I think the idea behind Wikileaks has merit. If you're a whistleblower, and are troubled by something you see, but afraid of facing consequences for pushing it out there, it could be a useful outlet. On the other hand, not all whistleblowers are doing the right thing. For example, take the case of Ivan "Chip" Frederick's lawyer, who only leaked those disgusting pictures from Abu Ghraib (and gave douchebag Sy Hersh the "scoop") after the Army refused to stop prosecuting.
By the way, Greyhawk has the best work I've read on that subject.
Anyway, let's assume there's a positive place for an organization like Wikileaks. An outlet. A steam valve. Whatever. Is it the proper place of that outlet to take their raw leaked documents, audiotapes and video, and add biased editorial analysis when they do not -- and cannot -- have all the facts?
WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. For further information please visit the special project website www.XXXXXXXX.com.
I can think of lots of reasons why what happens in this brand new gun camera footage isn't murder. And so can you. And others can find reasons why it's worse. The point is, for me to respect Wikileaks, they'll have to stop picking sides and doing agitprop.
I have zero respect for the people running Wikileaks, their sanctimonious preaching, and anyone who donates money to their organization.