How was he able to get the classified information in the first place? If it was so important to keep secure, how did he get access? Who helped him? Have only seen what was on the news, but doesn't sound too terribly damaging. Thought Hilary's speech sort of amusing, since this guy isn't an American citizen, don't see how he could be charged for treason... I would hope our military and government, would have some of the tightest security in the world. Maybe the leaked information is a smoke screen, for something else going on. Maybe it's a little push, to make sure Obama will be able to withdraw the troops next summer. There seems to be a purpose, for the leaked information, as I'm sure there are many more damaging 'secrets', than those released.
This is the thing about WikiLeaks, that "they" (governments of the world, the media, etc) want to confuse others about: WikiLeaks is arguably an internet-based news organization, no different from any other major news organization, with Julian Assange being the founder, publisher and "editor in chief" (if you will). How this "leak" business works is as follows:
1) Someone somewhere sees something that they think should be leaked. They fear that something hinky is going on, there is corruption, or something illegal, dangerous to health, or something occuring. They want to tell someone about it, but as a whistleblower, they don't want reprisal (being fired, murdered, jailed, etc).
2) In the past, they would likely try to find someone at a major newspaper (a reporter or someone) who would listen, and would look at their evidence; but this could be dicey - while their identity might be protected, it might not; plus they would have to physically give the documentation to someone - and if it is a lot of documentation, that could be very, very difficult.
3) But not today! Julian Assange and WikiLeaks set up (a series of?) encrypted dropboxes, to which the files that the person wanting to leak can email their documentation, and it makes it way back to WikiLeaks server(s) via the TOR (the Onion Router) network - so that it can't be intercepted or traced back to the original leaker. The leaker may keep anonymous, or reveal something about themselves as they see fit; not even WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, or anyone else, need to know who the leaker is (or where they are).
4) Once the data gets to WikiLeaks - they supposedly act as a news organization; they review the information in the leak, review what/who is involved. They do some investigation behind the sources contained in the leaked material, then write up a full investigative report (a "news article" - real journalism, ya know)...
5) They then go thru the leaked information, and redact any identifying information which could compromise third-parties mentioned in the leaked information; they attempt to do this with the help of certain parties privy to the original information (they tried to do with with the DOD on these latest Cable Leaks - but were turned down! - still, they redacted information about people mentioned in the leaks who were direct individuals in the leaks (ie, the diplomat's names were fair game, but a third individual who worked in the state department or something would be removed) - as best as they could (since they had no help). So the leaked information in the files are scrubbed.
6) They then release the leaked information, along with their investigative report. What this allows the public to do, which wasn't previously done, was to allow the public to compare the journalistic effort with the actual information leaked, in order to counter any issues or claims of bias or bad reporting. This wasn't possible in the "past", because the volume of information involved; today with high-speed/bandwidth internet, the web, cheap storage, etc - this is no longer an issue.
Well - except for "the powers that be". You see, putting aside the issue of whether Julian Assange raped a couple of women in Sweden or not (I don't know whether he did or didn't; I find the whole thing strange, and very "convenient" and likely to be a setup - but that all has nothing to do with the overall WikiLeaks investigative journalism and leaks methodology) - Julian Assange, playing the role of an editor and founder of the news organization that WikiLeaks is - is really no different than what Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers way back in the day (see
Daniel Ellsberg's Website - Ellsberg is of a supporting opinion of Assange's efforts regarding the leaks).
It used to be very difficult to leak this much information; nowadays, thanks to WikiLeaks (and even if WikiLeaks is shutdown - they have already paved the way for others - remember, the internet is a multi-headed hydra, and "the man" still doesn't get it), it is much easier to get this information out. All it takes is the whistle-blower and a thumb-drive, plus cheap and easy free high-strength encryption, and TOR - and an organization like WikiLeaks. Assange is merely a publisher; the goofy thing is they weren't the only publishers of this leaked information; the whistle-blower had actually sent it to other organizations as well (regular newspapers) - what WikiLeaks did, though, was allow the public to compare the real information with their published reports, to allow the public to decide based on -everything-, not just what was reported. This kind of democracy has a lot of people nervous.
Regarding the security of this information - like swiss cheese. There isn't any security on this info, especially if a human has access to it! If you work for some place, and they are doing something wrong, illegal, environmentally damaging, constitutionally wrong, etc - you have to decide whether to blow the whistle to someone, or be complicit in the goings on. Before, it could be a tough decision - a very risky decision. WikiLeaks (and others are cropping up) have made this much easier and safer (provided you can get the information out). Everything is driven by money and budgets, and security is typically dead-last on the budget concerns at most companies and in most areas of the government (even in some surprising areas!).
One thing you can bet on - they are going to try everything possible to hang Assange on this; I sincerely hope that insurance file is real. Many people have a copy of it - they are just waiting for the key. If it is real, it is likely to contain "in one fat wad" all of the leaked cables (so far, only a very minor number have been released - it was said that at the rate they are being released, it would take 20+ years for all of them to come out). He might become a martyr of some sort. He might be found guilty of a rape charge in Sweden; who knows. Whatever happens, though, we are likely to see more organizations like WikiLeaks crop up (its already happening, actually). The only way they can stuff this genie back in the bottle would be to shut down the internet, and I don't think that's going to happen.
As far as how or what they will t