From Wikipedia:

Whether one agrees with the article or not is another matter. But if you are simply discussing structure here, then it is quite clear that the article purports to describe things which the author believes are wrong with Wikileaks.

To then take the title as a rhetorical device posed as a question with no question mark, seems to ignore an additional fact available to you in resolving the type of statement embodied in the title - I.e. that the article to which it is attached purports to describe things which are wrong with Wikileaks.

Even if understood as a question, the "question" is an invitation to read the article for an answer to that question.

Again, whether one agrees with the article is another matter, but to say that the title, standing alone, embodies a logical fallacy of one kind or another by assumption of a proposition is to miss the glaring fact that the article endeavors to provide support for the proposition.

Duh.

*yawn*

who put up anti-Assange articles get all bent out of shape because Assange does not go after former or current Communist countries. Yet daily we get soaked with Communist China products and food without a word from the main stream media. It seems Anti-Assange people want perfection yet are willing to take all sorts of crap from the mainstream media.

I think they set up a double standard.

Honest to god, at some point, this goes from being mildly amusing to a pathetic embarrassment to DU, like allowing a flood of global warming deniers or something.

Remember "Climategate"?

Remember how the global warming deniers scuttled the Copenhagen summit, with day after day of noisy outrage over phony scandals based on the emails from the University of East Anglia?

Now let's remember who released those emails! Wikileaks!

It is embarrassing to see DUers put the organization on a pedestal

role Wikileaks played in "Climategate" -- which (you may recall) was a huge phony scandal run by PR firm trolls denying global warming

went wrong with wikileaks, what went wrong is that weak willed people began to believe the Bush doctrine: screw free speech if you're not with "us". Our forefathers always knew that it would cut both ways and (rightly) realised it was a worthwhile concept.

In addition to the issues described in earlier replies, there is the general problem with Mr. Keating's work. With the disclaimer that this is "opinion" he routinely implies as facts things that are at best as beliefs, opinions, or theories

Just how has WikiLeaks "allowed itself to be associated..." and in whose mind and based on what? Allowed by what action? What topics are off limits?

Another question one might ask of Mr. Keating is why has the Washington Post (which owns Foreign Policy) not seemed interested of late in writing about or publishing further documents being released by WikiLeaks?

Foreign Policy magazine and its parent, The Washington Post, are widely seen as representing the views of the very rich and powerful, both those in the government and those not. The WP has had a close relationship with the intelligence agencies since the 1930's, particularly with the CIA.

Katherine Graham's father, Eugene Meyer, bought in bankruptcy the WP in 1933 to make sure Wall Street had a voice in Washington. Meyer was a very wealthy banker and industrialist, with held a variety of government appointments. Meyer was Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Hoover and later the first President of the World Bank.

Katherine's husband, Phil Graham, had been in Naval Intelligence during WWII. After the war, he returned to the Post where he was enlisted by the CIA on of the leaders in Operation Mockingbird, which put roughly 3,000 reporters and columnist worldwide in the employ of the CIA. Although against the law since the 1970's, the CIA and others still operate large networks of "journalists" who plant stories, sometimes keep things unreported, and generally disrupt, discredit, confuse, or otherwise mislead groups domestic and foreign. Phil's younger half-brother is Bob Graham who was Senator from Florida and Chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Many of the articles regarding Assange show tell-tale signs of being part of a disinfo operation. Presumptive "facts" inserted 3-5 paragraphs down in a story about something else, maybe as an aside or a barely related anecdote. Enough info to satisfy someone doing a quick verify, but lacking enough details to determine if it is really true. We have discussed these a lot here, regarding things like the Irag war, Valerie Plame, the banking crisis, etc.

Here is a link to an exmple of how Keating's story is being interpreted around the world.

http://hameed247.blogspot.com/2012/08/standing-up-for-assange_27.html

For anyone who is new to these topics, search on these topics (Some of the Wiki's appear to have been scrubbed 1-3 years ago. Discussions on DU2 archive may have more details.):

Operation Mockingbird, Ben Bradlee, Katherine Graham, Phil Graham, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Cord Meyer

Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Operation Condor

and substitute for any other analysis: the thinking seems to be that if one does not ooh! and aah! over Mr Assange and his largely defunct organization, then one must be either (1) a mindless stooge with no understanding of how American power has been misused repeatedly since WWII or (2) an amoral shill for some still nameless interest group

At this point, of course, very little is needed to explain why Wikileaks has fallen from the front page. Assange's histrionics alienated many of his media partners; after the organizational split in late 2010, Assange no longer had access to the secure submission software that originally defined the organization; and Wikileaks had in any case developed a bit of a record for promising what they could not deliver. So the media found Wikileaks unpleasant to work with, as well as unreliable -- and with almost nothing new coming from them anyway, there's little incentive to pay much attention to them

Nor is any great conspiracy is needed to discredit Assange: his own history by now has exposed quite some substantial character flaws. It is apparently regarded, in certain quarters, as rude even to mention these, but they are well-documented. He has been willing to pretend to ready to make significant revelations, that he was not really in any position to make, motivated by the media storm that his threats create -- and he has done that more than once. He is quite callous about the fall-out from his leaks: when people die, he says they should have been more careful; when warned people might die, he says it is their own fault -- and, again, there are multiple independently-documented examples. He has a tendency to engage in activities that begin to resemble blackmail -- and, once again, this can be said of more than one incident. What I find strange is the cult of hero-worship, according to which one simply must not notice any of this unattractive behavior but must instead pay constant homage to the alleged greatness of the man

No doubt there are interesting stories about those various Meyers, that could perhaps stimulate our thinking somewhat -- but Eugene Meyer has been dead over fifty years, Mary Pinchot Meyer almost fifty, and even Cord Meyer has been gone more than a decade, so nothing about them can be immediately and directly relevant to Wikileaks, which was founded around 2006

If you are interested in complicated stories, I might suggest you look at this post of mine, being sure to click and read the links; I mention it because it has some reference to Operation Condor

Argentina's ambassador to the UK badly needs a history lesson
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021244276