WikiLeaks

[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.

[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.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

Is truth a bad thing?

[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.

[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.

[skysidhe]

The 'how' of this has gotten my attention.


The underlying plot thickens.

Manning, the private who apparently copied the documents confesses online to a hacker.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...6/18/wikileaks

Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident. Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they "could do serious damage to national security?" Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to "quickly" confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life? And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled? These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught.

Originally Posted by 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.

Treason? He was working for the Army at the time he copied the documents.Didn't he take an oath to protect the interests of the U.S. and her allis? Public exposure is a pretty soft word. Should we all start copying information from the hard-drives of where we work and expose them?

[xoxoxoBruce]

After 9-11, so much was made of the lack of communication between various arms of the government, they hooked everything together with access by even lowly clerks.

People say all kinds of things on the internet they wouldn't say in person. When you have something that's bugging you, and have to talk to someone, a stranger on the net seems to be a safe option after you've developed some kind of rapport.

[glatt]

Think of all the hobos we've admitted to killing.

[Lamplighter]

Sky, I'd say yes to copying and whistle-blowing if what a company is doing is illegal.
I doubt many wrong-doers will publicize their own wrong-doings.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Sky, I'd say yes to copying and whistle-blowing if what a company is doing is illegal.
I doubt many wrong-doers will publicize their own wrong-doings.

The only time I like to see this, though, is in Hollywood, or maybe a good book. I suppose that makes me shallow.




I am also loyal to a fault, which also pegs me as having no scruples.
ah, well

If this guy Manning had access to these documents, I am sure other people did too. Why should we ( you ) pat this guy on the back when all of the others decided to stay true to their government, and die in the line of duty too.

I wouldn't have done it. For their sakes. For the sake of being a team.For those who I would have considered my brothers and sisters, in arms. I wouldn't have done it.

[classicman]

WTH Lamp? Look at it this way -
I know you cannot be trusted. Now - try to negotiate with me.