For example, a merchant of stolen cars makes a fine living by selling vehicles. Fancying himself to be a kind of Robin Hood, he pilfers from the rich and sells to the poor.
One day, the merchant protests that his purloined cars have themselves been purloined, and screams bloody murder. This exactly indicates the predicament of WikiLeaks, the whistle blower website, after more than 250,000 United States diplomatic cables were let loose on the Internet last week.
WikiLeaks has blamed The Guardian, while the latter has dismissed such allegations as baseless. That WikiLeaks would even mention such a “theft” confounds common sense—will a robber ever protest that he has been robbed? What is sauce for the goose is good for the gander. There lies the danger of WikiLeaks.
It is true that for a time, WikiLeaks disclosures brought hours of amusement to people, say, about the information on the exchange of lavish gifts between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi. Theoretically at least, WikiLeaks’ philosophy seeks to keep governments honest. In March, for example, the U.S. envoy to Mexico resigned after it was revealed that he had expressed doubts about Mexico’s handling of drug cartels.
More significantly, the latest version of the unexpected erosion of past efforts by cable Wikileaks and other journalists, the names of those who spoke and informed the U.S. diplomats kidnapped. That’s how people are at risk of reprisals, if not worse. It would be a negative effect on future interactions between governments – a result that is made against all that is trying to Wikileaks.
Wikileaks has defended the publication of the new cable as an exhibition of journalistic deception and cunning officials. But to say that the cable is not in itself, something particularly important as what is already known.