There has never been anything quite like WikiLeaks in American military history. We are engaged in a great experiment to see whether the U.S. military can still persist in a conflict when it knows that any and all of its private communications can become public — and will be selectively aired and hyped by people with a preconceived bias against it. Had the public known in real time from periodic media leaks about operational disasters surrounding the planning for the D-Day landings, intelligence failures at the Bulge or Okinawa, or G.I. treatment of some German and Japanese prisoners, the story of World War II might have been somewhat different.Hanson points out that while Julian Assange claims to be dedicated toward "uncovering bad behavior by governments around the world," he only "targets the West."
Call me naive, but could someone explain to me how it's not treasonous when he's endangering the lives and revealing the secrets and methods of our U.S. military operations?
Hanson doesn't scream "treason!" as I do, but he does foresee trouble on the horizon for WikiLeaks:
But WikiLeaks is now flitting around within the red zone, and any leaks about Afghanistan or Iraq post January 2009 reflect upon a left-wing Obama government. A public perception of inappropriate military policy would endanger an entire far-left social experiment at home.Yes, indeed. As Obama has adopted many of the Bush policies in the war, and retained Gitmo, after all, and as WikiLeaks begins to release documents of that nature, maybe the NYT won't feel the need to publish this sort of thing any longer. Certainly our military would be safer.