With all of the current talk about the Wikileaks and the focus on Julian Assange, I find it odd that no one really seems to be talking about the leaker. Why is that? I find the thought of why one would download all of the diplomatic cables and then release them to be a more interesting question. As far as I know, the person is currently being charged with the transfer and release of the confidential documents
I may be naive, but I don’t understand why you would turn over the documents to an organization that is assumed to have them made public. If you’re willing to die for your country, then why release confidential information that would be detrimental to it’s interests? What exactly do you get out of it? And why is it that you would consider it? The report is that he was disgruntled with the US army, but either you would need to keep it secret (a little ironic don’t you think), or you could make it public but then have yourself charged with treason.
Also, why all of them? So many of them? A bunch of the cables don’t seem very interesting (in terms of releasing unknown information). Many that I’ve heard about are mainly written statements that most people probably already know. For example, that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are more afraid of Iran then Israel. Nothing really shocking there, but maybe not explicitly stated before. Also, nothing that really goes out and exposes anything illegal, which is usually the purpose of a whistle blower.
Personally, I’m in disagreement with the website. I believe that there is a utility to the confidential exchange of information between parties. This must have hurt US credibility around the world. I don’t understand why so many are celebrating the website. Well, at least the website has succeeded in fulfilling it’s own view of it’s self-importance.