Is Wikileaks reliable?

Wikileaks is reliable

In my opinion, I think Wikileaks is reliable.  They put information on the Internet that is pretty powerful. Read on as to why people might think they are more trustworthy than many governments.  I think people who take risks to expose the truth can be trusted more than those who try to hide the truth. What do you think?

All the information on Wikileaks is factual and 100% primary source documents. They are not edited for editorial commentary.

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong – Voltaire

I believe in transparency in government. I live in a post-communist country.  In this country, the government was secret and did many bad things including killing civilians and throwing people in jail and labeled them as terrorists or enemies of the state, even though they were for peace and change in society.

(Disclaimer: I support the US government and the US law 100% and do not encourage anyone to do anything contrary to that and it is extremely important to obey the law. This post like all my posts is just an historical-philosophical post in the abstract, as this site is about political discourse. I am a history buff.)

What does Wikileaks do? It simply presents the facts by individuals who leaked primary source documents.  They are not making value judgments, or edit for a particular view as the news does.  In contrast, Wikileaks presents the raw facts. In one sense they are news scientists of the political world. They are simply presenting data. They feel they are protecting people from government lies.

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. –  Ronald Reagan

Why do politicians and governments not like them? The real reason is career politicians are afraid of the truth. For example, what if you were doing something illegal or wrong and someone exposed it? How would you feel about the person who caught you?

You can not confuse loyalty to the constitution and the United States with loyalty to bureaucrats and wrongdoings.

Loyalty to the Nation all the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.  – Mark Twain

  • The US government wants a criminal charge against Wikileaks, but the 1917 espionage act does not apply as the first amendment protects the journalist. This is true even if the information was from questionable sources and this was supported by a series of US supreme court rulings. Therefore, Wikileaks is reliable and innocent until proven guilty. Further, the espionage acts apply to a declared act of war. Congress must declare war on an enemy, and the question is did congress declare an act of war? I do not think so.
  • I think Assange is highly ethical and principled when it comes to principles of truth and politics. He is a political idealist. He has no financial gain from this and put everything at risk. He has lived in virtual captivity in an embassy, yet continues to work on his mission to open up governments.  He believes he is doing it to make the world a better place for the next generation because this generation of generals and politicians are the same as the 20th century. You know how that went. Make your own judgment.

It is one thing to be cowardly. Another to lie about it. – Wikileaks

Why do Politicians oppose Assange’s work? Politicians speak loudly against the Assange because they are afraid of the truth.  There is something the government does not want people to know. Rarely is it for national security reasons, rather some embarrassment.

It was always a Jason Bourne type convert action that the government did not want people to know about. Very blatant abuses of power and illegal activities but all done behind door negotiation in the name of diplomacy. Then when they were discovered some smooth-talking general would come on and talk about it was to protect people or army, that is why we kept this secret. Even Jason Bourne came clean.

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. –  Martin Luther King, Jr.

  • I live also in a historic place, what was once a WWII ghetto made by a police state and the operations was all secret. Civilians were killed and documents were destroyed, if you spoke against this you were a traitor of the state.

Does this type of action sound fair? Does this sound like cloak and dagger a communist government? Think again. In the USA, there are individuals who abuse power.  Maybe not with the same extent and certainly not with the same intent, as the USA does not purposely kill people, at least not that I am aware of. The USA is a fair and just democracy, which I believe in. I support and defend the US constitution. I do not support politicians who do things illegal in any country as their harm hurts people on a global scale.

What about the argument it will harm national security?

A lot of Americans lost their lives in foreign wars and police actions, many we should not have been involved in, but to date no one has lost their life because of Wikileaks.

The NYTimes sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest.

I think Wikileaks –  NYTimes made a statement in publishing the documents it did regarding the wars and the cover-up of civilian deaths. What if you were one of the innocent people who were accidentally shot by the US military Apache helicopter, and then you died? How would you feel? You will never get your life back.  I think you would want the world to know the truth so it would not happen again to others.

Examples of what Wikileaks exposed

  • Hillary Clinton mocked Catholics and Christians. I am a Catholic and find this offensive since we are Americans too. It tells me she does not represent people of faith. Even if you are not a believer you should not take this lightly.
  • Hillary Clinton describes Latino as “needy”.
  • Hilary Clinton mocked Southern.
  • Hilary pushed the Obama is a Muslim narrative in order to foster negative facts and campaigning.
  • War crimes – For example, there is evidence of war crimes such as a US assassination team making a mistake and killing seven innocent children. How is keeping this secret jeopardizing people? If anything if it is public it will help prevent things like this in the future. The whistle-blower Assange wants you to read the documents and see for yourself if this recent leak has 1000s criminal events by the military. Is this what the military is defending as a security risk? I heard as 60,000 civilians died. These were innocent people.
  • Helping the enemy – What about the connection between Pakistan and the Taliban. The US gives a lot of money to Pakistan and they help the other side. To me, this sounds similar to when the US helped Iraq and Saddam? The USA plays these Machiavellian imperial politics and yet we are a democracy. A democracy which George Washington the founder of our country, warned us against overseas involvement and abuses of past governments. If anything this information brought to light, in the open is important to protect American lives.
  • Clinton ordered US diplomats to spy on the UN – This I am shocked at and can this be true? Would the US really jeopardizes its international reputation as being a peaceful, trustworthy, altruistic country and engage in cold war tactics?

On another level, did this leak tell us anything that we did not already know, that is, diplomats play a game of closed-door diplomacy. This is especially true in the Middle East and with Russia. They said that we were being pushed to attack Iran, or that Pakistan is a questionable ally or things like that. For example, what if North Korea fell we have plans to set up a unified Korea.  I think government officials have an inflated feeling of importance. We knew all this stuff.

The whole world knew that money from Saudi Arabia helps finance Al Qaeda, why the big secret and why is it not more public so it can be stopped and save American lives? There is that new news? Not really.  The main thing that bothers people is when innocent civilians get killed and this is not brought out to the public.

Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has courage

The US government is calling Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange irresponsible and a terrorist. Why? Because they are being exposed. I think Julian Assange has the courage of his convictions and he hopes to expose the truth. How can the truth be harmful? This is old information and not tactical information. In his eyes, it is simply politically dangerous to the people who are abusing power by keeping the truth from their citizens.

(Major Disclaimer: One thing I do disagree with is anything that is not legal.  I am a patriot and fully respect the law. I would never ever give US secrets to anyone. I would defend the US the country I love and honor the law and if I was responsible for secrets would keep them. I do not encourage anyone to break the law in any way.  Anyone who broke the law or leaked confidential information should be caught by the government. No matter what the tone of this post is, I agree with the US government 100%. I am talking only in theory about politics and transparency.  If anyone from the government thinks this post is over the line I will take it down.)

Assange is under surveillance by police, CIA, the foreign government pretty much anyone with a secret to hide. I know the Chinese do not like him. Iceland has offered him asylum. He runs his server in Sweden on PRQ. Sweden has pretty liberal laws regarding the Internet. But there are complexities there, and one of his women accusers I think worked for the USA once.

Does Wikileaks poss a threat to US security?

(disclaimer: I do not recommend anything other than the US party line of government agencies)  Yet, I recommend you watch two films that might answer about Wikileaks and Julian Assange:

  • War, lies, and videotape is a documentary by French directors Paul Moreira and Luc Hermann
  • We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks by director Alex Gibney

Wikileaks Website

I recommend people look at these documents themselves by visiting the Wikileaks website:  and lets the facts speak for themselves. The website is easy to navigate.

The bias media who are for Clinton in the election is trying to discredit Wikileaks saying is a basically controlled by the Russian government (For example the Hill wrote this). That is 100% false.

Other Wilikeaks type websites are starting to appear with a similar model as Openleaks.

How different generations perceive politics?

I think the type of politics of the 20th century with all the wars and cloak and dagger do not appeal to the new generation as much as truth. The WWII generation had a high tolerance for government secrecy as they were told it was in the national interest. Yet with the exception of Homeland security, this does not seem true.  Homeland security does need to be protected as the methods they use directly protects US citizens.

For example, Hillary Clinton’s deleted illegal (because they were on an illegal server) emails does not do anything but expose her for being anti-catholic for example.

Wikileaks is good and reliable:

  • The truth is always good.
  • Governments in the past from kings, dictators, and communists kept things secret because they had something to hide from the good citizens of their country.
  • When people are aware of the truth they are empowered to change, this is a mission of Wiki leaks, to bring transparency to government.
  • Contrary to what the inner circle of politicians and old generals says, that is these secrets are harmful if people know about them, the opposite is most likely true as according to the New York Times they are scrubbing the data before it is published. But I do not have all the facts myself. In the long-run, the truth will be good for governments and in the long-run are helpful. Wikileaks is good as long as they are honest and legal.
  • A group of independent security professionals says that Wikileaks, it was around in 2001 could have prevented 9/11 as there were obvious signs for that tragedy.

Do you think Wikileaks bad? Think again. Wikileaks is pushing for transparency in government and is reliable in that respect. It brings transparency to the next level, as the organization hopes our children will have a better future which is more open.  Consider Thomas Jefferson: ‘The government that governs least governs best’.

I think organizations like Wikileaks, which are committed to the truth can be trusted more than governments who try to hide the truth.  So dependable or reliable is a matter of trust. Who do you trust ‘the government party line’ or someone who has the courage to seek the truth?

Related Posts




This is my Youtube Channel: EconLessons


15 responses to “Is Wikileaks reliable?”

  1. Katya

    Wikileaks is reliable, governments and old military generals are not, at least the ones that cover up things like war crimes. I am from Russia, believe me I would trust a journalist like this before I trust the bureaucrats he tries to expose.

    1. Mark Biernat

      Thanks Katya, after what the founder of Wikileaks has gone though with people who ‘just want to talk with him’, it reminds me of Neo in the Matrix.

    2. Tammy

      Although my comment is 6 years later than this thread, I just have to state I am very happy with the way you, Bruce & Mark, had a civilized and educational conversation! I so rarely see this on the internet anymore and had to commend and thank the two of you. Well done.

      And Katya I agree with you too.

      I think WikiLeaks, Assange’s organization, is reputable. I am also very happy with the last leak they found, the proof to what we knew all along, that the DNC (2015-2016) has been corrupt in the favoritism and backing of Hillary before anything began. The last thing I read was that they will soon be releasing information that will finally get Hillary put behind bars. I can not wait.

  2. Bruce

    Yeah, great Wikileaks has made diplomacy impossible, world leaders and diplomats will no longer speak the truth or speak candidly to one another. Wikileaks did not change US rules of engagement in Iraq, the leaks regarding the “war crimes” you are talking about reference things that happened quite awhile ago and the rules of engagement have been changed since then. Furthermore the leaks regarding Afghanistan were not a revelation for anyone – everyone knows innocent people are killed there (the majority of them by the Taliban by the way, the leaks confirm this). Ontop of that the leaks about US operating standards endanger US lives (though to be honest I don’t think you or I care about that).

    You mention Ghettos and ethnic cleansing, but the leaks reveal no such thing was being kept secret. In truth actually the leaks make the US look relatively good by making it clear that US concerns about Iran, for example, are shared widely from Egypt to Europe and even in Asia. Unfortunately world leaders will be much more reserved in doing things for the greater good even when at the time public opinion goes against them. For example, Roosevelt was strongly in favor of the US helping the allies in World War II but the American public was strongly against it, if Wikileaks had been around in 1939 it’s likely the US would have done a lot less to fight Japan and Nazi Germany.

    You assume that secrets are bad, but they are not always bad. There’s a reason why we elect leaders, we trust them to keep some things secret from us and that they should actually make some decisions for us. Even the most liberal democracy is still a liberal democracy and not a direct democracy, we elect leaders to represent us and act on our behalf.

    By the way there’s a legitimate movement for transparency called sunshine acts or freedom of information, and Wikileaks has set this back by making it apparent more secrecy is not actually so bad (just look at the editorials out there).

    1. Mark Biernat

      Thanks for the comment. There are some levels of secrets which are OK. Further, I am certainly not giving my green stamp for Wikileaks, I write that many times in my disclaimer. Rather this is about it is more of an argument for openness in government, and specifically is the information in Wikileaks, even if it is illegal, it is reliable and accurate. I would be a hard case to say this information is incorrect as these are primary source documents.
      But most diplomacy is not about that. think it is very naive to not see that government and big business, oil, military etc are not always serving the interest of the democracy and the people and the ideals of the constitution or the founding fathers.
      For example, did not those leaks say something about the Saudi Arabians are the main source of funds that Al Qaeda to fight out troops and heros?
      Is it OK that US tax payer dollars when to child pros_ti__tes connected to military defense contractors? Is that OK for you?
      Is it OK that DNA samples should be collected at the UN?
      Diplomacy is openness and honesty. The USA would have more allies it is was just honest.

      I think you are very naive to trust government that much. The founding fathers would not have. I believe the founding fathers would have had a different view.
      I live in a post communist country and I think you should experience what it is like to have corruption and dishonesty and cover ups.

      I think the greatest protection for democracy is as little secrecy as possible. I think the information from Wikileaks is reliable because it is primary source documents.
      I do not support wikileaks or illegal activities at all. I believe in transparency in government. Diplomacy is good for the diplomats with nice dinners and big expense budgets but for the most part it is an honorific post, that has not solved a lot in the 20th century considering most of the time we were at war.

      If you want to help our troops in Afghanistan, cut off that Saudi money. That is the root. Hunt Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan where he is. Stop arms shipments (from Russia et al) to the terrorist in the Middle East. All these things our diplomats are dancing around. This will protect our democracy.

  3. Bruce

    I agree with everything you propose – in theory. However I think you’re discounting the fact that people in government positions are already widely aware of the very things you mentioned. Do we support Saudi Arabia while Saudi Arabian interests support terrorists? Yes, but the Saudi government does not directly as a matter of policy support terrorists. That is in fact the reason we support the Saudi Government, Saudi Society itself is very conservative – if the Saudi people had free reign and the current Saudi Government were over-thrown it is a near certainty it would be replaced with a government which would openly support terrorists and endorse extremist preachers even in their own lands.

    And yes, there has been some sort of conflict the US has been involved in most of the century, but would this have been improved by less secrecy on our part. Let see…

    WW2… American public totally against intervention. Without government and especially diplomatic secrecy the US wouldn’t have been able to begin assisting the UK, China and the Soviets against fascist aggression. It’s quite likely we would have still been drawn into the war, but with more casualties and more Soviet gains.

    Vietnam War… tough one. The agreement to give it back to France as a colony might not have happened, on the other hand a lot of peace initiatives might not have happened, the war might have gone on longer.

    Cold-War… Detente would have been much harder. A lot of diplomacy happened behind the scenes which would have been politically impossible had the initial feelers had to be public.

    First Gulf War… no secret wrangling with Israel to keep them from attacking Saddam. That’d been great (not).

    Iraq War… the short coming in the WMD intelligence were known before the war, so secrecy wasn’t really the problem, moreso the way Bush pushed it and the way the media reported it (as well as Saddam’s foolish intransigence and paranoid secrecy, but that’s his secrecy not ours).

    I’d really like to you address these issues, especially World War II. You seem to be thinking that secrecy is a bad thing with the over-riding concern of what Authoritarian Communist governments kept secret, and I agree that things would be better if Authoritarian governments were less secret, but it’s pure fantasy to even consider because Authoritarian governments are by their very nature secretive. But even then, sometimes Authoritarian governments do the right thing with secrecy, like Arab governments being much more friendly to Israel and doing much more to fight extremist Islam than there their populaces would support… I notice you don’t mention this fact of the Wikileaks cables.

    About Diplomats, when talking about diplomatic secrecy I don’t mean diplomats at state dinners but the kind of behind the scenes (secret) diplomacy that for example allowed Israel and Egypt to make peace with each other.

    The founding fathers would not have had a different view about diplomatic secrecy, we know they wouldn’t have because of all the secret diplomatic dealings they in fact engaged in.

    Let me ask you this, is there any government secrecy you would support? Should every military development program be required by law to post blueprints online? Should all dealings between any government officials be a matter of official record? Should US military operating procedures in Afghanistan be openly published so the terrorists know what to expect?

    I mean you must support some level of secrecy, so you also do in fact support secrecy, you just draw the line at a different spot. I think Nixon type security or Eisenhower level is too high, it allowed the US to engage in some bad diplomacy which otherwise would have been politically unworkable. Today’s level of government and diplomatic secrecy seems about right. You mention oil companies and what not, where are the leaks that reveal some horrible collusion? Not there.

    About your examples… of course I don’t support child prostitution for military contractors, but wasn’t that already being addressed prior to this leak?

    Do you support Arab leaders now being much more reticent to support the US against terrorism and try for peace with Israel because they’re afraid extremist elements in their populace will find out they’re dealing with the “big devil?” Do you support China taking a hard line in their support of North Korea because the fact they were growing tired of North Korea came out before they were ready to admit it?

    Simple fact is, some things are better off secret, others not. SUNSHINE laws, which clearly establish general guidelines for what should be secret and what not are the way to do things, not blanket openness (even if it were legal openness).

    1. Mark Biernat

      Bruce I am not going to rebut this comment as you made a lot of good points and I will let them stand and readers can judge for themselves. I think like King Solomon said you have to hear both sides of the story before you cast judgment.
      However, I would reiterate the 20th century was the worst in terms of human life loss from failed diplomacy. Including selling Poland out, the first ally in WWII to the Soviets with a secrete deal.
      I do not assume that everything has worked out for the best. We do not know what the world would look like if people were more open in diplomacy.
      I think in relationships honesty is the best policy. Even if it is embarrassing and changes the paradigm.
      Sorry I said I would not write more and I did, it is a very interesting but emotional topic.

      1. Mark Biernat

        I can not resist, to write more.
        WWII, I think the USA wanted to put its head in the sand, I agree.
        But the public was not opposed to the lease program to the Allies. I think this helped the effort but did not win the war.
        Once the USA was involved everything changed.
        But before that, I also think Russia really was helped by our aid but not the key factor for their victory.
        I think the German were stopped in the first year of the invasion. 1941 the Germans were stopped in front of Moscow and that was it. They could do nothing once winter hit. The Germans were done in 1941 in front of Moscow and the war was basically over.
        Game over. The Russians were to strong as it was to them the Great patriotic war.
        1942 saw not great German headway and even some reversals and 1943 it was over.
        So I think diplomacy did not help that much, in fact all these back room deals prevented the Poles from attacking the Germans in 1930s before Germany got strong. Piłsudski wanted to crush the adder in the egg.

        I live in Poland and it was very unfair they sold Poland, the first ally and other only country that did not surrender in Europe to the Soviets. That was a crime.

        Cold war, ended not because of diplomacy but they would not keep up with the USA, their economy collapse. Diplomacy did little.
        Vietnam another 15 years of wasted money and lives. Diplomacy was all fake during this time. Lies and arrogance of government.
        These Iraq afghan wars have been basically 20 years from the first invasion and it looks like 2014 is not realistic anymore. So who knows we will have a presence there militarily for 30 years it looks like. That is a lifetime. It is the biggest waste of US money.
        We could have built a great nation for the next generation but now we have problems.
        1984 all over again. I do not believe the liberation of Kuwait WMD was anything more than US imperialism.
        Honesty would have gone a long way to help people see the reality before we got all pumped about it and went in.
        I think lying is not patriotic. Ron Paul basically believes secrets do not help diplomacy only honesty. Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. I think we tried the 20th century Jason Bourne way it did not work. Too many wars.
        I am a total flag waving patriot but can not understand why the US has so many useless secrets. Too many useless wars and big money spend on diplomats with stuffed shirts and cocktail parties that really do not do much as the generals and business and oil interests have their way.
        One man I respect was Holbrooke and I think his last words were “Stop this war”.

  4. Bruce

    In WW2 you’re not considering Japan and the US actions against Germany and Japan that caused the US to enter the war in the first place. The US entering the war was not a fiat accompli, and had we not and the Germans and Japanese been beaten anyway it would be a far worse outcome, with all of Europe falling under Totalitarian Stalinist domination. What caused Japan to attack pearl harbor was US interventionism in the pacific, condemning the formation of Manchuria, secretly helping Nationalist China against Japan, privately telling Japan they needed to back down… look up the “Hull Note.” Without that secrecy we probably wouldn’t have even gone to war with Japan for years letting them gobble up all of Southeast Asia and kill who knows how many Chinese.

    I do agree that there are too many wars, and again let me say that diplomatic secrecy on the part of N_zi Germany and Stalin was a serious problem, but I think some level of secrecy for Democratic nations is helpful.

    Also again, a lot of the problems you’re mentioning have to do with popular opinion not government secrecy. Selling Poland out had to do with the fact that we weren’t willing to go to war with Stalin over Poland after the war.

    1. Mark Biernat

      I strongly disagree about selling Poland out. I mean what if the US was attacked and someone sold the USA out. How would you feel. The Poles were the first ally. They fought from the start to finish and they deserved the allies to stand up for them, not betray them and trade them off.
      They could have given more or all of Germany to the Soviets to keep Poland their trusted friend and ally free.
      I think the USA puts itself out there as a morally good nation, but when it pulls dishonest things likes betrays and ally, it is clear it is an imperial nation not a morally principled nation.
      An Imperial nation does what is in the best interest. An honest nation does what is right.
      For example, we could have paid the Barbary states in the 1800s like the of Europe, but the USA decided to go to war, because even though it was not convenient, it was right.
      If you have a piece of paper like France and Britain did to defend a country called an alliance and treaty, and you were working with the Polish government in exile and using, Polish troops in your campaigns, why would you lie in secret?
      I do not like it.
      I think the 20th century was a failure of diplomacy that cost like 100 million lives in wars. That type of dreadnought diplomacy and Jason Bourne action is not the future.
      Look at Ron Paul’s stance on all this. Ron Paul a respected congressmen says things should be open. Why not?
      He also says bring the troops back home. I mean do we still have men defending rich Germany?
      I agree, we entered the WWII because Japan attacked us. That was clear. It was a war of self defense.
      But WWII was a declared war.
      An official act of congress declared war against Axis powers.
      We have been fighting today and there is no act of war. Congress, the voice of the people will not officially declare war. We are fighting like, Vietnam, an undeclared war.
      I think the US should be open in diplomacy and only engage in declared wars, by an act of congress and bring the troops back home.
      Sounds crazy I know. But the cloak and dagger diplomacy of the 20th century was a failure in my opinion. I am again a patriot and only writing this because I a am patriot and loyal and love America. I think a new approach would impress the world.
      Truthfully I think a lot of people thought Obama would do this, and that is why he won the Nobel peace prize. What a joke that was, he is more of the same.

    2. Mark Biernat

      I do see your point. And I do consider what you say, its is just now, in my life I have lived enough to see countless police actions with Americans from Vietnam to Iraq come back in body bags, and really question if either nation was a direct threat to US security like we were told. I feel someone lied to the American people.

    3. Mark Biernat

      One more example of the hypocrisy of politicians. I am a Republican but I think it is ridiculous someone like Mitch McConnell, the head of the Senate Republicans had a very and I repeat very questionable way to get out of the military during the Vietnam war, yet he is the one that beats the loudest drum.
      On the other hand Ron Paul served in the US Air force with honor, like a patriot and he is the one who is for openness and non intervention.
      I believe in democracy and 100% loyal to the US but I do not trust politicians that much and diplomats less.

    4. Mark Biernat

      You make good points and you know history. That I appreciate. Most people do not even know about the Hull note. And sorry if I rambled a little, I think I am off track a little. But I refer back to a Ron Paul view on this, that is the truth hurts but is good for change.

  5. Roy Sonne

    How do we know Wikileaks documents have not been altered? Why should we trust an individual and his company, who are admittedly thieves, and who have a political agenda? With their expertise, it would be easy for them to alter a few key sentences in each cable, so as to completely change or misrepresent the meaning. Do you really trust Julian Assange to present you with a genuine and unaltered product?
    I do not.

    1. Mark Biernat

      This is a good point about Wikileaks.
      However, they are not the ones who stole the documents. Someone else did, and it is not proven in a court of law who did. Obama made the statement that ‘He (Bradley Manning) broke the law’. That is crazy. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty, further Manning is not connected with Wikileaks.

      Assange’s organization just provides a portal for others to view. I do not see the US government denying that the documents are not true or unreliable. Rather their stance the release of these documents are not legal. It is a different argument.
      If you saw the video on Collateral Murder, you have to ask how could this have been altered? It most likely was not. In fact, two soldiers from that US Army unit came forward and apologized.

      I find it possible but highly unlikely that Wikileaks is in the business of altering documents. Agree or disagree with their operation, I think they are trustworthy in regards with conveying the truth.

      Are they legal? Well that is what the US justice department is trying to determine with respect to the first Amendment. Can a foreign news or reporting organization report war alleged war crimes or killing of civilians to the world, and does a government have the right to hide this?
      I believe in the law and the US constitution which is the highest law in the USA. That is my position.
      I would tend to agree with Congressmen Ron Paul’s elaboration on this subject.

Leave a Reply