Why is Wikleaks allowed to continue, if, according to Hillary Clinton and other officials from across the political spectrum, the "revelations" are "an attack on the world", or "threaten the national security" of the not only the US and other allied nations?
A simple possibility, or probability: The leaks posted to the New York Times and others are not really leaks at all, but deliberately managed "data dumps", a version of "limited hangout", the intelligence term used to allow public awareness of relatively mild wrongdoings, or breaches of diplomatic protocols, in order to conceal, or divert attention away from, far more serious abuses, crimes, corruption and atrocities.
This is a classic "kill two birds with one stone" case, with an inbuilt knock-on effect: The leaks are allowed to continue because it reinforces to the US public, the notion that we are a tolerant and open society. By over-hyping and bulling-up the "national security" implications and the resulting (fake) outrage over the "revelations", it gives to the public the impression that tolerance of "freedom of expression" is seen as "more important" than censorship.
If there was any information in the wiki dump that was truly damaging to, for example, the war machine (of which the corporate media is a vital component), or senior political or corporate icons (on either 'side' of the aisle), such information would be kept secret. A repeat of the Pentagon Papers cannot happen in the 2000s; the media would never permit it; there is plenty of harmless pap to keep the populace amused without biting off the hand that feeds them.
Why am I skeptical? The corporate media, especially the current batch of weasels in the boardrooms that run information dissemination policy, are by default only loyal to government when it serves corporate power, and not just US-owned corporations.
The only thing these leaks have caused is a few red faces. Period. These "leaks" are fairy dust, and have been hyped out of all proportion; there is nothing in there that would endanger "US national security", which today can be loosely translated as the financial security, both personal and corporate, of the élites to whom lawmakers answer.
Julian Assange is seen by some to be a traitor, by others a hero. My take is that he is a tool, and has probably been paid handsomely. If he was truly a danger to the status quo, he would not be alive now.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
\
