Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

It could soon be a felony to donate to WikiLeaks

By

This is all grounded in the toxic mindset expressed yesterday on Meet the Press (without challenge, naturally) by GOP Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said of Assange:  “I think the man is a high-tech terrorist. He’s done an enormous damage to our country, and I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law.”  As usual, when wielded by American authorities, the term “terrorist” means nothing more than: “those who impede or defy the will of the U.S. Government with any degree of efficacy.”  Anyone who does that is, by definition, a Terrorist.  And note McConnell’s typical, highly representative view that if someone he wants to punish isn’t a criminal under the law, then you just “change the law” to make him one.  

But that sort of legal scheming isn’t even necessary.  The U.S. and its “friends” in the Western and business worlds are more than able and happy to severely punish anyone they want without the slightest basis in “law.”  That’s what the lawless, Wild Western World is:  political leaders punishing whomever they want without any limits, certainly without regard to bothersome concepts of “law.”  Anyone who doubts that should just look at what has been done to Wikileaks and Assange over the last week.  In this series of events, there are indeed genuine and pernicious threats to basic freedom and security; they most assuredly aren’t coming from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.

read the whole thing — and then read all his other recent blogs, too. He really puts this in perspective, looking at the broader picture of the past 10 years… and shows exactly how dangerous what the US Government is doing really has become. The things he’s saying is very scary, but all entirely possible… which is the scariest thing of all.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Wikileaks leaked a list of sites deemed critical to national security so terrorists would have a hit list. This isn’t about freedom of information; it’s about an organization that leaked classified material and damaged our national security. It should be classified s a terrorist organization.  

    • she donated “heavily” to wikileaks, according to a comment she made in Bob’s post a few days ago.

      <

      p>How long should she go to prison?

      <

      p>Meanwhile… the state dept was offered the opportunity by WikiLeaks to help redact the files. It chose not to. http://www.tinyurl.com/rtake

      <

      p>Either they didn’t think there was a serious national security threat, or they were more interested in taking down WikiLeaks than protecting our own people and interests. Which one is it?

      <

      p>Your argument just doesn’t make sense given the facts.  

        • As a wise man once said, “trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.”

          • If you disagree with me, fine. Say so. But if you make an actual assertion — for example, that an organization is acting illegally — I expect you to offer evidence. If you don’t, and you just say it’s illegal… as if that’s all there is to it… you’re not exactly leaving a lot of room for discussion. And if you’re not leaving a lot of room for conversation, how exactly do you expect people to respond?

            <

            p>As for your actual comment… I think it’s time for you to have some deep self-reflection. Do you really think you’ve found yourself willing to engage in real discussions on this subject?

            <

            p>And if you are… I offer similar questions to those above. Do you think it’s appropriate for WikiLeaks to be formally labelled a terrorist organization, and if so, do you think those who have donated to Wikileaks and the defense fund — including those on this blog — should be tried as felons?

            <

            p>If you answer those questions and offer your reasoning behind it, I’m perfectly willing to engage in reasoned conversation.  

            • Wikileaks intentionally released classified information. That is treason and they should be prosecuted for treason along with everyone who helped them get classified information.

              <

              p>Lightiris couldn’t be prosecuted unless what she gave them was classified because the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. But going forward, anyone who assists them should be prosecuted. They are intentionally trying to damage national security. Not knowing that before now was reasonable, but at this point in time it isn’t.

              <

              p>Wikileaks founder Jullian Assange is now blackmailing the US government:
              http://slatest.slate.com/id/22…

              <

              p>When you think the public has a right to know information, you release it; you don’t blackmail people with it. This just confirms that Assange is a traitor, not a hero of open government.

              • For starters, neither WikiLeaks nor Assange is American.

                <

                p>Beyond that, though, there’s nothing barring organizations from posting classified information that was leaked to them. This has long been constitutionally established (ie the Pentagon Papers). The people who took that information broke the law (and, btw, the guy who leaked all of this to wikileaks has sat in solitary confinement for months and months and months now, no trial in site, and there probably won’t ever be one), but it’s dubious to suggest wikileaks broke the law.

                <

                p>Has any of the hundreds of newspapers that also posted the leaked information broke the law? They haven’t done anything Wikileaks hasn’t done.

                <

                p>Right now, our government — and others around the world — are systematically trying to bully any and all businesses to stop allowing them to give Wikileaks the tools to fund itself. Mind you, no charges have been brought against Wikileaks. None. Nada. Zip. Should any be brought against Wikileaks, they’d probably lose. That’s why the government won’t do it, and that’s why the government is — as Glenn Greenwald says — engaging in “the wild western lawlessness” to cap Wikileaks at the knees. I implore you to read that Glenn Greenwald post I linked in my update, or any of the one’s he’s posted on his site lately. They really demolish the arguments the critics have been making.  

                • It’s JUDICIALLY established.  And courts can and do overturn previous rulings given changed circumstances.

                  <

                  p>Just ask Dred Scott.

                  <

                  p>But I do agree that the term ‘treason’ shuld be dropped.  What he’s guilty of is Espionage.

                • the Guardian and so is the NY Times and Der Spiegel.
                  Wikileaks hasn’t released any information other than what can be read in these papers. In fact the site only makes available the documents as they are redacted by these news organizations.
                  Furthermore, they have continually requested that the government itself edit out particularly sensitive material. These requests have gone unanswered.  

                • That’s what the Supreme Court is for – to tell the rest of us what the constitution says and means.

                  <

                  p>Dred Scott was decided in a way that the Court at the time read the Constitution.  As far as I know it was never overturned; the 13th Amendment took care of that.

                  <

                  p>Assange isn’t any more a spy than he is a traitor.  He was not himself passing our secrets into enemy hands.

                • Now the actice duty private who leaked material to begin with, he should be charged with treason.  

              • They do not mean what you think they mean.

                <

                p>You cannot commit treason by actions that are seen by a foreign government as against its interests. For Assange, the USA is a foreign government.

                <

                p>You cannot be a traitor to a foreign government. So far, Australia has not made any such assertion about Assange.

                <

                p>Blackmail is the attempt to obtain something by secretly threatening to disclose damaging information about the owner of that something. WikiLeaks has made no demands for a reward to refrain from releasing information. They do not appear to be interested in any material gain. Your link goes to a Slate story about a bank robber with explosives, and does not even mention WikiLeaks.

                <

                p>You may not like what WikiLeaks has done, but your stated reasons for wanting to punish Assange are nonsense.

              • Releasing classified information may or may not be treason. A prosecution with a jury of peers hearing all the evidence would determine whether your assertion is correct.
                In any case, it is certainly not terrorism. Terrorists are dissappeared not prosecuted. The Constitution protects the rights of individuals even drug dealers, minorities, Republicans and bloggers.
                We are safer because of our freedom and liberty, not the PATRIOT Act. Information insures our freedom and liberty.

                • I disagree with PatrickLong, but your claim

                  <

                  p>

                  Terrorists are dissappeared (sic) not prosecuted

                  <

                  p>is crazy talk.  The US has indeed prosecuted a number of terrorists, both native and foreign born, over the past 20 years.  Do we “disappear” some of them too?  Dunno.  I do know we prosecute ’em though, as we should.

                • Have you ever typed “extraordinary rendition” into Google?  

                  <

                  p>

                  Disappeared

                  …Such was the case with Hajji Ehsanullah, snatched one winter night in 2008 from his home in the southern province of Zabul. He was taken to a detention site in Khost Province, some 200 miles away. He returned home 13 days later, his skin scarred by dog bites and with memory difficulties that, according to his doctor, resulted from a blow to the head.

                  …2003 a U.S. military coroner wrote in the autopsy report of a detainee who died in U.S. custody (later made available through the Freedom of Information Act): “Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries to the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdomyolysis (release of toxic byproducts into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide.”

                  In the dust-swept province of Khost one day this past December, U.S. forces launched a night raid on the village of Motai, killing six people and capturing nine, according to nearly a dozen local government authorities and witnesses. Two days later, the bodies of two of those detained — plastic cuffs binding their hands — were found more than a mile from the largest U.S. base in the area. A U.S. military spokesman denies any involvement in the deaths and declines to comment on the details of the raid….

                  The matter might be cleared up if the U.S. military were less secretive about its detention process. But secrecy has been the order of the day. The nine Field Detention Sites are enveloped in a blanket of official secrecy, but at least the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations are aware of them. There may, however, be others whose existences on the scores of military bases that dot the country have not been disclosed. One example, according to former detainees, is the detention facility at Rish Khor, an Afghan army base that sits atop a mountain overlooking the capital, Kabul.

                  …Afghan human rights campaigners worry that U.S. forces may be using secret detention sites like Rish Khor to carry out interrogations away from prying eyes. The U.S. military, however, denies even having knowledge of the facility.

                  <

                  p>If you don’t know about this, you’re intentionally keeping it from yourself.  

    • You know, I’m a lawyer, and a big believer in the rule of law etc. I think Wikileaks has shown immaturity, recklessness, spitefulness, arrogance, and foolishness, but the question whether it, or Assange, has violated the Espionage Act seems difficult to me. I also think it is wrong to label him a “terrorist”, though he may be aiding terrorists.

      <

      p>All that being said, I think that when Assange releases a something like a classified list of sites vital to national security and threatens to release more, he imperils the vital interests of the state and perhaps should not be dealt with as a criminal suspect but rather as some sort of unlawful combatant.

      <

      p>Wikileaks is not the NYT, and Assange is not Daniel Ellsburg.

      <

      p>TedF

        • I will not reprint or link to the list, though you can find it online. But here is an article that describes Wikileak’s publication of “of sites around the globe that the United States considers vital to its interests,” which might as well be a list of potential targets for terrorists and others. The list includes, e.g., pipelines and smallpox vaccine providers.

          <

          p>And here is a link to an article describing Wikileak’s extortionist threat to release what Assange’s lawyer has called the “thermonuclear device,” an encrypted archive of cables with the filename “insurance.”

          <

          p>TedF

          • Did you even read the Reuters story you cite? The only places it mentions that are vital to our national security are the country of Qatar, a cobalt mine in the Congo and “various locations in Europe where drug companies produce insulin, treatment for snake bites and foot and mouth vaccines”. Moreover, the only quotes in this article are from the British Foreign Secretary and Eric Holder.
            That’s right, Al Qaeda is now going to begin preparations for an attack on these locations because of this newly disclosed information! I don’t think it takes much research to know that oil and minerals are important to the world’s economy and then to identify the places where these are produced.
            Remember — for those of you persistently avoiding this issue — that all of Wikileaks disclosures that are of concern were filtered through major newspapers and even offered to our own government for redaction.

            • That’s right, Al Qaeda is now going to begin preparations for an attack on these locations because of this newly disclosed information!

              <

              p>I think you are much too cavalier about this stuff, as is Wikileaks–as though either you or it had any real insight into how terrorists identify targets. Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that this particular cable was “filtered through major newspapers.” It’s accessible on the Wikileaks website.

              <

              p>Also, I understand that it’s been reported that Wikileaks has offered to redact the names of individuals who could be harmed by release of the cables, but I am not aware of an offer to redact documents such as the document I’ve been describing. If you have evidence of such an offer, please post it.

              <

              p>TedF

              • that Wikileaks initially discloses to the newspapers the raw information. The newspapers can subsequently redact this before releasing it. On the Wikileaks web site can only be found documents that have been redacted by the papers. If very dangerous information is released to the public it is done through the newspapers first.
                Moreover, Wikilieaks has gone to the government each time offering to have it redact the data.
                With regard to the list of strategic sites in the Reuters article, this seems pretty bogus.

                • Marc, I previously asserted that Wikileaks had offered to redact the names of people who might be in danger if cables were released, citing a Greenwald post, and said that it seemed to me that there was no evidence that Wikileaks had offered to redact information such as the information contained in the cable I’ve been writing about in this thread. You wrote I was wrong. I asked for cites. You provided them.

                  <

                  p>One is a cite to the same Greenwald post I cited. The other is a cite to the New Statesman, which gives no detail as to what precisely Wikileaks was offering to redact.

                  <

                  p> You also asserted that if newspapers redact Wikileaks documents first, than those documents would not be available in unredacted form on the Wikileaks site. Neither of your cites seem to support this proposition. Maybe I am missing something?

                  <

                  p>What gives?

                  <

                  p>TedF

                • about the leaked data concerning the strategic sites apart from what I’ve been saying about the process undertaken by Wikileaks that you seemed to be ignoring. This data appears to have been released in the most recent round of 960 cables. All of these cables were filtered through the newspapers. Yesterday’s Greenwald story makes this clear — are you questioning if this is the case? The same story has links to and quotes from the AP detailing the efforts to which Assange went in the previous release this Summer to provide the government an opportunity to clean up the data before he handed it over to the newspapers. As the AP story states, the government refused to cooperate. With regard to the most recent release in which I assume was included the information about the strategic sites, Greenwald says

                  Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks — according to AP — “appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released.”  Although the U.S. — again — refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld.

                • Marc, we are not communicating clearly on this point. Twice, I have pointed out that the Greenwald article you cite says that Wikileaks offered to redact information that “could harm innocent people”, e.g., removing the names of individual Afghanis, but questioned whether that offer of redaction extended to documents such as the one we have been discussing. Twice, you have cited the same Greenwald article back at me. If we are reading the article differently, that’s fine. I read it to refer to an offer to redact names of individuals but not more.

                  <

                  p>Regarding “filtering through the media”. The Greenwald article does discuss a process of advising Wikileaks. On the other hand, it appears that Wikileaks intends to publish all the records, while the newspapers will publish only a handful:

                  <

                  p>

                  Although WikiLeaks has said it will ultimately post its trove online, The Times said it intends to publish only about 100 or so of the records. And the other news organizations that have the material said they likely will release only a fraction.

                  <

                  p>In any event, the cable relating to the critical sites was unredacted, as far as I can tell, which is the point I have been hammering on.

                  <

                  p>TedF

                • Again:

                  Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks — according to AP — “appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released.”

                  Are you saying that the cable that contains the information about the strategic sites is not in this new group of documents? Why you would think that?

          • After ten years of bombing much of the middle east and south asia, plenty of clever people have been radicalized.  This isn’t something that a sophisticated terrorist group (one who could pull off an attack against a strategic target) couldn’t figure out on their own?  I haven’t seen the list, but none of these places reported on seem particularly secret…  

            • The list is pretty explicitly captioned as a “list of things that, if they were destroyed, would have an immediate and bad impact on the United States.” Could someone figure out ways to hurt the US on his or her own? Of course. Does that mean that it’s responsible to publish this list? Of course not, in my view.

              <

              p>TedF

              • …should not be dealt with as a criminal suspect but rather as some sort of unlawful combatant.

                 In today’s america, that means to torture him and imprison him indefinitely, that’s irresponsible.    

                <

                p>True, it’s also irresponsible for wikileaks to publish this list, but it’s not illegal, nor would I hold Assange morally responsible for any death that resulted from a terrorist attack on a place from that list.

                <

                p>It’s also irresponsible for the US to continue its policy of declaring even the slightest detail a state secret.  

                <

                p>

                The policy pendulum has swung back and forth between secrecy and transparency. Under the Clinton administration, declassifications expanded, classifications were reduced, FOIA processing was accelerated. Under the recent Bush administration, the opposite occurred. When President Obama was sworn in – at the stroke of midnight, Jan. 21, 2009, an executive order to all executive departments and agencies announced a new policy of openness and transparency. That hopeful intention has not been realized, to date. In fact, the Obama administration has followed prior Bush policies in the state-secrets area.

                <

                p>Transparency is the antidote to fascism.  By responding to this by attacking Assange and making things less transparent the administration makes us less free.  In other words, Obama deserves what’s coming to him and the deaths that result are on his hands.    

                • nor would I hold Assange morally responsible for any death that resulted from a terrorist attack on a place from that list.

                  <

                  p>Why not, supposing the attacker acquired the information from the Wikileaks release?

                  <

                  p>

                  It’s also irresponsible for the US to continue its policy of declaring even the slightest detail a state secret.

                  <

                  p>I am talking about a particular document. In general, I agree that the government over-classifies, or over-protects, documents. But this particular document seems clearly to cross the line. Nor do I see a public interest in the release of this particular document.

                  <

                  p>

                  Transparency is the antidote to fascism.  By responding to this by attacking Assange and making things less transparent the administration makes us less free. In other words, Obama deserves what’s coming to him and the deaths that result are on his hands.

                  <

                  p>This is the kind of quote I have heard from Assange and Wikileaks. It seems simultaneously grandiose, naive, and arrogant to me. If Private Manning had not leaked hundreds of thousands of cables to Wikileaks (assuming he’s the culprit), the result would be fascism? When diplomats communicate in confidence with their ministries, that’s fascism? And Julian Assange, who was never elected by anybody and is apparently accountable to nobody, gets to decide what damaging information to release?

                  <

                  p>TedF

                • goverments and corporations are colluding to kill this organization, without charging them for a single thing. Greenwald makes this all very clear; I hope you’ll consider spending 30 minutes and reading the blog I linked and a few of his other recent ones. He really lays the case for how the persecution of wikileaks has scary ramifications for us all, beyond our access to the information.  

          • They’ve said they’d release it if a) the site went down, completely, for good, or b) if Assange or other high ranking WikiLeaks members were killed, etc.

            <

            p>They’re not a government and can’t defend themselves. There’s no legal recourse for them to go to to combat the actions our government and others are taking against them — WikiLeaks has been charged with nothing, yet is the target of government shut downs the world over, through the coercion of private businesses by those governments (and DNS attacks, which are almost certainly being done by governments at this point).

            <

            p>I don’t exactly know what anyone could expect them to do. They’re using the one recourse they have to keep even any control over their situation.  

            • Sue for an injunction or a declaratory judgement.

              <

              p>Why does Wilikleaks not do this, if they think the government is violating its rightsn or was about to? Maybe because they don’t want to hear the answer a court would give.

              <

              p>TedF

              • When the US blocks access to their bank accounts?

                <

                p>You called me naive, this is me doing the same.  

              • You don’t have any evidence that this “insurance” release would be done any differently than in the current responsible manner or that the material is as threatening to national security as you assume.
                Moreover, you seem to have greater faith in access to the US justice system extended to “terrorists” and “enemy combatants” than is warranted.

                • Someone posts an encrypted archive labeled “insurance”, describes it as a “thermonuclear device”, and threatens to release it “if anything happens to me”, and you see no grounds to ask whether he’s acting irresponsibly?

                  <

                  p>I do have a lot of faith that Wikileaks would have access to the courts in an ordinary civil lawsuit, just as, for example, Guantanamo Bay detainees have had access to the courts in habeas corpus proceedings. But “access to the courts” is different from “likelihood of success.”

                  <

                  p>TedF

                • to the stated strategy of the nuclear states:

                  Someone posts an encrypted archive labeled “insurance”, describes it as a “thermonuclear device”, and threatens to release it “if anything happens to me”, and you see no grounds to ask whether he’s acting irresponsibly?

                  Only, in the case of the nuclear states, they’re real thermonuclear devices. But of course powerful interests always act responsibly!
                  With regard to your lauding of the justice extended to Guantanamo Bay detainees, I have no comment.

                • I do not.  I don’t think that Assange will get a fair hearing in the US, I don’t think that some Guantanamo ‘detainees’ (a nice word for prisoners) being given access to the courts after years and years of being held in a foreign prison with little or no justification is justice.  Nor do I think it’s justice to allow the government to decide if you’ll have a trial, even if you’re a mastermind of the terrorist attacks.  

                  <

                  p>Now, Assange may be guilty of rape, and if he is, he should go to jail in Sweden.  I think its convenient that he’s only become the most wanted man he is after angering the US government, but he could be guilty.    

                • the US government has taken against WikiLeaks, such as getting upwards of dozens of businesses to cease their workings with WikiLeaks without so much as charging WikiLeaks with a crime.

                  <

                  p>I ask you: what should WikiLeaks do to defend itself, when all its streams of income are being shut off, from a government that declares it acting unlawfully to private businesses (wink, wink, nod, nod) — thus, cutting off its funds — without actually bringing up charges? What “responsible” actions should they take to keep themselves online and able to do their jobs, when the only real asset they have is information.  

      • …irresponsible, immature, reckless, spiteful, arrogant, and foolish:

        <

        p>

        WikiLeaks supporters struck back Wednesday at perceived enemies of founder Julian Assange, attacking the websites of Swedish prosecutors, the Swedish lawyer whose clients have accused Assange of sexual crimes and the Swiss authority that froze Assange’s bank account.

        <

        p>Of course, it’s difficult to know precisely who to blame. Wikileaks has set itself up that way. So much for transparency.

        <

        p>TedF

        • PS the hacker-community named “Anonymous” is behind the defense of WikiLeaks. They’re not affiliated with WikiLeaks, at all. They aim their targets based on those who try to shut down parts of the internet, etc.  

  2. …abridging freedom of the press.  To me that precludes any legitimate legislation such as you refer to.  Also, certain people on this thread really ought to stop throwing around words like “terrorist”, “classified” and “treason” without consulting a dictionary.  It is not terrorism to provide information.  My understanding is that this stuff was not classified.  Even if Assange were American he did not levy war against the US or provide aide and comfort to our enemies.  These are as the cite name suggests “leaks” – nothing more.  It’s no worse in most cases than quoting “A senior WH official speaking on condition of anonymity” though I’m rather miffed that it appears the US was conducting bombings in Yemen without our knowledge.

  3. continue to work themselves into a self-righteous frenzy.  Big surprise.  If anyone ever needed proof that this nation has lost its mind, it’s the reaction to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.  If Assange’s group had released documents that revealed something about Iran that we could use to our advantage or North Korea, you can be damned sure he’d be a hero.  The hypocrisy is stunning.  There have been very few times in my life that I can say  I’ve been ashamed of my country, but this is one of them.  All the rhetoric about free speech, the value of truth, right down to the founding principles embedded in our first amendment rights is just that–bombastic rhetoric designed to make us feel superior to the rest of the world.  

    <

    p>And to top it off from The Guardian:

    <

    p>

     5.30pm: With perfect timing an email arrives from Philip Crowley at the state department:

    The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC.

    Ironic? Read the next paragraph from the press release:

    The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and
    innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

    Shameless. You really could not make it up.

    <

    p>Shameless indeed.  Ugh.  

  4. Oh!, the joy of living under tyrants.  Have you committed your three felonies today?  Most of terrorist that run government we didn’t see on a ballot.  Will the greeter turn you in if you don’t look like a typical WalMart shopper?  (Brrrr!, where are my plaids, stripes and polka dots?)

    <

    p>The worst fears are those that are undirected mindless ones.  

    <

    p>”What’s next?”

    <

    p>”Don’t know.”

    <

    p>”What can they do to us?”

    <

    p>”Don’t know, don’t even know who ‘they’ are.”

    <

    p>”When?”

    <

    p>”?”

    <

    p>Wasn’t that a common theme of “The Twilight Zone?”  Now we live it.  We’ve crossed over after ignoring the signpost up ahead.  

    <

    p>“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”  –Plato  

  6. Nationalism is a difficult disease to diagnose, especially among those who compensate in rather effective ways.  It’s only in the most extraordinary of circumstances, like those we see around Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, that we see how invidious and pernicious a disease it really is.  

Archives