Sunday, August 1, 2010


Defense Secretary Robert Gates said whistleblower website WikiLeaks is morally "guilty" for its decision to release nearly 80,000 secret military documents pertaining to the Afghanistan war. 
Speaking on the Sunday news shows, Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed concern about the potential damage the massive leak could do, including putting Afghan informants in harm's way. 
"My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability. One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others. That's not my arena. But there's also a moral culpability. And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks," Gates said on ABC's"This Week." "They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences." 
Gates said he was "mortified" and "appalled" by the release. He said the need to protect sources is "sacrosanct" and that WikiLeaks showed "no sense of responsibility.
Photo and above italic text from FOX News online.
Wonder why he doesn't have harsh words for the New York Times?


Opus #6 said...

Turns out Wikileaks' Lesange is Australian. The man in custody is an American GI who is openly gay. I wonder if that is why Obama is soft on him. Apparently they will go after him for mishandling documents, not espionage.

LL said...

My thought precisely, WoFat. If it's an institutionally liberal (and therefore loved) leak mechanism such as Aviation Week or the NYT, it's forgiven. Since the source is foreign (not liberal) it's unconscionable.

Foreigners are not responsible for AMERICAN security.

The obama regime wouldn't care at all except that the informers and snitches who were outed are ISLAMIC and I don't think they want ISLAMIC blood on their hands.

Fredd said...

Whoever obtained the material is the one who should be brought up on espionage or treason charges.

Both, in times of war, are capital offenses.

Go ahead and ask me if I think this Justice Department, or DOD will press the issue.

WoFat said...

I doubt that DOD, etc., will press charges against the guilty parties. That would be like inserting a weapon in their own mouths. How can you charge someone with whom you agree?