Open Source Analysis of WikiLeaks?

[Pete]

... you could get into a republication bind by DLing and then passing on the data.

What pray tell does the GOP have to do with it?

[Van]

My personal rule of thumb is to get no closer to the compromised material than articles published in reputable, established news media (BBC, AFP, Reuters, etc; NOT blogs or organizational news postings like a corporate or academic press page).

This allows for a reasonable degree of situational awareness without getting too close to the flashing red lights. I'll admit that I might be over-cautious, but I've had some real "Margaret" type security managers over the years (from Dennis the Menace; "I'm tellin' my mom!").

The case of the Guardian's Flash presentation... I've met some security managers who would try to suspend access for that. Thankfully, they had bosses who were better endowed with common sense and perspective. Caveat lector.

Re: you linking to a naughty site -
I'd approach with caution. I think I'd be reluctant to post "THIS WAY TO CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, but at your own risk"; it falls under the whole "avoid even the appearence of misconduct" standard.

If you're dead set on linking to, or reposted any of the compromised material, I strongly urge you to discuss your ideas with an attorney before you do it. (Consultations without court appearances tend to be much cheaper.)

[AmericanPride]

This whole episode reminds me of the contoversy surrounding the music industry's (failed) attempts to stop pirated music on the internet through litigation. This problem is going to persist in the digital age. Legitimate or not, that Iraq-deployed MI soldier had grievances about the war effort. That tells me somewhere in the chain of command between his immediate supervisor and the President, there is serious miscommunication about the justifications and methods of the war. It also tells me that the government and the Army need to improve how they sell what they do, not only to the population, but also to the people working for them. The MI soldier was a specialist, but he had access to thousands of documents. Either the government needs to ensure that its personnel are politically reliable, or it needs to embark on policies with greater concensus in the ranks and the population. In the arguments about domestic surveillance, proponents sometimes state that if you are not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about. If our cause is just, and our people and soldiers believe in it, then what do we have to worry about?

[BayonetBrant]

Either the government needs to ensure that its personnel are politically reliable

I sure you didn't mean for this to sound quite so... soviet. But it does.

[AmericanPride]

I sure you didn't mean for this to sound quite so... soviet. But it does.

Yes, I did intend for it to sound that way. Usually (but not always), the military is employed towards some political end. If we are to maintain a reliable, all-volunteer military force to achieve the occasionally controversial political objective, then either the reliability of the volunteers needs to be a criteria for their selection, or more effort needs to be made to find consensus among the volunteers. During the Revolutionary War, unpaid volunteers simply walked off the job. Now, disgruntled volunteers can compromise national security to a surprising scope and depth. The problem isn't the soldier, his access to information, or even the fact that he released classified material to the public. The problem is that we have yet to reconcile the all-volunteer military concept (and the unique accompanying characteristic of American culture to glorify and hero-worship military service) with the increasingly expeditionary character of our military operations.

[Steve Blair]

Yes, I did intend for it to sound that way. Usually (but not always), the military is employed towards some political end. If we are to maintain a reliable, all-volunteer military force to achieve the occasionally controversial political objective, then either the reliability of the volunteers needs to be a criteria for their selection, or more effort needs to be made to find consensus among the volunteers. During the Revolutionary War, unpaid volunteers simply walked off the job. Now, disgruntled volunteers can compromise national security to a surprising scope and depth. The problem isn't the soldier, his access to information, or even the fact that he released classified material to the public. The problem is that we have yet to reconcile the all-volunteer military concept (and the unique accompanying characteristic of American culture to glorify and hero-worship military service) with the increasingly expeditionary character of our military operations.

The glorification is actually quite recent (say after 1940 or so), and I honestly don't think you'd find a draftee force any more reliable under your criteria.

[AmericanPride]

The glorification is actually quite recent (say after 1940 or so), and I honestly don't think you'd find a draftee force any more reliable under your criteria.

The issue isn't the all-volunteer concept itself, but the employment of a glorified all-volunteer military used in an expeditionary manner for the occasional controversial political objective. The Iraq leak could not reconcile the two, and decided to expose what he thought to be criminal and immoral behavior. Soldiers are encouraged, after all, to act with integrity and personal courage, and the Army's own values led him in that direction. There is a cognitive dissonance at the core of this issue. One solution is to screen volunteers for their political reliability.