# Is Wikileaks a threat to United States national security. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526 "2011-01-30T18:02:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/21 "2011-01-31T17:37:53Z")
There is a point where corporate secrets and government secrets are a threat to a democratic government. Bush clamped down on Whistleblowers, gutting their protections. We need whistleblowers to be free to expose the harm that corporations and governments do. Wikileaks is just a clearinghouse for those who feel there are wrongs being done that the people should know about. Knowledge does not harm you . It is the deeds . ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/22 "2011-01-31T17:56:20Z")
> [@ZebStrickland](#): > > Is Wikileaks a threat to United States national security? Absolutely not. So a few politicians and diplomats get embarrassed, like _that_ never happens. :rolleyes: It’s a nice little wake up call to tighten security, expose and and clamp down on the untrustworthy individuals who are feeding Assange the information. If anything, it demonstrates how little (you think) we as a government have to hide. Wouldn’t you like to know the stuff Wikileaks _doesn’t_ have? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/23 "2011-01-31T18:11:40Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > You know, there are certain things like military secrets, :dubious: And a lot of these leaks don’t benefit anyone (except the leakers who get worshipped by the left and some libetarians as a “hero”) but hurt a whole bunch of people and American interests. Assange would agree with you. You seem to have no clue how Wikileaks actually works. Can you point to secret info that should have remained secret (e.g. the name of a spy or something) that was outed by Wikileaks? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/24 "2011-01-31T18:14:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Here’s one: I’m not sure if this is the same story I’m thinking of that involved an Apache firing on a van. Was this the same tape that was selectively edited to remove the bad guys holding weapons? And has anyone been prosecuted for this? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/25 "2011-01-31T18:14:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No one elected Assange. Lock him up and throw away the key, leaving room for whoever follows him. The traitor, Bradley Manning, should be dealt with in the most severe manner allowed by the laws on the books. See, I don’t agree with this: I think that you’re right about Manning: he’s certainly eligible for a UCMJ conviction and a nice long stay in Leavenworth (don’t think “Treason” is as airtight, personally, at least not by the letter of the Constitution). Assange, though? It seems to me that part of Freedom of the Press should include the rights of journalists to publish any information that they acquire by legal means–and “a whistleblower told me” should expressly be legal, even if the whistleblower himself is punished for breaching secrecy regulations. Assange (or any other journalist, for that matter) is in no position at time of publishing, due to the longstanding tradition of “off-the-record” leaks that are authorized by the government, to know with certainty whether or not a given leaker has the authority to leak the information involved. _New York Times Co. v. United States_, unfortunately, is of dubious use as precedent due to the vast number of concurrences on differing grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/26 "2011-01-31T18:17:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Can you point to secret info that should have remained secret (e.g. the name of a spy or something) that was outed by Wikileaks? According to the Executive Editor of the New York Times, yes, Wikileaks did release information that the Times thought was dangerous. > **[Dealing With Assange and the WikiLeaks Secrets (Published 2011)](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)** > > Is Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, a puppet master of the news media? He would like you to think so. But The Times’s dealings with him reveal a different story. > [@](#): > > And, the law aside, we felt an enormous moral and ethical obligation to use the material responsibly. While we assumed we had little or no ability to influence what WikiLeaks did, let alone what would happen once this material was loosed in the echo chamber of the blogosphere, that did not free us from the need to exercise care in our own journalism. From the beginning, we agreed that in our articles and in any documents we published from the secret archive, we would excise material that could put lives at risk. … > > By this time, The Times’s relationship with our source had gone from wary to hostile. I talked to Assange by phone a few times and heard out his complaints. He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets. “Where’s the respect?” he demanded. “Where’s the respect?” ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/27 "2011-01-31T18:24:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets. What a bizarre claim from the Times, seeing as the [Department of Defense](http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/no_intel_compromise.html) concluded not a single sensitive intelligence source was compromised by the Wikileaks Afghanistan leaks. Naturally, if you can point to a single US informant that was targetted as a result of Wikileaks, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/28 "2011-01-31T18:26:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > but his credibility on this is completely undermined by his threatening to disclose information from private companies like Bank of America. Yeah, except when you accept in excess of $50 billion dollars of taxpayer money to keep you liquid you lose some of the expectations of privacy, especially if it can be shown that the actions leading up to needing that money were in fact illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/29 "2011-01-31T18:33:07Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > What a bizarre claim from the Times, seeing as the [Department of Defense](http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/no_intel_compromise.html) concluded not a single sensitive intelligence source was compromised by the Wikileaks Afghanistan leaks. Naturally, if you can point to a single US informant that was targetted as a result of Wikileaks, I’m all ears. This has been covered before. “Sources and methods” is a reference to a specific type of informant or process used in the intelligence business. Those who contribute information to operational forces are not the same as intelligence sources. This type of information is highly classified, and would not appear in the type of documents Wikileaks got its hands on. If you read the letter which is contained within the link, the Secretary of Defense also states that “The documents do contain the names of cooperative Afghan nationals… We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage…” I understand that the difference between intelligence sources and methods and informants on tactical operational matters is a technical distinction that may not be apparent unless one has experience in working with these terms of art, but it would really help if you read your own cites. I’m curious: do you think the Times did wrong by acting with caution over revealing the names of informants? Was this essential to the public interest that people know the names of these informants? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/30 "2011-01-31T18:43:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not sure if this is the same story I’m thinking of that involved an Apache firing on a van. Was this the same tape that was selectively edited to remove the bad guys holding weapons? And has anyone been prosecuted for this? That is one. Other incidents are described (such as firing on people attempting to surrender). And prosecuted? Seriously? The point of a coverup is to avoid such things. Absence of a prosecution is indicative of nothing in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/31 "2011-01-31T18:50:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m curious: do you think the Times did wrong by acting with caution over revealing the names of informants? Was this essential to the public interest that people know the names of these informants? The Times was fine to exercise their discretion in this. Wikileaks info is only given to major media organizations. It is then up to those media organizations to do exactly what the Times did. The media then hands the info to the State Department which redacts as necessary and then it goes back to the media for publishing. Watch this [short video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7T2GAfXN5Y). Should help clear things up for you. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/32 "2011-01-31T18:55:35Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > This has been covered before. “Sources and methods” is a reference to a specific type of informant or process used in the intelligence business. Those who contribute information to operational forces are not the same as intelligence sources. This type of information is highly classified, and would not appear in the type of documents Wikileaks got its hands on. > > If you read the letter which is contained within the link, the Secretary of Defense also states that “The documents do contain the names of cooperative Afghan nationals… We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage…” > > I understand that the difference between intelligence sources and methods and informants on tactical operational matters is a technical distinction that may not be apparent unless one has experience in working with these terms of art, but it would really help if you read your own cites. > > I’m curious: do you think the Times did wrong by acting with caution over revealing the names of informants? Was this essential to the public interest that people know the names of these informants? **Ravenman**. I read my cite. Yes, there’s an amorphous claim that “some” individuals may have been put in danger. But who? Why don’t you quit the sophistry and name a single source or individual that was killed or is currently being hunted by the Taliban due to the leak? Given the collective boner that some sections of the US intelligence community popped over the leak, it seems pretty reasonable that they’d be making hay out of any incident of this kind, yet you can’t name a single one. Weird that. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/33 "2011-01-31T19:09:26Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > **Ravenman**. I read my cite. Yes, there’s an amorphous claim that “some” individuals may have been put in danger. But who? Why don’t you quit the sophistry and name a single source or individual that was killed or is currently being hunted by the Taliban due to the leak? Given the collective boner that some sections of the US intelligence community popped over the leak, it seems pretty reasonable that they’d be making hay out of any incident of this kind, yet you can’t name a single one. Weird that. I get your point: you don’t care about protecting the names of informants in Afghanistan unless they start getting killed. I just disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/34 "2011-01-31T19:21:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The media then hands the info to the State Department which redacts as necessary and then it goes back to the media for publishing. > > Watch this [short video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7T2GAfXN5Y). Should help clear things up for you. Sorry, can’t watch videos on this computer. But everything I have read to date (including the NY Times piece) indicates that the redaction process is significantly different than “the State Department gets it then hands it back to the media.” To my understanding, it’s more like Wikileaks gives the information to media outlets that are in its good graces. The media outlets do their due diligence, including allowing the government to comment. Media outlets consider the government’s comments, make some changes it believes are reasonable, and release stories and small numbers of documents it has thoughtfully considered. Meanwhile, Wikileaks claims to review the documents in a haphazard manner dependent on the whims of volunteers who are not knowledgeable about the subject matter, ignore pleas from the government not to do something rash, and release huge numbers of documents that may or may not have been reviewed. But again, I can’t watch the video, so Wikileaks may be somewhat more charitable towards their own efforts. Which I’m sure are just exhaustive. Really. > [@](#): > > And prosecuted? Seriously? The point of a coverup is to avoid such things. Absence of a prosecution is indicative of nothing in this case. Yeah, but the information is out there now. Any prosecutor can see it. So far as I know, nobody has been brought up on charges on this incident, which leaves three possibilities: 1) the powers-that-be continue to conspire to cover up a crime, leaving the will of the public unfulfilled; 2) this matter has been investigated and there is no crime; or 3) the investigation is continuing three years after the case. Number 3 seems implausible. Number 1 seems conspiratorial, but not impossible. Number 2 seems most plausible to me. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/35 "2011-01-31T19:50:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To my understanding, it’s more like Wikileaks gives the information to media outlets that are in its good graces. The media outlets do their due diligence, including allowing the government to comment. Media outlets consider the government’s comments, make some changes it believes are reasonable, and release stories and small numbers of documents it has thoughtfully considered. > > Meanwhile, Wikileaks claims to review the documents in a haphazard manner dependent on the whims of volunteers who are not knowledgeable about the subject matter, ignore pleas from the government not to do something rash, and release huge numbers of documents that may or may not have been reviewed. From Scott Shane, New York Times national security reporter (this is a transcript): > [@](#): > > 00:47:44 They could have – if they were really living up to the cyber anarchist’s creed that everything should be published all the time, they could have in an instant dumped 250,000 unredacted cables online and it would have been much more of a tidal wave of information. > 00:48:02 Whether people would have been able to make their way through it, who knows. > 00:48:05 But either because they felt burned over the afghanistan documents where they took a lot of heat for failing to redact out some names of afghan informants who were presumably put in danger, they retreated. > 00:48:22 With the iraq document dump they actually ended up redacting with computers and stripping names out of them. > 00:48:28 And the documents they put up were more severely redacted than the ones we put up. > 00:48:36 And with this cache of documents, they basically have been mostly in lock-step with these publications. > 00:48:44 And I have been part of kind of a bizarre process where when we redacted documents we were sending them back to wikileaks and they were posting them in redacted form and actually trying – they were saying sometimes redacted it this way and you redacted that way. > 00:49:03 And they were taking some care. > 00:49:05 These are anonymous people. > 00:49:07 I have no idea who these people I was just going to say they have only released – this is a little known fact. > 00:49:13 It’s kind of lost. > 00:49:15 Wikileaks has about somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 documents on its website out of the 250,000. > 00:49:22 So they’re not even at 1% yet. > > SOURCE: [http://www.livedash.com/transcript/today\_in\_washington/5610/CSPAN2/Tuesday\_December\_14\_2010/532712/](http://www.livedash.com/transcript/today_in_washington/5610/CSPAN2/Tuesday_December_14_2010/532712/) > [@Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, but the information is out there now. Any prosecutor can see it. So far as I know, nobody has been brought up on charges on this incident, which leaves three possibilities: 1) the powers-that-be continue to conspire to cover up a crime, leaving the will of the public unfulfilled; 2) this matter has been investigated and there is no crime; or 3) the investigation is continuing three years after the case. > > Number 3 seems implausible. Number 1 seems conspiratorial, but not impossible. Number 2 seems most plausible to me. It is the military that would prosecute. Apparently they operate differently than the civilian courts do. > [@](#): > > Amnesty International has written a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates objecting to the conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention, which was first reported here. The group denounces the oppressive conditions under which Manning is being held as “unnecessarily harsh and punitive,” and further states they “appear to breach the USA’s obligations under international standards and treaties, including Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” The letter describes Manning’s treatment as particularly egregious “in view of the fact that he has no history of violence or disciplinary infractions and that **he is a pre-trial detainee not yet convicted of any offence**.” > > SOURCE: [Bush's torture ban is full of loopholes - Salon.com](http://www.salon.com/news/torture/?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/01/23/detainees) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/36 "2011-01-31T20:12:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > From Scott Shane, New York Times national security reporter (this is a transcript): Then I commend them for showing some responsibility for their actions and improving their process. Why do you think they didn’t take these common-sense steps in the first place? You know, before the horse was out of the barn? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/37 "2011-01-31T20:28:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Then I commend them for showing some responsibility for their actions and improving their process. Why do you think they didn’t take these common-sense steps in the first place? You know, before the horse was out of the barn? Live and learn and note even at the first they did not just dump all the info out for anyone to see. They were exercising caution from the start. And you have yet to point to someone being physically harmed due to a Wikileaks leak. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/38 "2011-01-31T20:44:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > And you have yet to point to someone being physically harmed due to a Wikileaks leak. It does not appear to have happened. I’m not clear why that is. It could be because the local thugs that were snitched upon have been dealt with, or it could be that those groups who were ratted out aren’t Internet-savvy. (I hear 3G and ISP service in the Korangal Valley is somewhat spotty.) It could be that those named have taken [precautions.](http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-07/us/wikileaks.relocations_1_wikileaks-documents-redact-crowley?_s=PM:US) Why do you think no reprisals have taken place? But you cannot deny that publishing those names is a good thing. If Wikileaks obtained court documents naming confidential police informants who implicate your local biker gang/meth dealers in their crimes and violence, surely you wouldn’t think that it would be a good idea to release their names, would you? I’d say that’s a reckless thing to do regardless of the consequences, because it is a bell that cannot be un-rung. Let’s say those bikers start harassing the informants – maybe not weeks later, but months or years later. The names of the informants are out there in perpetuity. And, more importantly, the names of the informants probably serve no public interest whatsoever. If Wikileaks had done nothing wrong with releasing the names of informants, surely they would have maintained their policy of not redacting anyone’s name. Perhaps they realized their actions were, indeed, reckless… something you seem loath to admit. Frankly, I think Wikileaks simply didn’t think to care about the welfare of Iraqis named in the papers. My guess is the first thing on their mind was to score points against the US government. Second thing was to make sure Mr. Assange gets lots of positive media attention. Last thing on the mind was what impact the papers might have had on the “little people.” When the welfare of the little people began to impact the positive media attention, they tweaked their policies a little. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/39 "2011-01-31T21:06:46Z")
Is United States national security so weak that a couple of guys with computers can take us down by publishing our secret information? Someone has put too many eggs in one basket in that case. If Wikileaks is a threat to the US then it is because we have allowed it. Either by doing things that are embarrassing to the nation (which are apparently plentiful the leaked documents), by documenting things that are so secret as to be dangerous and/or by allowing too many people access to the info. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526/40 "2011-01-31T23:07:16Z")
Why is Assange allegedly a hero to the left? I thought suspicion and mistrust of government was a _right_-wing meme. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikileaks-a-threat-to-united-states-national-security/569526.md?page=3)