Wikileaks Posts Secret Bomb-Stopper Report; Did They Go Too Far?

In July, 2005, I asked a member of a Baghdad-based military bomb squad about the radio frequency jammers his team was using to cut off signals to Iraq's remotely-detonated explosives. His response: "I can't even begin to say the first fucking thing about 'em." A few days later, one of those jammers seemed to save me and him from getting blown up. Months after that, David Axe was thrown out of Iraq by the U.S. military, for a blog post which mentioned the Warlock family of jammers.
So imagine my surprise when I saw that Wikileaks had posted a classified report, outlining how the Warlock Red and Warlock Green jammers work with -- and interfere with -- military communications systems. The report, dated 2004, gives specific information about how the jammers work, their radiated power, and which frequencies they stop. That Baghdad bomb tech would've had a heart attack, if he saw it out in public.

Today, the information disclosure is not quite so dire. Those Warlock Green and Warlock Red jammers have been largely -- but not completely -- superseded by newer models. And those newer models have largely wiped out the remotely-detonated bomb threat in Iraq.

But still, the leaked report raises important questions about what information -- if any -- is too sensitive to disclose.

Steven Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists' long-time advocate for open government, believes the site has gone too far. "Wikileaks says that it publishes restricted documents that are 'of substantial political, diplomatic or ethical significance.' Its publication makes sense only from the perspective that all secrecy is wrong and should be resisted. It's not a perspective that I share."

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange, not surprisingly, has a completely different take. It's not the first time the site has posted secret material. And, as he makes clear, it won't be the last.

"Wikileaks represents whistleblowers in the way that lawyers represent their clients -- fairly and impartially. Our 'job' is to safely and impartially conduct the whistleblowers message to the public, not to inject our own nationality or beliefs," he tells Danger Room.

All disclosures come from a source with access and motivation, which won't go away if we didn't publish... When disclosures are driven underground, affected parties have no right of reply or ability to defend themselves...


As for this document, US Soldiers are not happy that literally billions have gone on these jammers, with apparently little thought going into how soldiers are going to communicate, after they have been turned on.

So who's right: Aftergood or Assange? Are there limits to what should be published? Or should all information be free, no matter what? Sound off in the comments.
Wired