譯/高詣軒
為何美國人已對洩密無感？
In April, secret documents allegedly photographed by a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard began making their way into the mainstream media. Many were briefings prepared by military intelligence services, and much of it dealt with the Russia-Ukraine war. They offered Americans a rare window into the government's most valuable intelligence on one of Europe's deadliest conflicts since World War II.
4月時，據稱由一名麻州空軍國民兵成員翻拍的祕密文件，開始流向主流媒體。內容多是由軍方情報單位準備的簡報資料，大部分是關於俄烏戰爭。這些文件提供給美國人一扇難得的窗口，可以窺見這場二次大戰以來歐洲最致命衝突之一的最寶貴政府情報。
We've been here before. In 2010, WikiLeaks began churning out hundreds of thousands of secret documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that had been leaked by an Army private, prompting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare that such disclosures "tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government." Three years later, Edward Snowden, a National Security Agency contractor, leaked another batch of highly classified documents. President Barack Obama warned then that if anybody who disagreed with the government could choose to reveal its secrets, "we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy."
過去我們碰過這種情況。2010年，維基解密開始大量釋出一名陸軍二等兵洩漏的數十萬份祕密文件，內容有關在伊拉克和阿富汗的戰事，促使時任國務卿希拉蕊．柯林頓聲稱此類洩密「撕裂責任政府的正當運作結構」。三年後，美國國家安全局外包雇員史諾登洩漏另一批高度機密文件。時任總統歐巴馬警告，如果任何不贊同政府的人都可選擇揭露政府機密，「我們將無法保障國人安全或執行外交政策」。
This time the reaction has been quite different. The Pentagon did say that the latest disclosures — widely known as the "Discord Leaks" — present a "very serious risk to national security." But there has been curiously little public interest in the spilled secrets.
這一次反應則大不相同。五角大廈的確曾說，最近這波洩密—以「Discord洩密案」之名廣為人知—造成「非常嚴重的國家安全危機」。但耐人尋味的是，公眾對洩漏出的機密卻興致缺缺。
Reaction to the indictment of Donald Trump has followed a similar pattern, though the case revolves around a former president's handling of classified files, not leaked secrets.
川普起訴書引發的反應也有類似模式，雖說該案是圍繞這位前總統對機密檔案的處置方式，而非洩漏機密。
There's nothing especially surprising in the public fascination with Teixeira, nor with earlier lead actors in major security leaks such as Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange. But why has this trove of information generated less excitement than previous leaks?
公眾對泰謝拉著迷，就像對先前重大國安洩密案主角史諾登、曼寧、亞桑傑等人一樣，並不特別令人驚訝。但為何相較過去洩密案，這批情資激起的興趣不大？
One reason cited by intelligence experts is that the Ukraine war is being reported in minute detail, and the batch of raw intelligence does not substantially change the overall perception of the state of affairs.
情報專家認為，原因之一是烏克蘭戰爭正受到鉅細靡遺地報導，而該批原始情報並沒有大幅改變對於事態的整體看法。
Another factor in the lackluster public reception may be that the leaks aren't politically scandalous. Though their disclosure is worrisome to intelligence agencies, embarrassing to U.S. diplomats and irritating to foreign leaders, there are no revelations of gross dereliction or covert iniquities, as have dropped in past leaks.
另一項公眾反應意興闌珊的因素，可能是外洩文件不具政治上的醜聞性質。雖然此次洩密使情報單位憂心、令美國外交人員尷尬且讓外國領導人氣惱，但沒有像過去的洩密案一樣，揭示嚴重的失職或隱蔽的不當行為。
And for all the dire warnings from Clinton, Obama and others a decade ago, the far more voluminous and potentially harmful information leaked by Manning and Snowden did not wreck America's ability to function in the world.
而且儘管希拉蕊．柯林頓、歐巴馬等人10年前提出諸多嚴重警告，曼寧和史諾登所洩漏的情資更加繁浩、更具潛在傷害力，並未毀掉美國在全球行事的能力。
