Wikileaks is no more a journalistic enterprise than any other organization or clandestine service the mission of which it is to obtain by unauthorized means for political ends the secrets of other organizations and governments.

Regardless, journalists are not exempt from the laws of the United States. If a journalist believes he must break the law as an act of conscience, then he should acknowledge that such is what he has done and be prepared to accept the possible consequences while making his case to the public and the courts. He should be prepared for his case not to win the day. Even proclaimed acts of conscience do not exempt an individual, journalist or not, from legal review and the rule of law. If one does not respect and accept the prevailing political organization and legal system and expects to be exempt from review on the basis of inherent righteousness, then one is implicitly acknowledging that the act is a political act and not an attempted exercise in journalism.

But then I made these arguments in the post above.

It’s called “journalism”. When one cannot get anywhere by going through the organization one works for, and sees matters of life and death and right and wrong, then one turns to a journalist.

That’s what Manning did. And Wikileaks took the Apache helicopter video when “news” organizations like the Washington Post, pimped to the Establishment, held it for a year refusing to release it.

I’m amazed that anyone considers I, as a taxpayer, am not entitled to journalism (the Fourth Estate described in the Constitution) to see what MY tax dollars are paying for.

See your last sentence.

What i feel:- If it is done is ethically, it is correct. One shoukd follow the proper channel, which is to approach immediate manager, seniors and that is companies head to raise the concerns.
One should provide some time to the companies, so that can look into the matter and resolve the issues.

There are people in this society and companies who promote whistle blowing for their own monetary benefits.

Both Moore and Stone occupy a very, very low, shall I dare say nonexistent, place in my column reserved for the trustworthy and the truthful.

Manning has learned just how far his brand of “whistleblowing” goes. While I cannot condone the treatment he allegedly received (will we ever know the truth of that?), I would have been astonished had his case been dismissed. My hope remains that Assange gets his due.