Well. You are guessing wrong. Good lord. There is this website out there ... called Google. You don't *have* to guess over stuff these days, you know. Take an example from Stardust one comment up ... she manages to get it right. As such you are responding to me on based on a totally false premise. "Liberal" is truly a meaningless. "Conservative" and "Progressive" are equally useless.

Speaking of false premises. This isn't a bank robbery. The analogy just doesn't work. In a bank robbery, someone takes something of value and someone else no longer possesses it. In this case, we're not dealing with a fungible asset of monetary value. Nor was anything actually "stolen" - the originators of the data still possess this data and their database structures are 100% fully intact and operational with zero negative impact. It is more accurate to say the information was copied.

But even granting an analogy that honestly doesn't work. Assange didn't rob the bank. Someone else did. And if you want to make him a "fence" ... how is that any different than any other outlet that launders secret information for the source and publishes it. If an outlet is publishing "Internal Documents" given to them by an "Administration Insider" it's OK? Why? Because the leaks appear to be coordinated by the powerful and serve to keep us from knowing who is actually trying to shape the message on behalf of the government? Indeed - acting as a MSM stenographer helping elected officials hide what they are actually doing is FAR more honorable than what Wikileaks does.

Nor does Assange have any legal or moral obligation to advance the objectives of the American government. Neither does any American citizen. The government is subservient to the people. They have every right to check it's activities when they disagree with it's course of action. Including making it more difficult to conduct a war.

Assange is a human who's organization was given information. This information disclosed real crimes, real lies, and the real day-to-day operations of a government that ostensibly is subservient to the people which has been operating in secret. The sort of thing any honestly patriotic American would want their fellow citizens to know about - hence the leaks. Only someone who values the power of the state for the sake of state power - or celebrates wallowing their own ignorance - would protest to knowing what their own government has been up to.

More importantly, these documents also show that on most occasions secrets are not kept for the purpose of keeping us safe. Which is the biggest lie of our government today: that we can't know what they are doing because if we were to find out the country would be at grave risk. Well. Now we know. And look. Us knowing didn't cause a single negative impact beyond political problems for the people who classified a bunch of shit as secret for political reasons. This alone destroys any validity of your premise that squashing individual freedom somehow serves a greater purpose for society. I'll see your hyperbole-based speculative assertions of national harm and raise you one observable objective reality.

Ultimately there doesn't seem to be an explanation for your point of view that doesn't boil down to the essence of Facisim - the State operates with impunity for the purpose of protecting the state and a citizens' primary responsibility is servicing the state. Any rights are subservient to what the state declares are it's needs - promulgated publicly yet decided in secret by the elite and powerful of society. Your formula indicates you value free speech. So long as everyone else follows the dictates you have adopted over what isn't allowed to be said. And this is different than the Teabagger version of free-speech ... how? You call yourself liberal while imposing it? Great.

Also. Wikileaks has nothing to do with Anonymous. Anonymous is exercising their rights to engage in civil disobedience and respond to a corporate decision by a company that actively processes donations for the KKK and the Aryan Nations without a single moral qualm. Also, it isn't really even Assange's duty to protect our troops - he's being a good global citizen by doing so. It won't be his fault if our government decides to physically prevent him from performing that function. And it won't be his fault if the only option left to getting important information into the hands of people in a Democracy will be to forgo the "harm minimization".

Again. If our government doesn't care to responsibly participate in protecting American assets - their decision to guarantee that the data is damaging to our interests is not the fault of Assange. He has been an above-board actor in all of this. The American government has put a gun to the heads of our Diplomatic Corps and Soldiers while trying to prevent Wikileaks from disclosing their political secrets. Just like the GOP is doing with the unemployed to get their tax cuts. The theory now appears to be that if they can keep Assange from conducting harm-reduction that it will facilitate the suppression of the information. And your dumb-ass is pissed at Wikileaks ... gotta love it.

"Otherwise, this will turn into a total zoo."

I love when the Franco in you comes out.

"For me the whole idea of the existence of a republic hangs on the answer to this."

Totally over the top, David. There are laws requiring certain people (not including Assange) to swear not to divulge confidential state information. Someone may have violated their oath, but even that crime has not been proved in a court of law. Meanwhile, the leaks have exposed real crimes committed by government agents (some involving the killing of innocent civilians) and their concealment from the public and other levels of government.

Yet your chief concern is over the government losing its ability to choose which sensitive information to make public? Do you recall, in the wake of the Plame scandal, the president and vice-president asserting their right (unsanctioned by any law) to arbitrarily and secretly declassify any top-secret document -- long enough to leak its contents to anyone they chose -- then to again secretly reclassify it? No need for any paper documents, just their assertion that that's in fact what they did.

That's the degree of respect the Bush White House had for classified-secrets legislation: it was a club to bash dissent, nothing more. They'd have rolled on the floor laughing at your idea that the existence of the republic hung in the balance. Get some sleep, man.

No, David. No, the US Government is not "legitimately and democratically constituted to define the interests of its citizens."

That is, it possesses no such SOLE capability. There are many other players in life - you know, we use terms like spheres, realms, rights, etc. There are the individuals themselves. And their families. And churches and ethnic groups. There are belief systems and all sorts of social organizations. Take scientists for instance. And if multiple players get to "define" the interests of citizens, then.... ummmm.... no single group is defining. 

The way you present things here - which you've repeated about 18 times now - isn't really what I would regard as a democratic country. It's like you're talking some weird totalism that you've really gotten jacked on since this Assange thing started.

Once your brain fog clears and you remember that the world has all sorts of actors in it - and not just some dim-wit states with flags and lobbyists and anthems and little army-men - then you'll feel better. Governments are NOT the world, they do not define truth, they have sole deep eternal ownership and custody over nothing, and they certainly do NOT "define" my interests.

Now, there are labels for the line of thought you're pursuing. I'm surprised that you've so vigorously outed yourself on this issue, but you really should reconsider. Because lately your opinions on this have sounded... thuggish. You want this guy punished, you can't wait, you're aching for it, and when he is, "stability" will return and all will be well.

"Knowledge is not property over which ownership can be asserted."

YOANAL.

Never underestimate the political power of the GOPer's, especially when they're in the minority and are looking to make Obama and Democrats look inept at governing and protecting Americans from terrorists.

In terms of correct categorization and accurately describing the world and situations around us, I think there are many people who would argue that the distinction between a journalist an publisher is significant. Even if the only question is if one wants to appear slightly ignorant and continue to call a publisher a journalist. So, personally I appreciate the H/T (and it's nice to see Billy back in wider blogistan).

For myself, I think language exists for a reason and that the correct words should be used to describe things. As such, I think BG's observation seems to be a more accurate characterization of Wikileaks and Assang's role in it. This allows us to discuss the real issue - because as you note there is no 1st Amendment distinction between publishers and journalists. The in-the-weeds argument over if what Wikileaks does is "journalism" becomes a moot point if a publisher is protected as press regardless public categorization of their product.