"And remember: Woodward isn't writing about minor issues or even the trivialities of diplomacy; his books deal directly with core issues of war and peace. One could argue that what Woodward digs up and displays-information drawn from the highest and innermost counsels of the U.S. government-is more important and more potentially damaging than zillions of often-trivial memcons by mid-level bureaucrats in overseas embassies"

No one could argue that. Woodward is a lackey. Woodward hasn't contributed much to the understanding of what's going on, he's a obfuscater. Seriously, your glowing words are far too reverential for someone who flatters and protects politicians.

Think about the issue surrounding the copying and distribution of music. Growing up in the 80's everyone bought blank cassettes and recorder mixed tapes or copies of entire albums for their friends and distributed them. That didn't create a massive uproar from the industry or trigger multi-million dollar lawsuits against teenagers for copying copyright protected music.

What changed in the aughties? Technology and scope. Once you had massive, almost frictionless distribution mechanisms where a single upload of an album could be replicated and distributed to literally millions of people within minutes the game changed.

I think there are some parallels with Assange. This isn't simply a case of an isolated leak making its way into the news, this is about the massive (in many cases, arbitrary and unfiltered) distribution of classified documents and the creation of a mechanism that, by its very nature, can cause infinitely more harm than through previous methods.

Additionally, Assange and his crew are not journalists, nor do they seem capable of making the difficult decisions regarding what is worthy of leaking and what isn't. It's a shotgun approach and that too has greater implications than traditional Woodward-esque leaking.

Why does Walt let Bernstein off the hook? That won't get his anti-Semite fatwah removed.

That's exactly what I think of the entire situation. After all, he just did his job as journalist, or did he not? He "published information obtained from the source, which he has a right to keep secret" (from here — http://bit.ly/e518fn).

At least that's the way legislation of civilized countries treats the situation

and a pretty darn good entrepeneur...

Interesting article and will read Goldsmith's two articles.

Likewise, interesting, Don Bacon's comments.

Might, Don be ask to write a "guest" post this matter, any matter his choosing, this blog, Ricks's blog.

Question: does our 'Net, growing exponentially, now or future, carry the potential increasing our capacities our imaginations?

If so, so much more its, our freedoms.

I think the difference between typical media leaks and wikileaks is the public perception of intent. Most leaks are designed to inform public debate in some specific way: by revealing information that the government has concealed in order to justify its actions and insulate them against criticism, to show something illegal or immoral that the government has secretly done, or to highlight the incompetence of government officials. So, while these leaks are motivated by selfish concerns more often than not, they are at least nominally aim to contribute to public debate in specific and meaningful ways (or, at the very least, it's easy to perceive them as doing so).

In contrast, wikileaks has not presented an argument, either implicitly or explicitly, about why the release of a given cable contributes to public debate and therefore justifies breaching the secrecy of government documents. Instead, it has provided a rather radical argument that government secrecy as a principle is unnecessary - an argument that, regardless of its merits, many Americans are unwilling to accept. Without more detailed justification of the leaks that accepts the need for government secrecy in principle, wikileaks comes across as more interested in attacking the US than in informing public debate.

is that Woodward's motive is to sell books. We don't even know that all of Woodward's leaks are true (many are suspected to be fabrications), but they are entertaining.

Assange has openly declared what his motives are. He intends to bring down the US Global Empire and its capitalist system. To end the USA's status as Supreme World Dominator. He is unquestionably an enemy of the United States. Assange has revealed the names of informants and sources, despite some redactions in the more recent leaks. (He had to do those redactions to get the cooperation of MSM papers in Europe and the NYT) The USA is fully justified in indicting Assange as an accomplice of Bradley Manning, and if that proves to be impossible, sending robots to Europe to kill him.

Mr. Walt,

I don't know of anything Woodward wrote, that put the cooperation with our allies and the job of our diplomats in serious jeopardy. Assange is now, also telling the Arab world that their leaders work for the CIA and that they and the US are torturing muslims. Did Woodward make accusations like this without proof, or to get off rape charges? Tales as these are the godsend to AQ. They just blew up a church in Egypt, and would like nothing better for the mass of muslims in ME countries to start Iraqizing their homes, meaning they would love to see the morning display of bodies, daily recorded by Juan Cole, that were mutilated in Bagdad.