"Since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole."
No, you were discussing that. Military plans are irrelevant to the public as a whole. They are only actionable by the opposing military.
The case discussed that originated this three posts up was about use of Wikileaks as a vector to reveal US/Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government. The idea was never to get US military secrets to Old Farmer Sassan from Onion Village in Iran. What on earth would he do with them?
"Somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody."
No, a whistleblower is what you need to release secret information. The difference being that the whistlebower is someone who doesn't want the secrets kept, because he/she has decided that the secret keepers (the whistleblower's own side) are the criminals. Someone like Bradley Manning. Or Wilhelm Canaris. Who on the Allied side wanted to reveal Allied war secrets? This is your flimsy argument against empowering whistleblowers?
"the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation."
You seem to get all your history from Action Man books
Do you have any idea of what a fiasco World War Two was?
If there had been a Wikileaks leaking government secrets to EVERYBODY (gasp!) in 1940, I'm certain World War Two would have been smaller, because Japan and the USA would not have gotten involved. The American public would not have tolerated it.
And maybe Britain might not have starved those 7 million Indian people by diverting their food to the British Army.
No, you were discussing that. Military plans are irrelevant to the public as a whole. They are only actionable by the opposing military.
The case discussed that originated this three posts up was about use of Wikileaks as a vector to reveal US/Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government. The idea was never to get US military secrets to Old Farmer Sassan from Onion Village in Iran. What on earth would he do with them?
"Somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody."
No, a whistleblower is what you need to release secret information. The difference being that the whistlebower is someone who doesn't want the secrets kept, because he/she has decided that the secret keepers (the whistleblower's own side) are the criminals. Someone like Bradley Manning. Or Wilhelm Canaris. Who on the Allied side wanted to reveal Allied war secrets? This is your flimsy argument against empowering whistleblowers?
"the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation."
You seem to get all your history from Action Man books
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF...
Do you have any idea of what a fiasco World War Two was? If there had been a Wikileaks leaking government secrets to EVERYBODY (gasp!) in 1940, I'm certain World War Two would have been smaller, because Japan and the USA would not have gotten involved. The American public would not have tolerated it.
And maybe Britain might not have starved those 7 million Indian people by diverting their food to the British Army.