.
I met George(Stratfor founder) in the greenroom at BloombergTV, I told him how much I enjoyed his reports on Armenia while I was living there for three months and he invited me to their offices in Austin. Keep in mind this was all before the wikileaks revelation -- at the time I was just so thrilled SOMEONE in the world was writing about economic + political news in the Caucasus in a smart timely manner.
As I've said elsewhere throughout the day, I did not do any business with stratfor whatsoever.
On the whole, a mildly interesting non-issue.
What does this mean in the context of Stratfor? Selling psyops?
But, in fact, STRATFOR wears several hats, some I find good and some I find less than tasteful. This doesn't implicate Alexis in any unethical activities imho.
This is the type of invalid extrapolation everyone is worried the NSA will make since they have access to our mail. Let's try to remain calm here.
Personally, I regurarly read the free releases from Stratfor and they are usually well written and insightful, in a very factual stlye, a far cry from the hyper-partisan incomplete information presented by NYT and others. Wikileaks beef with them just seems completely misplaced; a desperate attempt to hype the material that has been given to them.
What does principal mean in this context?
Then the "terrorists" wikileaks helped expose it all.
Bonus snippet from the leak:
On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Don Kuykendall <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"We blamed everything on the lawyers. The result will be a frustrating StratCap and Service agreement that you and Bruce will vomit over. So be it. George, Shea and I are on the same wave length and are willing to have loose ends in the contract to get the business deal done. The three of us have an understanding that goes beyond whatnots in the future that might happen. If we can't trust each other, then things are going to fail regardless what the contract reads. StratCap and STRATFOR are the same investment to Shea, George and me."
edit: I cannot for the life of me figure out why this would be down-voted. Was it the syntax, grammar? Was it highlighting one of Stratfor's own emails about StratCap and Stratfor being considered one and the same? The cultivation of insider info paid for, then 'laundered' offshore for for-profit use while those involved also get a cut of the profits?
edit edit: I would honestly appreciate input to whoever does the negative votes, sometimes sprees. In some instances in which I vote down myself I cannot fathom down-voting without adequately explaining why the to user.
StratCap was an attempt by Stratfor to start their own hedge fund of sorts, funded by Shea Morenz, previously a regional director for Goldman Sachs.
Morenz, "proposed a new venture, StratCap, which would allow us to utilize the intelligence we were gathering about the world in a new but related venue-an investment fund. Where we had previously advised other hedge funds. We would now have our own, itself fully funded by Shea. Shea invested over $2 million in Stratfor and more in StratCap. In return he took a seat on Stratfor's board and a minority position in Stratfor, whose control remains in Don's and my hands. It was a good deal for Stratfor, a good deal for StratCap, and since the deal closed officially on August 1, we now have
the task of doing what we all want-building Stratfor and StratCap."  email from Friedman to Stratfor employees
As I understand it, the deal never took flight, and caught a lot of clouded press after the leak.
I'm not sure what you mean by:
>organization made to funnel insider info into other nations where it would be profited off of
Statfor deals with off-the-shelf OSINT available to you and me. StratCap was Stratfor's attempt to profit FROM a hedge fund "Where [they] had previously advised other hedge funds." 
If you have any info on StratCap having 'insider trading' intentions, I'd love to hear about it.
 - http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2312421_re-fwd-labor-day-r...
Sorry for not fully elaborating on the subject as it is convoluted and mostly easily searchable with the keywords I've already listed.
To further discussion, what did you find insightful in context to this parent thread's topic? I can only begin to imagine the possibilities to access what is moderated and what is not. What is your opinions?
edit: How is consonants doing? I am a bit down at seeing the same actors in the news again doing their same shifty acts. I have always assumed headlines like NSA/Snowden would have a damper on the will to start-up business or innovate a new industry but never considered the change in tone it would have on HN users in general.