This article brings up a good question regarding whether the United States military has been honest in their reports of "enemy" casualties. Another important question is posed at the end of the article with a pentagon statement: "Condemning this fresh leak, however, the Pentagon said: "This security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed. Our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment." Where do we draw the line between the citizens' right to know and the safety of government operations? Is it acceptable to allow secrecy to protect citizens or do the citizens have a right to know all that the government does? These are interesting questions given that the government is to be responsible to the citizenry, however, what if included in that responsibility is keeping certain information classified?

Interesting article on how the media is grasping this story and how filmmakers wish to portray the events surrounding Assange. Could the making of several documentaries and movies surrounding this issue lead to a larger question of legitimacy? Can film researchers potentially uncover answers to some of the questions that are being offered by many around the globe? Will the movies be politically charged, such as the allegations surrounding his trial in Sweden? How will the government react to this new interest in producing films around Wikileaks?

Officer and Miss A met through political party and corresponded over internet months before WikiLeaks chief was accused. The pair corresponded on the internet 16 months before the allegations were made against Assange. Miss A commented on a Facebook update on the police officer's page as recently as 10 February including anti-Assange comments, and is a frequent visitor to the officer's blog. Questions have arisen as to whether Assange may even be expedited to Sweden given this information, and as to why the officer did not declare a conflict of interest if such allegations against Assange are true. Many have cited political motivations in the fight to have Assange incarcerated, raising even more questions.

The WikiLeaks founder says he believes the internet is not a technology that favors freedom of speech but rather spying. Assange disagrees with reports that Facebook and Twitter play a role in the unrest in the Middle East. He offers his reasoning why revolts cannot be started via Facebook, Twitter, or other social networking sites: they can all be used to round-up principal participants, so that they may be beaten, interrogated or incarcerated. Perhaps most disturbingly, he blames leaked diplomatic cables for the unrest currently in the Middle-East being that the United States had decided that in a necessary event, they would militarily back the Tunisian military over the political regime and would mobilize against neighboring countries if need be. There were further cables that also led to US disapproval of Mubarak in Egypt.

The WikiLeaks suspect's mistreatment amounts to torture. Either President Obama knows this or he should make it his business. The president refused to comment on PJ Crowley's (State department Spokesperson) statement that the treatment of Manning is "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid". Prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity - the punishments currently being levied upon Manning - come right out of the manual of the CIA for "enhanced interrogation". Such practices are applied in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. It's what the CIA calls "no-touch torture", and its purpose is to demoralise someone to the point of offering a desired confession regardless of whether it is true or false.

The leaking of more than 390,000 previously secret US military reports details the hidden realities of the war in Iraq. More than 100,000 people have died and whole towns such as Falluja have been reduced to near-rubble, while allegations of brutal abuse by some US and UK soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere continue to surface. WikiLeaks has defied the Pentagon to pass this data on to a wide range of media organizations such as newspapers and other webpages.

The subject of wikileaks has opened much debate as to whether the website has gone too far or whether they are simply picking up the loose end of an underachieving US Media, however, even as such organizations as Amnesty International award the webpage, they have faced continued animosity as they reveal revelations that the US Government simply did not want publicized. Shockingly and contrary to government reports, troops manning checkpoints or riding convoy shoot at innocent civilians or torture prisoners. In one report, 69,000 out of the 109,000 deaths recorded from Army checkpoints were civilians.

This webpage discusses how other websites and corporations have been affected by the Wikileaks issues. Such issues as public censorship, which Amazon has for years condoned, resurfaced surrounding government and public pressures about Wikileaks. Now Amazon must consider if they are willing to pre-screen or censor material uploaded to their site. Twitter has faced similar issues, while PayPal has come under substantial fire from the government for supporting Wikileaks' Donation efforts.