WikiLeaks

[TheMercenary]

This is becoming bigger news with a larger impact all the time so I thought I would start a dedicated post to it.

It looks like some major banks may be the next target of this idiot.

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...ulian-assange/

[TheMercenary]

Hopefully the will hunt him down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112904326.html

[Lamplighter]

I'm impressed by this guy...
He seems to have a lot of experience and understands the benefits to what he is doing.
The last 3 or 4 pages of the interview are quite revealing, and I liked his final statement: "courage is contagious"

[classicman]

So Lamp - you think what he is doing is a good thing?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I'm impressed by this guy...
He seems to have a lot of experience and understands the benefits to what he is doing.
The last 3 or 4 pages of the interview are quite revealing, and I liked his final statement: "courage is contagious"

You really support this guy? Please explain.

[TheMercenary]

But that still leaves the Lincoln question of how to stop the likes of Mr. Assange? If he were exposing Chinese or Russian secrets, he would already have died at the hands of some unknown assailant. As a foreigner (Australian citizen) engaged in hostile acts against the U.S., Mr. Assange is certainly not protected from U.S. reprisal under the laws of war. Perhaps Lincoln would have considered him an "enemy combatant."

In his Saturday letter urging Mr. Assange to cease and desist, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh accused the WikiLeaker of breaking U.S. law without mentioning a particular statute. Perhaps Mr. Koh meant the 1917 Espionage Act, a vague statute which has rarely been used to punish leakers, and never against a publisher. As recently as 2009, the government dropped an Espionage Act prosecution against two lobbyists for AIPAC, the American-Israel lobby, after a rebuke by a federal appeals court.

Mr. Assange is clearly trying to protect himself from such an indictment by inviting the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel to be his co-publishers. Newspapers used to understand that the right of the First Amendment implied some publishing self-restraint. But as publishers ourselves, we nonetheless worry that indicting a bad actor like Mr. Assange under an ambiguous statute would set a precedent that could later be used against journalists.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...285411052.html

This guy is far from a journalist and should not be afforded any such protections.

[Trilby]

You know what would be delicious?

Oh, never mind.

[Lamplighter]

Yes. Just as I believe it takes an informed public to keep a democracy.

The vast majority of the "damage" done by whistle-blowers and leakers
has only been embarrassment or exposure of illegality.
As he says, those who want to keep secrets are the ones who set the penalties,
and some of those penalties are severe.
It takes a lot of courage to act in the face of those penalties.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Yes. Just as I believe it takes an informed public to keep a democracy.

The vast majority of the "damage" done by whistle-blowers and leakers
has only been embarrassment or exposure of illegality.
As he says, those who want to keep secrets are the ones who set the penalties,
and some of those penalties are severe.
It takes a lot of courage to act in the face of those penalties.

So you basically support the treasonist acts of individuals who stole and redirected classified information from your government, which has the ability to cause direct harm to our relationships with other governments and indangers individuals who have collaborated with us.

[Lamplighter]

So you wish to label every whistle-blower and leak as "treason" ?

How many such events have resulted in the person actually
being tried and actually being convicted of "treason" ?

If a leak of a policy or action causes embarrassment to the country,
get rid of the official that set that policy and change the policy
If the policy is illegal, change the policy, don't classify it as "national security".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So you wish to label every whistle-blower and leak as "treason" ?

How many such events have resulted in the person actually
being tried and actually being convicted of "treason" ?

If a leak of a policy or action causes embarrassment to the country,
get rid of the official that set that policy and change the policy
If the policy is illegal, change the policy, don't classify it as "national security".

In this case with WikiLeaks as the conduit, yes, they have someone under arrest. And yes, I fully expect that individual to be tried for treason. There is no doubt that this information was highly classified in many cases. I just can't you would believe that it is ok to support such an act of treason. Numerous people who have released classified information have been successfuly tired.

[glatt]

If my government is doing something wrong, I'm fine with a whistle blower shining some light on it. If it gives our government a black eye, then the government is doing something and they deserve that black eye.

This latest release of diplomatic cables is different. Diplomacy is about negotiation, and part of negotiations is talking with your team in secret about the strategy for the negotiations. Secrets are ok here, and they are just words and ideas, not actions taken. Releasing this information hurts the US and doesn't benefit anyone except its enemies/rivals.

[classicman]

glatt - I agree - and take it a step further... This hurts a whole lot more than just the US. This could/will potentially destabilize relationships between other countries as well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Exactly, if in a leaked missive, Hillary says Putin is not to be trusted, everyone is shocked except Putin, but he'll play it for advantage.

[Lamplighter]

Yes, I've heard they have a soldier under arrest and he will probably be tried.

Not everything is treason, but it's a label that gets thrown about.
That is, the "embarrassed party" views everything in worst possible case scenario (to them self).

But keep in mind there's a difference between public exposure and giving "secrets" to an enemy.
As discussed in the interview, once both sides know a "secret" it loses it's importance to both sides.