However, WikiLeaks lost me when they released selectively edited video, spliced in editorial overlays, registered a domain name "CollateralMurder" and advocated a position.
That said I'm glad the leak happened even if there was some hoopla associated with it.
If my bank does something shady, its fine for whistleblowers to expose them, but they shouldn't screw over innocent bank customers while exposing the bank itself.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I happen to think what Wikileaks is doing is important, and calling something "Collateral Murder" makes people pay attention to them. On the other, I wonder if there isn't anything else we can do to make people unwilling to read source documents do something other than herd themselves to and from each talking head who gets their attention. Is it sane, or even possible, to leak things in manner that contains no bias, and to choose what to actually leak with no bias, without becoming mostly useless noise? I honestly don't know.
But, Wikileaks does always release the full, unedited source of what they're leaking. If nothing else, it's a step above mainstream Western journalism.
Showing that the U.S. Military makes mistakes helps destroy the dangerous myth that all U.S. servicemen are saints. I have no idea how this meme that "WikiLeaks is bad because it showed U.S. soldiers doing bad things" was born, but it's, frankly, really ludicrous. When you see cold-blooded murder right before your eyes, you do take a stand. If you don't, you're a monster. Or an accomplice. Period.
But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY.
1. Murder is the un-lawful killing of humans by other humans. 2. Murder in war occurs when humans kill other humans by not acting within the confines of the rules of war.
Although most military bodies including US military have to follow Geneva convention that does not mean every war time act is lawful. How many unlawful military acts in Iraq/Afghanistan got prosecuted last year? More than one did.
This specific event has not been ruled un-lawful yet and reporters are always told that in battle areas if they are with the armed enemy they may risk being fired upon.
Hence, the Collateral part of the video name. However, usually in these cases its the organization workings that fail the solider in determining differences between lawful and unlawful acts not the individual solider himself or herself.
I we look at The Apache helicopter and Australian internet plans leaks, the government was trying to do something wrong, which Wikileaks exposed. Now they have been declared threat to national security. Great progress in hypocrisy.
A less generous interpretation:
* Wikileaks leaked the video that accompanies a detailed transcript (with quotes) of the same video that appeared in the Washington Post many months beforehand --- a PR black eye to be sure, but in no way a revelation.
* Wikileaks has in fact cultivated confidential sources inside DoD and military service agencies that are talking about forwarding cables and other TS-classified material, and is in fact part of a grave threat to national security (which, true, the real "threat" is clearly the negligent lapses in operational security that allow someone like Manning to leak cables in the first place).
In other words: Wikileaks is less valuable to society than it seems, and at the same time the government has a legitimate (if misdirected) concern with them.
The real threat to national security is the predominance of special-interest groups who are currently in control of the US Military machine, having it fight un-just, disgusting wars, in the name of the United States of America.
The true threat to national security is the Pentagon itself, which simply wouldn't be necessary if it weren't creating its own reasons for war around the world.
You want real national security? Stand down your soldiers, America. That is the only true way to be secure in your beds, Americans.
Someone trying to cast doubt on their viability in hopes of getting people to stop funding them?
