A Week of WikiLeaks

Friday, December 03, 2010

Transcript

It’s been a full week of WikiLeaks after the organization’s controversial publishing of more than a quarter million documents last Sunday sent shock waves through diplomatic circles around the world. Brooke navigates through the storm of media coverage and the range of reactions to this unprecedented intelligence release.

    Music Playlist
  • Un Wiki Wiki
    Artist: by Jowell Randy ft. De la Ghetto

Comments [15]

Terrell Poole

I think it's crazy how the past can affect the future.

Dec. 10 2010 10:46 AM
SNH

If everyone just stayed kept things off the internet and in there mind I think stuff like this wouldnt be happening. And even though certian things are protected by the first amendment there are certain things you just cant put out there if you want to stay online.

Dec. 09 2010 09:10 PM
Danesha Poteat

I think its crazy how the past is really a big impact on the present. In today's society many people can't let go of things that happen in our past and its really letting it now control our future. I think that the world society should change and make this a better place.

Dec. 09 2010 09:00 AM
Bob Gardner from Randolph, Mass.

"The Justice Department errs egregiously and risks profound damage to the First Amendment, however, when it insists that private citizens -- academics, journalists, think tank analysts, lobbyists and the like -- also are legally bound to keep the nation's secrets. The prosecution in effect criminalizes the exchange of information."
Editorial in the Washington Post 3/11/2009

Dec. 08 2010 04:40 PM
Daniel Z

I have to agree with Ayana about letting the moments of the past control the future. We shouldn't be repeating the past in fact an old quote says "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it". I believe this to be 100 percent true but in no way does it mean I fully support WikiLeaks. I think some things they release, like information about the war and things of that nature is important, but others like the releasing of names of soldiers and other important people in the country could be a serious risk. So I am typically about 50-50 with WikiLeaks, but thats just me.

Dec. 08 2010 09:51 AM
Ayana

To me, it's odd how all of these past events can have such an impact on the present. But what's wrong with the picture here, is that we're letting the past control our future. And of course, like everyone else says, you shouldn't strip them of their rights, simply because you don't like whats said.

Dec. 07 2010 11:48 PM
Ivan Dawson

I agree with previous comments. WikiLeaks are covered by the first amendment. They are free to share what they like. If you dont agree then share your opinion and move on. All of this commotion is really unnecessary

Dec. 07 2010 07:18 PM
dominique jackson

I remember that instance in Florida, and it is very ironic yet I have to agree with previous comments about the first amendment. Which does cover WikiLeaks

Dec. 07 2010 03:57 AM
Just a Thought

The Defense Secretary says the impact of the highly illegal continuous releasing of more than a quarter million documents involving international security and diplomatic cables during two wars is "fairly modest" yet just a few months ago he felt the need to personally implore an obscure pastor in Florida not to burn one book because of the impact on international security and diplomacy by that irresponsible but legal act. Thanks

Dec. 06 2010 08:52 PM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

Julian Assange; imagine looking as he does, with that name, growing up with the bullies of Australia. No wonder he picks on the biggest bully nation!

Meanwhile, either Scooter Libby or the former Vice President or, more likely, both betrayed Valerie Plame, wife of diplomat Joe Wilson, and the nation, by exposing both sources and methods. WikiLeaks merely confirms what THE REAL TRAITORS revealed in one phone call!

Otherwise, I agree with our Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (to paraphrase), "Nothing to see here, people! Move along!"

Dec. 06 2010 08:15 PM
Robbin O

The first amendment cover WikiLeaks. Amendments are citizens' way to get around the corrupt government. They release documents they think the people need to see and we do.

Dec. 06 2010 02:23 PM
KadeKo from suburban Northeast

Just A Thought, nice way to parrot the talking points picked up from Fox News.

However, everybody else here knows about the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations: According to the mainstream media (not even Fox News and Rush) Obama's presidency is in CRISIS`111!!1!one! when his Gallup poll numbers are in the high 40s the way any Republican's never are when a Republican is at 30% (say, George W. Bush.)

And, as far as "incompetent and untrustworthy", you've disappeared a lot of stuff really quickly. When the Bush admin pi$$ed off allies, the media couldn't trumpet the tough-guy "we don't need allies from Old Europe" crap fast enough. (Remember when hating the French was de rigeur?) Now, our allies know they're dealing with grownups rather than Yosemite Sam types like John Bolton, "Rumstud", and Alberto "Quaint Treaty" Gonzalez. Your memory may have failed you, but others here haven't forgotten.

Dec. 05 2010 12:08 PM
Mem

First Amendment. Read it. Wikileaks got classified documents, and published them. It's no different than if the NY Times, Fox News, CNN got access to news worthy classified documents.

Dec. 05 2010 11:11 AM
Just a Thought

Funny how the significant name of Obama is not mentioned in the above website report.
It's great to hear from President Kennedy about media responsibility from fifty years ago but how about hearing from President Obama this week?
These links are indeed a "steady stream" since the first document dump appeared four months ago and the Obama Administration apparently did nothing effective in stopping it.
Considering Obama's carefully crafted diplomatic image and conspicuous pandering abroad including the narcissistic "restarts" of international relationships, the damage of these leaks are much more significant than suggested by some of his supporters.

The Republican Congress of 2011 means Obama's domestic agenda is frozen as well as discredited.
In the next two years he would have been more free to focus on his foreign policy agenda but the Wikileaks scandal makes The White House and the State Department look massively incompetent and deeply untrustworthy.
Instead of JFK from fifty years ago, perhaps a soundbite of Jimmy Carter from thirty years ago would have been more appropriate. Thanks

Dec. 04 2010 05:32 PM
John Huntington from Brooklyn

I have now tried to download and stream this episode but it keeps stopping at 4:38.?

John

Dec. 04 2010 03:43 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.