Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:15 PM ET, 12/ 7/2010

Assange arrest + World Press Freedom Day announced = Irony? Not really.

By Alexandra Petri

assange.jpg

I'd like to speak up for the Federal Bureau of Irony.

Irony is a precious natural resource that -- like most precious natural resources -- has been eroded a great deal lately.

Today, after the Bureau of Public Affairs announced that the United States was going to host World Press Freedom Day 2011, Twitter exploded. "Impeccable timing: US celebrates Wikileaks arrest by announcing Press Freedom Day," Gizmodo tweeted. Soon everyone was abuzz! "From US Department of Irony!" @foresmac crowed. "I finally found the perfect definition of irony," tweeted @Codepo08, "The U.S. are hosting the World Press Freedom day! http://goo.gl/viN9J."

Well, no.

It's not ironic for the United States to host World Press Freedom Day! It's not even incongruous! We aren't North Korea or China -- or even Great Britain, where Liberace sued someone who described him as "fruit-flavoured" in an article and won! We are the United States, where Freedom of the Press is embedded in our way of life, enshrined in the First Amendment! I'm glad that everyone on Twitter is constantly vigilant, lest we suddenly become 1984; but we aren't there yet. Nor are we close. Sure, the timing of the announcement, on the day of the Assange arrest in the United Kingdom for crimes allegedly committed in Sweden, was inopportune.

But this is just an example of the weak, watered-down substance we are being forced to think of as irony.

I miss back when we had real irony. Before the Alanis Morrissette song that convinced everyone that we knew what irony meant, we had real hard-core irony, like when you called something the War to End All Wars and then thirty years later you had another one. Or when you were the Consumer Product Safety Commission and you released metal buttons to promote safety, but then had to recall them because they contained too much lead paint, had sharp edges, and posed a choking hazard.

It's a traffic jam when you're already late? That's not irony. It's a traffic jam when you're the individual who designed the city's traffic flow to prevent traffic jams from occurring? That's irony. Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife? That's not irony. Ten thousand spoons when you exposed those spoons to die as infants after hearing a prophecy that they would kill you if they grew to manhood? That's closer. It's meeting the man of your dreams, then meeting his beautiful wife? Nope. It's meeting the man of your dreams, then becoming his beautiful wife, even though the audience knows he's your son, and then hanging yourself while he gouges out his eyes? Now we're talking!

It's an announcement that the U.S. is hosting World Press Freedom Day after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is arrested in the United Kingdom on "sex by surprise" charges? Nope. If we'd just arrested Julian Assange for his actions as a reporter, then made the announcement, well, that would be ripe, vintage irony, the kind they don't make anymore. But as it is, in the words of my seventh grade English teacher on hearing "Ironic": That's not irony. It's just rotten timing.

By Alexandra Petri  | December 7, 2010; 5:15 PM ET
Categories:  Epic Failures, Only on the Internet, Petri  | Tags:  irony, online comments, wikileaks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mulligan: Newt Gingrich's day of lucrative infamy
Next: In memory of John Lennon, why 'Imagine' is a terrible idea

Comments

This article is pretty weak. I doesn't seem to be a comment on the vices or virtues of wikileaks or the justice department. technically, nothing in the Alanis Morrissette song was by definition ironic. they were all just examples of crappy luck.

But I think you'd have to be pretty naive to say the US government is not going all out behind the scenes to shut down this site and set up an extradition to bring Assange to America. And I do find that to be incongruous with a celebration of press freedoms. You don't have to be a supporter of wikileaks to recognize that the words are not matching the actions.

Probably the best response to this whole situation has been from Robert Gates - the Secretary of Defense

======

But let me – let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.” . . .

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think – I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.

Many governments – some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

==============

Posted by: getjiggly2 | December 7, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

OK, here are the allegations in a nutshell:

1. Assange leaks U.S. secrets.

2. Swedish woman “A”, a former "campus sexual equity officer", voluntarily has sex with Assange, but when the condom breaks, “A” wants him to stop, but Assange is an “A” and doesn’t. Assange leaks.

3. Swedish woman “W”, a friend of Ms. “A”, voluntarily has sex with Assange in her apartment with a condom and falls asleep, but Assange is an “A” and has sex with her again while she is asleep without a condom. Assange leaks.

4. Three days later, Ms. “W” calls Ms. “A” and finds out Assange is a two timing “A”. They decide to go to the police to try to make Assange get an “A” test (for AIDS).

5. Policewoman “P” files rape charge, but Prosecutor “P” rules that although Assange lived up to the first 3 letters of his name, the offenses are minor and not rape. P-P leaks.

6. After story gets out, Prosecutor is overruled and Special Prosecutor “S” files rape charge again.

So isn’t ironic that this bull “S” of a rape charge is used to arrest a reporter who may be be a leaky “A” but he is still a reporter and part of a “FREE (ironic)” press… on the same day they announce “World Press Freedom Day (ironic)”???

Posted by: divtune | December 7, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.

The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.

Posted by: juangonzales | December 8, 2010 3:58 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it is ironic. I think it is hypocritical and disgusting that we are hosting the World Freedom of the Press. We may not be as bad as China and a couple of other countries, but our limited and biased media certainly don't have freedom under their corporate masters and Assange certainly is dangerous to the government because he shows it for what it is...a bully at best and a war mongerer at worse. It is nice for poor little Julian to go around telling the truth we must punish him

Posted by: DLN1 | December 8, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it is ironic. I think it is hypocritical and disgusting that we are hosting the World Freedom of the Press. We may not be as bad as China and a couple of other countries, but our limited and biased media certainly don't have freedom under their corporate masters and Assange certainly is dangerous to the government because he shows it for what it is...a bully at best and a war mongerer at worse. It is nice for poor little Julian to go around telling the truth we must punish him

Posted by: DLN1 | December 8, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

WorldAudit.org ranks the U.S. 11th in the world for press freedom. I suspect they're optimistic.

Posted by: mlstromquist | December 8, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

We're not "China", the story says? Oh, you mean like when they imprison journalists, cut off their cash flow, take down their internet sites, frame them for rape, and publicly call for their assassination? Nah... we're not like China.

Give me a break. This is the biggest joke of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed!

Posted by: eric70 | December 8, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Ed Byrne had pretty much already said this in the 1990s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

Posted by: MrClarinet1 | December 8, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Nice article, Alexandra, even if you did nick a line or two from Ed Byrne. Of course you're right: Assange's arrest would only be ironic if, instead of Wikileaks, he was the founder of the Anti-Sex-By-Surprise Coalition (ASBSC).

What IS ironic? People openly asserting that there is no press freedom in America...in an American newspaper!

Posted by: HankCarter | December 8, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I think you miss the point Alexandra. The irony has nothing to do with Assange's arrest (assuming, as we must, that is not related to all this). It is because of the US government's actions against Wikileaks and its call to have Assange prosecuted for publishing the leaks.
This all at the same time it announces it is hosting the Press Freedom Day...

The second paragraph of the Press release is particularly dripping with irony:-

"The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age."

Posted by: coultous-david | December 8, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

coultous-david,
I think you're missing something. Assange was arrested in England on a warrant issued in Sweden. The last time I checked, those were sovereign nations, quite distinct from the United States. If the arrest had come on the same day England and Sweden announced joint sponsorship of "Sex-By-Surprise Amnesty Day" -- that would have been ironic.

Posted by: HankCarter | December 9, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I have the German+Rowenta=Powerglide with INOX iron. It doesn't leak, it steams. Guy got steamy romance and new clothes. Other nitwits going to and fro in leaky shoes are mad. Competing with cancer societies and lung association for ready donation dollars online to pay lawyers to defend each other. Pants need pressed and Bigfoot research never ends. What in the world is INOX? Fort Knox is secure.

Posted by: jobandon | December 10, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

HankCarter,

Please re-read the second sentence of my comment:-

"The irony has nothing to do with Assange's arrest"

you appear to have missed that :-)

Cliff's notes version of my comment : America calls for Assange/Wikileaks to be prosecuted for publishing leaked cables AND America announces hosting of World Press Freedom Day = irony.

(England/Sweden's actions on sex charges irrelavant to irony)

Posted by: coultous-david | December 10, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

coultous-david,

I read all of your sentences. Did you read all of Alexandra's? Please read the second sentence of her third paragraph; click the link to the Gizmodo tweet and read that; then reflect on the meaning

You're missing the point that you were missing the point. More irony. ;-J

Posted by: HankCarter | December 11, 2010 4:10 AM | Report abuse

HankCarter,

You seem to be deliberately avoiding my point, rather than simply missing it.

i have read Alexandra's article, i have read gizmodo's tweet.

Both are wrong to focus on Assange's arrest on sex charges (gizmodo for the first half of their tweet, Alexandra for the full article). We have to let that case play itself out independent of the whole Wikileaks furore. To stand or fall on the merits of the case. We must assume (in the interests of justice) that they are completely unrelated unless and until there is evidence to the contrary (which there isn't AFAIK).
I agree with you there is no irony in its coincidence with the State Department's press release, as indeed I have said in the sentence I have given you twice (I won't quote myself again :-)

My point (and gizmodo's in the second half of their tweet) is that there *is* heavy irony in the State Department's press release. Not because of the arrest, but because of the US government's branding of Wikileaks as 'cyberterrorists' and calling for them to be prosecuted for their publication of the leaks, and to be shut down. Press freedom indeed. There are some in Washington who are even calling for the New York Times to be prosecuted for publishing these leaks. Is this really the press freedom embedded into the US way of life?

i agree that for the most part, the US has press freedom, which is a very good thing. My point is that this freedom needs to be safeguarded and defended against encroachments such as those currently being proposed in Washington by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The only relevance of Assange's arrest is that it seems to have drawn focus away from the main issues. Folks like yourself and Alexandra seem to focus on it exclusively, allowing yourselves (apparently) to avoid considering what I feel is the real point. Assange supporters (I neither support nor oppose him) have also latched onto it, claiming it is trumped up by "America" (something I find very far fetched, personally). This too draws focus away from the real issues.

But, on the level of Alexandra's article, my point is : There is heavy irony in the State Department's press release. This has nothing to do with Assange's arrest. It is to do with the US government's calls to prosecute and suppress Wikileaks whilst simultaneously 'celebrating' press freedom. Alexandra's (no doubt well intentioned) article misses the real irony (and real issue) by focusing on Assange's arrest.

All the best

David

Posted by: coultous-david | December 11, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

David,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I've been a journalist for 30 years and I certainly agree with you that our press freedoms need to be safeguarded against encroachments. And I'm happy to note that Joe Lieberman, by himself, is not the U.S. government.

But the wholesale release of sensitive internal communications between U.S. diplomats doing their regular day-to-day work is not whistle-blowing, it's anarchy. And let's be frank: The obvious intention is to undermine our government and its diplomats, who were appointed and confirmed by democratically elected officials. Who elected Assange? And what, precisely, was WikiLeaks' intention Monday in releasing a cable that listed sites around the world--ranging from vaccine factories in Denmark and hydroelectric dams in Canada--that were mentioned together only because they were deemed to be critical to U.S. national security?

You strike me as being a reasonable person. So, if you haven't already done so, perhaps you might be interested in reading the comments made the other day by the U.S. Ambassador to England, which I think are very reasonable indeed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/09/wikileaks-reckless-disclosure-us-ambassador

Best,
Hank

Posted by: HankCarter | December 11, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Hank,

Thanks for your reply. I am glad we agree that press freedom is important. I am concerned you don't see its relevance here. The hysterical reaction in Washington to these leaks (and sadly it's not just Joe Lieberman) has focused on shooting the messenger (even literally in some cases). Surely the appropriate focus for those who would have wanted to keep these cables confidential is the incredibly lax security that allowed over 2 million people official access to this information, including people as junior as the army private who allegedly leaked them?

Calling for Wikileaks itself to be prosecuted is simply an attack on press freedom. They were given information from a source. They published it (as would many others in the media, were they the recipients of such information). You may disagree with their journalistic approach of publishing everything they receive (after checks). I am myself uncertain whether it is the best way to approach things. But at the end of the day, freedom of the press is not about what you or I (or the US government) believe the press -should- do. It is the freedom of the media to themselves choose what to publish, within the law. By all means criticise them for doing it. That is your right*.
But prosecuting would violate the principles of the First Amendment. That's leaving completely aside the facts that Wikileaks are not American, not based in America and did not 'steal' the information but were given it. It is difficult to see on what basis they could be prosecuted.

And I question your projecting a particular 'anti-American' intent onto Wikileaks. Wikileaks simply publish what they are given. They have, in the past, published leaks from other countries and companies, UN climate scientist emails, Scientology 'secret' manuals etc. etc. They have exposed corruption and oppression in Asia and Africa, and a number of corporate scandals.

More recently, of course, they have received information from American sources (still currently under investigation) which has led to leaks about Afghanistan, Iraq, and now these diplomatic cables. Now suddenly many in America perceive them as an enemy clearly out to "undermine the government", as you say. Let's be frank, as you suggest. This paranoia about "enemies of America" is not helpful. What is the motive behind the publication of the cable you mention (American strategic interests)? How about the same motive as all their other publications? To publish the information they are given, warts and all, to the public. Whether it is wise or not (or journalistically responsible) is another question, but its not an attack on 'America'.

* Though I have to say your "who elected Assange?" argument is worrying, coming as it does from a journalist. This argument could be used against any journalist whose reports embarrassed the government, and seems a step in the direction of sanctioning the muzzling of the unelected press by elected offiicals.

Posted by: coultous-david | December 12, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Now I have heard good arguments for and against Wikileak's activities (the Ambassador you mention talks generally about all sorts of ordinary people who could be harmed but cannot seem to provide any concrete examples. If Wikileaks publishes anything that could harm someone - and they do try to remove such references - then I will condemn them as much as anyone else).

Ron Paul gave a good speech in the House in favour of Wikileaks :- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/ron-paul-wikileaks-defense_n_795014.html

And, of course, even if Wikileaks is effectively shut down over this, they are just one outlet. In the Information Age we live in, it will be increasingly hard to keep anything secret. Information will become more widely available and easier to disseminate. Governments will have to adapt to governing in a more open, transparent manner (as the current resident of the White House promised in his election campaign...)

Thus, on balance, I tend to agree with http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-editorial/ ("Why Wikileaks is good for America") when they say:-

"A government’s best and only defense against damaging spills is to act justly and fairly."
The point of a free press is to keep the government honest.

All the best

David

Posted by: coultous-david | December 12, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Now I have heard good arguments for and against Wikileak's activities (the Ambassador you mention talks generally about all sorts of ordinary people who could be harmed but cannot seem to provide any concrete examples. If Wikileaks publishes anything that could harm someone - and they do try to remove such references - then I will condemn them as much as anyone else).

Ron Paul gave a good speech in the House in favour of Wikileaks :- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/ron-paul-wikileaks-defense_n_795014.html

And, of course, even if Wikileaks is effectively shut down over this, they are just one outlet. In the Information Age we live in, it will be increasingly hard to keep anything secret. Information will become more widely available and easier to disseminate. Governments will have to adapt to governing in a more open, transparent manner (as the current resident of the White House promised in his election campaign...)

Thus, on balance, I tend to agree with http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/wikileaks-editorial/ ("Why Wikileaks is good for America") when they say:-

"A government’s best and only defense against damaging spills is to act justly and fairly."
The point of a free press is to keep the government honest.
All the best
David

Posted by: coultous-david | December 12, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

David,
I agree whole-heartedly with the last sentence of your first paragraph. It's beyond belief that such a wide group of people could have access to all that sensitive information, and it's disgusting that more attention isn't being focused precisely on that issue. (I'd like to think the Obama administration is busy fixing the problem, but I don't know what to think about Obama's leadership anymore.) It's typical of the jingoistic right-wing mentality to lash out at external threats rather than focus on internal problems. But they certainly don't have a monopoly on hysteria.

It is ironic that you would use the word "hysterical" in your argument, because the very column you took exception to was simply pointing out the rashness and illogic of statements made in the heat of emotion by people who obviously hadn't thought much about the meaning of the word they used. And to expect that Sweden (which allows WikiLeaks to operate on its soil) should look the other way in two alleged sex crime incidents...that's simply beyond me.

Does First Amendment freedom of religion extend to wife-burning, or female circumcision? Does the Second Amendment allow anyone to carry grenade launchers, or Uzis? Likewise, should First Amendment press freedoms include the dissemination of state secrets?

This is a serious issue. How about a little thought experiment involving an extreme case? Imagine a future organization called WikiFission, dedicated to encouraging and facilitating the release of nuclear secrets and indescriminately scattering them across the Internet. Would you see any problem with that?

If your answer is no, then I wouldn't want to have anything further to do with you. Assuming the answer is yes, please ask yourself why you answered yes, and then try extending whatever principles you used to formulate that answer to other, less black-and-white cases. Your comment about the American ambassador's failure to supply "concrete examples" shows an incredible naivite, both in your expectation of what a wise diplomat would say in public, and in your apparent disbelief that such cases even exist. Do you actually doubt that the WikLeaks cables are resulting in a worldwide round of demotions, firings and ruined careers and lives for many who confided observations to U.S. State Department personnel? Do you really doubt that people around the world will be less likely to talk with our diplomats from now on -- and that we will thus be more in the dark about what is going on in this dangerous world? "Naivete" isn't the right word here; it's a reckless and insensitive ignorance that gives Sarah Palin a run for her money.

And you really don't know that WikiLeaks released names of many U.S. informants in Afghanistan, and that those people are now on Taliban hit lists? (Assange's callous decision reportedly caused considerable internal division at WikiLeaks; it's encouraging to know they're not all complete anarchists.)

I'm out of room here...

Posted by: HankCarter | December 13, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

I'll try to wrap things up briefly, David.

My sense of Assange isn't simply that he's anti-American (that's obvious) but that he's essentially an anarchist: anti-corporatist and anti-statist. That means he is working for something far more radical than the traditional whistleblower. Like Al-Qaeda, he is taking advantage of our freedoms and using technology as a lever to destabilize Western Civilization. Christopher Hitchens got Assange right when he said, "The man is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda" who "resents the civilization that nurtured him." (And the reported details of the alleged sex crimes, by the way, only reinforce the image of a sneaky sociopath who cares nothing about the consequences of his actions for other people.)

My low opinion of Assange ultimately doesn't matter, even to myself. The important principle is that of a democratically sanctioned rule of law. As technology evolves we have to update our laws to balance our constitutionally guaranteed press freedoms with our need for security. WikiLeaks is greatly increasing the tension between those two needs.

Since this all began with a discussion of irony, let me close by asking you: Have you ever noticed what an extraordinarily secretive, non-transparent existence Assange and his organization have led? You might say, "Well they have to be secretive; they have real enemies!" Somehow governments have no legitimate need for protected confidences, but Assange does.

Is that irony, or hypocrisy?

Best,
Hank

Posted by: HankCarter | December 13, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I hate to keep flogging the proverbial dead horse, David, but I had meant to respond to the quotation you closed with:

"A government's best and only defense against damaging spills is to act justly and fairly."

Like so many platitudes, this one is easily reduced to absurdity. Take for a counterexample my earlier hypothetical case of leaked nuclear documents: Is a government's "best and only defense" against the release of an easy-to-follow formula for the construction of a portable atomic bomb simply "to act justly and failrly"? That's patently absurd.

In fact, the reason the leaked diplomatic cables have caused so much anger is precisely because the writers of those documents seem to have been behaving on our behalf in precisely that way: justly and fairly.

Posted by: HankCarter | December 13, 2010 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Hank

We could go round the houses forever on this and not reach agreement, particularly as you have a tendency to put words in my mouth.

I shall just leave off with the hope that the new OpenLeaks site founded by Assange's detractors in Wikileaks will find more agreement between us. I hope it is sincere and successful in its pledge to increase the transparency of it's operations (I agree that any secrecy surrounding those hosting such sites is deeply ironic). Also it appears to be taking what, I'm sure we can agree, is a more responsible approach. It will not publish leaks given to it itself, but provide them to more traditional media outlets (such as the New York Times and the Guardian) to decide what should be published and how. This puts such decisions in the hands of what noone can deny is the press. I hope we can agree that these bodies should be free to use the information in the public interest as they see fit. That is what press freedom is about after all.

I also hope that Assange will not be prosecuted by America for his actions. Not because I care one bit about Assange. I don't particularly. But because to do so would, I feel, be to act against the principles that America is supposed to be based on, and which we should ensure it remains true to. The Land of the Free must live up to its name, otherwise, what hope is there for the world?

Reading the news today, I see that the US government is looking at ways they could prosecute Assange; and some Representatives are even drafting new laws that could be used to retroactively apply to him. This is the irony of Press Freedom I was pointing out to Alexandra, and then you. I hope for the sake of America that this does not come to pass, or at least is defeated by the Judicial branch of the government as was the case against Daniel Ellsberg.

Sincerely wishing you all the best

David

Posted by: coultous-david | December 13, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

David,
Thank you for your cordial remarks. I agree with a great deal of what you have just written, and I too was aghast when I read about possible legislation designed to retroactively prosecute a specific person. What a repugnant idea, which only serves to underscore the fact that many of the greatest threats to democracy come from within. As I mentioned before, I think your earlier remark about our need to focus inwardly on our own system of safeguarding such communications makes a great deal of sense. (When you couple this -- the news that two million people, including Army privates, could access such wide-ranging material -- with the earlier revelation that Bill Clinton lost the nuclear codes and didn't bother telling anyone for weeks, you wonder what right the government has to lecture others on issues of national security.) I hope you're right about OpenLeaks; it does sound like a less anarchic spin-off of WikiLeaks, which is encouraging. It was interesting reading your views; I've mulled them over for the past two days, and I hope you've considered one or two of my points. All the best to you this holiday season.
Hank

Posted by: HankCarter | December 13, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company