Thought I might try to start a little topical argument here. For those who have been living under a rock the past week, WikiLeaks has released thousands of US diplomatic cables which essentially display how America views the rest of the world, as well as a few other itneresting little 'secrets'. For a very brief summary on some of those things take a quick look at this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11914040The main problem for the US is simply how embarassing some of the leaked information is, and understandably they've gone into knee-jerk damage control, talking about charging WikiLeaks founded, Australian Julian Assange with epionage, which if tried and convicted, would lead to his execution. Some are even calling for his assasination, and the labeling of WikiLeaks as a terrorist organisation. Julia Gillard has come out and denounced the leaks, and has thrown her theoretical support behind any legal procedings taken against Assange.
So far the leaked information has only been revealed to be embarassing and damaging, but has not been proven to have placed anyone in any increased risk. So why all the fuss? What makes WikiLeaks and different from any other jouralist who risks theirs life to uncover and expose corruption around the world? Is it simply because the US's pristine image has been blemished? Would the West be so up in arms if the leaked secrets had been Iranian or North Koreans, instead of American?
Thoughts? Does anyone care?