WikiLeaks subpoenas spill out into public realm

WikiLeaks subpoenas spill out into public realm (AP)
This undated file photo obtained by The Associated Press shows Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private suspected of being the source of some of the unauthorized classified information disclosed on the WikiLeaks website. In a statement Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011, WikiLeaks said U.S. investigators had gone to the San Francisco-based Twitter Inc. to demand the private messages, contact information and other personal details of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Manning and other supporters. (AP Photo, File)
(AP) -- Investigative documents in the WikiLeaks probe spilled out into the public domain Saturday for the first time, pointing to the Obama administration's determination to assemble a criminal case no matter how long it takes and how far afield authorities have to go.

Backed by a magistrate judge's court order from Dec. 14, the newly disclosed documents sent to Twitter Inc. by the U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria, Va., demand details about the accounts of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who's in custody and suspected of supplying WikiLeaks with classified information.

The others whose Twitter accounts are targeted in the prosecutors' demand are Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic parliamentarian and one-time WikiLeaks collaborator; Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp; and U.S. programmer Jacob Appelbaum. Gonggrijp and Appelbaum have worked with WikiLeaks in the past.

Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller declined comment on the disclosure in the case, which intensified following WikiLeaks' latest round of revelations with the posting of classified State Department diplomatic cables. The next day, Nov. 29, Attorney General Eric Holder vowed that anyone found to have violated U.S. law in the leaks would be prosecuted.

Assange said the U.S. move amounted to harassment, and he pledged to fight it.

"If the Iranian government was to attempt to coercively obtain this information from journalists and activists of foreign nations, human rights groups around the world would speak out," he told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

Legal experts have said one possible avenue for federal prosecutors would be to establish a conspiracy to steal classified information.

"They are trying to show that Manning was more than a source of the information to a reporter and rather that Assange and Manning were trying to jointly steal information from the U.S. government," said Mark Rasch, a former prosecutor on computer crime and espionage cases in the Justice Department.

The problem is distinguishing between WikiLeaks as a news organization and those who re-published the same classified information, like The New York Times, said Rasch, director of cybersecurity and privacy consulting at CSC, a Falls Church, Va., technology company.

"How do they prosecute?" asked Rasch. "The answer is by establishing a unity of interest between Manning and Assange. Make it a theft case and not just a journalist publishing information case."

The demand by prosecutors sought information dating to Nov. 1, 2009, several months before an earlier WikiLeaks release.

Manning is in a maximum-security military brig at Quantico, Va., charged with leaking video of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver. WikiLeaks posted the video on its website in April of last year. Three months later, WikiLeaks posted some 90,000 leaked U.S. military records on the war in Afghanistan, including unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings as well as covert operations against Taliban figures.

The main target of the prosecutors' document demands is most likely the IP addresses of the Twitter users, said Stanford University law professor Larry Lessig, founder of the Center for Internet & Society, Stanford.

Getting a list of IP addresses - specific numerical address that can identify individual computers as they interact over the Internet - could help prosecutors an effort to draw specific connections between individuals, their computers, and the information they share.

"It's not very hard for an investigator to put these things together and come back and identify a specific individual," Lessig said.

In a statement about the demand to Twitter for information, WikiLeaks said it has reason to believe Facebook and Google, among other organizations, have received similar court orders. WikiLeaks called on them to unseal any subpoenas they have received.

The document demand ordered Twitter to hand over private messages, billing information, telephone numbers, connection records and other information about accounts run by Assange and the others.

A copy of the demand, sent to the AP by Jonsdottir, said the information sought was "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation" and ordered Twitter not to disclose its existence to any of the targets.

But a second document, dated Jan. 5, unsealed the court order. Although the reason wasn't made explicit in the document, WikiLeaks said it had been unsealed "thanks to legal action by Twitter."

Twitter declined comment on the matter, saying only that its policy is to notify its users, where possible, of government requests for information.

Neither Facebook Inc. nor Google Inc. immediately returned messages Saturday.

The Obama administration volunteered little new information about its criminal investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks after news of its subpoena leaked. Under rules governing grand jury investigations - in which U.S. prosecutors present evidence and testimony to selected private citizens behind closed doors to seek their approval to formally file charges - government lawyers are not allowed to discuss the case until charges are announced publicly.

It was not immediately clear how the data being requested would be useful to investigators. Twitter's logs could reveal the Internet addresses that Assange and WikiLeaks supporters have used, which could help track their locations as they traveled around the world. The information also might identify others with official access to WikiLeaks' account on Twitter who so far have escaped scrutiny.

Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said targeting Twitter showed how desperate U.S. officials were to pin a crime on the WikiLeaks founder.

Stephens told the BBC it was an attempt to "shake the electronic tree in the hope some kind of criminal charge drops out the bottom of it."

Jonsdottir said in a Twitter message that she had "no intention to hand my information over willingly." Appelbaum, whose Twitter feed suggested he was traveling in Iceland, said he was apprehensive about returning to the U.S.

"Time to try to enjoy the last of my vacation, I suppose," he tweeted.

Gonggrijp praised Twitter for notifying him.

"It appears that Twitter, as a matter of policy, does the right thing in wanting to inform their users when one of these comes in," Gonggrijp said. "Heaven knows how many places have received similar subpoenas and just quietly submitted all they had on me."

The news of the subpoena follows months of angry back and forth between U.S. officials and WikiLeaks, which has released reams of secret U.S. military documents on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently, thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables.

U.S. officials say posting the military documents put informers' lives at risk, and that revealing diplomatic cables has made other countries reluctant to deal with American officials.

WikiLeaks denies that its postings put any lives at risk and says Washington merely is acting out of embarrassment over the revelations contained in the cables.

WikiLeaks and its tech-savvy staff have relied on American Internet and finance companies to raise funds, disseminate material and get their message out.

WikiLeaks' frequently updated Facebook page, for example, counts 1.5 million fans and its Twitter account has a following of more than 600,000. Until recently, the group raised donations via U.S. companies PayPal Inc., MasterCard Inc., and Visa Inc., and hosted material on Amazon.com's servers.

But the group's use of American companies has come under increasing pressure as it continues to reveal U.S. secrets. PayPal and the credit card companies severed their links with site and Amazon.com booted WikiLeaks from its servers last month.

The actions sparked a cyberfight with WikiLeaks sympathizers, who attacked the company's sites for days.

Assange is currently out on bail in Britain, where he is fighting extradition to Sweden on sex crimes allegations. His next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.


Explore further

WikiLeaks under new cyber attack: Twitter feed

©2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Citation: WikiLeaks subpoenas spill out into public realm (2011, January 8) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-01-wikileaks-grand-jury-twitter.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 08, 2011
It is a study of hypocrisy to see how profligate Julian Assange is with others' information and how bitterly he decries the release of his personal information.

Jan 08, 2011
It is a study of hypocrisy to see how profligate Julian Assange is with others' information and how bitterly he decries the release of his personal information.

When he does it the the government, it is journalism. When the government does it to him, it is illegal search and seizure.

Jan 08, 2011
When he does it the the government, it is journalism. When the government does it to him, it is illegal search and seizure.


When he does it to the government, it is espionage. When the government does it to him, it is due process.

There, I fixed it.

(His behavior remains hypocrisy, regardless of your viewpoint on the activities of the participants).

Jan 08, 2011
U.S. government is hypocrite, in fact they call themself 'democratic' but U.S. government is responsible for the Guantanamo prison, an illegal concentration camp that it's a crime against humanity!

U.S. government is hypocrite because it is responsible for the killing of several thousands innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq by U.S. Army in the name of "peace"!

Jan 08, 2011
I notice you only target the U.S. government. Strangely, Julian Assange also seems to direct his espionage against the U.S. government preferentially.

Incidentally, a human being can be a hypocrite. A government is not an entity and cannot be a hypocrite.

Jan 08, 2011
Dogbert: ...seems to direct his espionage against the U.S. government preferentially"

What espionage?

Espionage means spying. What spying was done?

Jan 08, 2011
When he does it the the government, it is journalism. When the government does it to him, it is illegal search and seizure.


When he does it to the government, it is espionage.
And what did he "do" to the government?
When the government does it to him, it is due process.
For what crime, and more importantly, what part of due process involves exposing someone's life to the general public?

(His behavior remains hypocrisy, regardless of your viewpoint on the activities of the participants).
His behavior is in response to a retaliation by an entire corporate and political machine against a single individual because he holds them accountable for their actions. The government is not your friend it is your tool. You can use it to impose liberty and freedom, or you can use it to create a police state. Make your choice.

Jan 08, 2011
Angry Sparrow,

You should look up the word "espionage". What Julian Assange did precisely fits the meaning of the word.

Jan 08, 2011
Dogbert:

es·pi·o·nage (sp--näzh, -nj)
n.
The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.

There you go, definition supplied.

So, without getting knickers in a knot, what espionage did Julian Assange actually do?

Jan 08, 2011
So, without getting knickers in a knot, what espionage did Julian Assange actually do?


The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.


Jan 08, 2011
So .....

Where's the espionage?

Julian Assange didn't spy on anybody?

He's a web-publishers from a Queensland, Australia.

You know, of wikileaks fame.

Are you sure you are not mixing him up with someone else?

Jan 08, 2011
You can use it to impose liberty and freedom, or you can use it to create a police state. Make your choice.


"Liberty" and "freedom" are impossible without police enforcement.

If there weren't so many government law enforcement agencies, you would never be safe at anything. The murderers, thieves, rapists, and terrorists would do whatever the heck they cared to do, and you wouldn't have any defense.

Some guy just might decide to come kill you and rape your wife. Or make you watch first, then kill you. Which they damn near do now anyway even with the police and other law enforcement.

The guy who leaked this info to Assange meets the defintion of a traitor and of treason.

Jan 08, 2011
Angry Sparrow,

Read the definition again. No one claims that Julian Assange was involved in personally spying. He used information obtained by others. The definition of espionage includes the act of "using spies to obtain secret information".

Read the definition again and try to understand it.

Jan 08, 2011
Quantum Conundrum,

The guy who leaked this info to Assange meets the defintion of a traitor and of treason.


Indeed.

Jan 08, 2011
Angry Sparrow,

Sorry, the definition is wrong - but we won't let that get in the way of giving up the democracy to police-state CPC wannabees.


It is not wrong -- and you supplied the definition that you now find wanting.

Jan 08, 2011
Dogbert:

The whole definition applies - you can't just omit parts you don't like.

Either way, when did he use spies?

He's actually on record as stating he did not request or ask for or in anyway solicit the information. In fact, the information came unbidden.

So, like I already asked - where's the espionage performed by Julian Assange?

Jan 08, 2011
Angry Sparrow,

Sorry, the definition is wrong - but we won't let that get in the way of giving up the democracy to police-state CPC wannabees.


It is not wrong -- and you supplied the definition that you now find wanting.


I never said the definition was wrong - you need to slow down a little.

Wasn't me.

I'm happy with the definition.

Jan 08, 2011
So QC and dogbert are too young to know who Daniel Elllsburg is.

Jan 08, 2011
By either definition (online dictionary or the one from nada), Julian Assange has not committed espionage in any form, at all.

Dogbert: your accusation of espionage is fallacious.

Jan 08, 2011
Angry Sparrow,

I never said the definition was wrong - you need to slow down a little.


Sorry, I misread. It was Nada who had problems with the definition of espionage.

But now you claim that Julian Assange's espionage is not espionage. It is. It fits the definition of espionage. He also fits the profile of an individual engaged in espionage.

Jan 08, 2011
nada,

So again Assange broke NO LAW.


When did I claim he broke a law? He is not an American citizen and is not subject to U.S. law. He is guilty of espionage, but unless he freely enters the U.S. or he is extradited to the U.S., he will never be punished for his espionage.

My comments started with noting his hypocrisy in that he decries exposure of his secrets but sees no problem with divulging others' secrets.

He is a hypocrite and he is engaging in espionage.

Jan 08, 2011
Dogbert:

Be honest, you've simply used the wrong word and instead of just saying "I’ve used the wrong word, I actually meant ..." and correct yourself, you doggedly sticking to something that we all see is wrong.

Assange didn't spy on anyone, nor did he cause anyone to spy for him - I know this, you know this, the US Government knows this.

Receiving unsolicited information, and publishing it, is not espionage.

By no definition is there any espionage occurring.

Finally, it’s true that your comments were originally about what you call Assange's hypocrisy - but I challenged you on the point of espionage - because you’re simply wrong about it.

Jan 08, 2011
Dogbert:

Be honest, you've simply used the wrong word and instead of just saying "I’ve used the wrong word, I actually meant ..." and correct yourself, you doggedly sticking to something that we all see is wrong.

Assange didn't spy on anyone, nor did he cause anyone to spy.

Receiving unsolicited information, and publishing it, is not espionage.

By no definition is there any espionage occurring.

Finally, it’s true that your comments were originally about what you call Assange's hypocrisy - but I only challenged you on the point you made about espionage - because you’re simply wrong about that. That’s simply not correct.

Jan 08, 2011
Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.

Jan 08, 2011
Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.


It's ironic really, being able to simply get secure data about people and their activities is the very thing the US Government is squealing and whining about.

If they actually succeed in extracting this info from twitter, I doubt anyone will trust US based social networks going forward

It is very worrying for potential new industries like "cloud computing" – especially since international businesses and countries are already having trust issues with American companies potentially giving advantageous trade information away to the US Government.

As it is, many countries and businesses are quietly disengaging from the USA - because they're simply too hard to deal with.

Jan 08, 2011
Angry Sparrow,
I only challenged you on the point you made about espionage - because you�re simply wrong about that. That�s simply not correct.


I made no mistake. Assange fits the definition of espionage which you supplied:
The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.


You state that "Assange didn't spy on anyone, nor did he cause anyone to spy." No one disputes that. No one has claimed that he caused anyone else to spy.
The definition of espionage which you supplied calls espionage the act of "using spies to obtain secret information". No one accuses Assagne of personally spying, no one accuses him of hiring a spy or spies, what he has done, however, is use a spy or spies to obtain secret information.

Jan 08, 2011
Wikipedia
"Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, lest the legitimate holder of the information change plans or take other countermeasures once it is known that the information is in unauthorized hands."

"inherently clandestine" is important, as he is publishing it, its not espionage.

"as about >another government< or a >business competitor<

neither of these are applicable in this acount either.

What is your reading comprehension level 3rd grade?

rgds
jms

Jan 08, 2011
jamesrn,

Pulling in a wikipedia opening statement doesn't change the definition of espionage.

You want to dissemble by inserting the word clandestine as if it changes anything:


clandestine

characterized by, done in, or executed with secrecy or concealment, esp. for purposes of subversion or deception; private or surreptitious


Obviously, the espionage Assagne committed was committed clandistinely.

Jan 09, 2011
If one isn't open to an alternate point of view, then no discussion is possible.

Jan 09, 2011
When every communication becomes public there is no privacy and its likely that this form of openness will negatively impact on many forms of relationship. I'm not sure thats all good.

Jan 09, 2011
I enjoy arguing semantics as much as the next guy...

but how about the unsung innocent dead in the middle east that would be alive if not for our actions? How else would we ever know the truth? When it is declassified in 30 years?

This government has done damage to it's own people and the world that it cant reconcile by a police action. In fact, they look more guilty for doing so!

It took one criminal to out a government of criminals, and so what if he did? Does anyone think this is the whole story? Does anyone think this totals all the naughty things the US has done to date? for god sake this is just what a few people managed to leak out! Where is the investigation into the US? Where is the global judge and jury to try the nation?

the truth is in your faces and you are arguing about how it got there. what a waste of time.

Jan 09, 2011
the truth is in your faces and you are arguing about how it got there. what a waste of time.
Quoted for ultimate truth.

Jan 09, 2011
the truth is in your faces and you are arguing about how it got there. what a waste of time.

It was high time word got out.

Not that it wasn't clear long ago, but now we've got some evidence.

Jan 09, 2011

"Liberty" and "freedom" are impossible without police enforcement.

If there weren't so many government law enforcement agencies, you would never be safe at anything. The murderers, thieves, rapists, and terrorists would do whatever the heck they cared to do, and you wouldn't have any defense.

Some guy just might decide to come kill you and rape your wife. Or make you watch first, then kill you. Which they damn near do now anyway even with the police and other law enforcement.

The guy who leaked this info to Assange meets the defintion of a traitor and of treason.


I'm not sure if people realize that it's not all black and white. Liberty and Freedom = Anarchy, Police State = Order. In their extremes, both are horrible options.

The American Dream is about two parts anarchy one part order.

People need to stop trying to support one side or the other and start trying to decide where the middle should be.

Oh. And stop fear mongering.

Jan 09, 2011
The US gov is going to spend a lot of $$ to try & drum up a case against whoever they say spilled the beans. Meanwhile Dick Cheney outs a CIA agent, we go to war over imaginary WMD and it gets swept under the rug. Something doesn't add up. Is this a government by and for the people? This is more like a hijacking of the Constitution.

Jan 09, 2011
The US gov is going to spend a lot of $$ to try & drum up a case against whoever they say spilled the beans. Meanwhile Dick Cheney outs a CIA agent, we go to war over imaginary WMD
For the record the WMDs we ended up neutralizing werent NBC- they were the Iraqi armed forces, a very potent WMD with a heinous track record.
and it gets swept under the rug.
You seem to know enough about it to draw conclusions.
Something doesn't add up. Is this a government by and for the people? This is more like a hijacking of the Constitution.
What makes you think you need to know everything the govt does or needs to do? Do you believe in enemies? If the govt tells you everything you may want to know, then our enemies will also know and they will use the info to destroy us, including you and the people you care about. Do you want that? Perhaps you dont care about anybody but yourself and what YOU want. Perhaps YOU are an enemy of a free and independent society.

Jan 09, 2011
Can we at least agree that not telling everyone about troop deployments might save soldiers' lives, but not telling anyone about killing civilians is heinous and should be criminally punishable?

I don't agree with all the leaks they did, they should have looked over them and made a judgment call, but, the government does need a lot more whistleblowing than it currently has. The government is after all there to serve the people, not to operate on its own and be unaccountable for its actions.

Jan 09, 2011
I find it strange that the US government, which eavesdrops on millions of private messages each day - inside and outside of the US, is in some way free to do this without hindrance.

Despite that it still manages to invade Iraq unjustly, and variously prolong the war between Iran-Iraq, and other non-US insurrections. So at the end of day - who kills more.

Incidentally most writers seem not to know Wikileaks has stuff for many countries and is not just interested in the US - hard though some seem to find it.

# Big Pharma caught spying on the WHO
# Toll Collect Vertraege, 2002
# Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed
# Ratiopharm: Geld und Geschenke für Ärzte
# Guardian still under secret toxic waste gag
# Ivory Coast toxic dumping report behind secret Guardian gag
# Verfassungsschutz soll zur Polizei werden
# Gmail may hand over IP addresses of journalists
# Turks and Caicos former PM to fight British rule
# Transparency after the Turks and Caicos Islands scandal
etc

Jan 09, 2011
try looking at the Wikileaks site. You may see it is revealing the dirt on a lot of companies and countries and has been for some time. It seems peculiar that the US is painting it as anti-American. Could it just be that the people deserve to know what is being done behind closed doors in their name.

After all it is the US gvernment which has the largest spying effort in the world with the majority of the worlds electronic messages being monitored by the US. And this includes private and commercial messages.

"The European Parliament is suggesting that individuals and business routinely encrypt all emails to help protect them from eavesdropping by Echelon, the communications spy network. In its draft report into Echelon, the European Parliament says that member states should "above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software."

Jan 09, 2011
Try looking at the Wikileaks site. You may see it is revealing the dirt on a lot of companies and countries and has been for some time. It seems peculiar that the US is painting it as anti-American. Could it just be that the people deserve to know what is being done behind closed doors in their name.

After all it is the US gvernment which has the largest spying effort in the world with the majority of the worlds electronic messages being monitored by the US. And this includes private and commercial messages.

:The European Parliament is suggesting that individuals and business routinely encrypt all emails to help protect them from eavesdropping by Echelon, ...

Jan 09, 2011
I don't agree with all the leaks they did, they should have looked over them and made a judgment call
'They' are obviously not qualified to do that. And they are certainly not to be trusted to have knowledge of some of that info.

Jan 10, 2011
Apologies for the multiple posts. It was not clear over several attempts whether they were being accepted.

Jan 10, 2011
Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.


That's a very bigoted statement, don't you think? But I guess all 300+ million of us are tyrranical oppressors, junk food tycoons, or just can't wait to always stab you in the back no matter what.

What country do you hail from, enlightened sir?


Jan 10, 2011
Pvt Manning sacrificed his life to reveal truth. It was an act of bravery and fortitude worthy of remembrance.

We should always remember his face and his acts, so after the years of life are taken by the evils in power, he can be freed and pardoned by a more rational and peaceful generation.

He loves his country more than the ones willing to kill without thinking, and much more than the senseless and illiterate "consumers" who cheer an imperial America and limitless State power.

Pvt. Manning represents the values of self-sacrifice when confronted with a monster that has already murdered so many and destroyed so much. Who else has lifted a finger to slow down the rampaging beast as it casts fire and chaos throughout the world?

Very damn few men will move a muscle to accomplish anything good, especially when it costs them anything. Even worse are those captivated by the illusions of power, having lost the ability to distinguish good from evil.

Jan 10, 2011
Don't waste your time on refuting QC's statist authoritarianism, he's locked in a loop with no break statement, forever helping to overthrow the free west and rational liberty. Que Mal.

What's fundamental to the understanding of the wikileaks phenomenon is acknowledging the will and acts of the state are not good. While the state may claim its acts are lawful, what it considers lawful is not good.

This crucial bit of reasoning is what needs to occur in the minds of the people if the people desire good. If they desire evil, then they cease to reason and submit to the will of the state.

It's mostly malformed psychology; many citizens of the USA are unable to mentally acknowledge that the state has done evil, and that its continuation of evil is wrong, therefore they deny the identity of evil and choose an irrational response that reinforces their denial.

The objective mind identifies a thing and does not fear the deceivers who insist reality is conjecture.

Jan 10, 2011

Arkaleus,
Pvt Manning sacrificed his life to reveal truth. It was an act of bravery and fortitude worthy of remembrance.


No, he is a traitor, plain and simple.

Calling him courageous does not negate his acts of treason.

Jan 10, 2011
Pvt Manning sacrificed his life to reveal truth. It was an act of bravery and fortitude worthy of remembrance.
Brave... Indications are that this was just one more disgruntled, self-loathing individual who decided to commit figurative suicide by trashing his own life and a great many others.

Manning "felt isolated and ignored at work...no-one took any notice of me...i joined the army ... and that's proven to be a disaster now" and began his work in the context of some spat with an ex-boyfriend.
Very damn few men will move a muscle to accomplish anything good, especially when it costs them anything. Even worse are those captivated by the illusions of power, having lost the ability to distinguish good from evil.
Nice blahblah rhetoric. It obviously does not apply to manning or to what he did, which was selfish and criminal and had little to do with making things any better for anyone. At least he didnt shoot anybody in the face.

Jan 10, 2011
Doing business with americans is a big mistake. They will always betray you no matter what. Stay away from dollars, McDonalds, Coke, Ford and other american crap.
Let us not forget perfidious Albion.

Jan 11, 2011
LuckyBrandon: @QC "Liberty" and "freedom" are impossible without police enforcement"
"Thats not true, the definition of law contradicts the definition of freedom. they are exact opposites."

True they are seemingly opposites, but I think every 'Free' society makes an effort to balance the two. If we want a peaceful society that allows us to pursue our lives in relative calm, we accept some limits to our Freedom and hope our gov't manages the compromise in our best interests. Many US citizens have a innate fear that their Gov't does NOT act on their behalf, hence the reliance on the 2nd Amendment which they think will protect them from the Gov't that is 'out to get them'. Apparently they have forgotten that their Gov't is 'by the people, for the people', actually a shining example to the World. If you don't like them, Vote them out, Don't shoot them. It seems the phrase 'The British are Coming' still inspires nightmares in the minds of 2nd Amendment fanatics.

Jan 12, 2011
PS: The British aren't coming! That was over 200 years ago! They don't run the country anymore, but maybe if they did there wouldn't be so many guns in the US now.

Jan 12, 2011
dogbert


... is use a spy or spies to obtain secret information.


Now you’re splitting hairs.

Before 911, daily the NSA intercepted and interrogated literally billions of telephone calls, personal and business messages and financial transactions through automated means.

The level of processing and statistical analysis was mind-boggling!

Even though the majority of these messages probably have absolutely nothing to do with the USA – in ANY way - even in the most benign or wildest stretch of the imagination – a just-in-case attitude has caused the USA government to spy on it’s allies - for it’s own “national security” grounds.

…. And you’re complaining about Julian Assange printing something that was given him.

Dogbert, I don’t know you personally, and I don’t mean to be rude to you, but you need to get a grip.

The USA is pissing-off ALL it’s allies at a time when it needs them and threatening a foreign-national isn’t going win any friends.

Jan 12, 2011
Governments naturally and compulsively lie to gain advantage both politically at home, and politically/economically/militarily on the world stage. At the same time, they wish to be perceived as virtuous and benevolent (also, to gain advantage.)

Well, sorry. You're either virtuous and benevolent, or you're a Machiavellian sociopath. You can't be both. And it's quite clear which of the two alternatives is the case for any self-interested organization, particularly for any government.

So, why should anyone be surprised to find out their government is a fundamentally malevolent entity? The only real variable, is the degree of malevolence -- not presence or lack thereof.

And so, how does one interpret the "patriots" who choose to pretend their government is fundamentally virtuous? Stooges? Lackeys? Co-conspirators? Naive rubes? None is particularly flattering, nor especially appealing.

One can choose to engage in gang warfare. Or one can choose to reject the omerta.

Jan 12, 2011
So again Assange broke NO LAW.


WOW, the US has now laws against foreign nationals obtaining and disclosing its classified information...

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

Jan 12, 2011
WOW, the US has now laws against foreign nationals obtaining and disclosing its classified information...

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
Assange is a journalist. he's exempt for the law you're thinking of.

Jan 12, 2011
Assange is a journalist. he's exempt for the law you're thinking of.


Assange is not a journalist. A journalist reports news, he does not create it. Assange is engaged in espionage. Espionage [and conspiracy to commit espionage] is not a facet of journalism.

He is a criminal who is also charged with sexual misconduct.

There is little if anything to recommend Assange.

Jan 12, 2011
Define journalist for us dogbert, in terms of federal law if you would please..

Jan 12, 2011
Truly revealing here is the obvious ignorance regarding both US Law and the ongoing activitities -past and present- of the Wikileaks organization.

Most damning of all is the knowing refusal of so many here to address the larger picture, which is that many of you are reacting to the twitches of the "strings" designed to provoke your reactions.

In former times, "Journalism" implied a dogged pursuit of the truth. Sadly, this whole wikidebacle, and the response to it, only too clearly reveals the overwhelming ignorance of the fact that both "Government by, of, and for the People" and "Objective Journalism" have, for the most part, been suborned by powerful interests that don't give a fuck about truth, freedom, nationalism, justice, equality, fairness, transparency, or the health of human or earth.

Assuring that people continuously argue about minor(!) details like this is one of the main objectives of those interests, so we don't demand truth or take more direct control.


Jan 12, 2011
@dogbert,

When inconvenient information and evidence of crimes ends up classified by those it inconveniences, then revealing it to the world would indeed constitute a crime by definition. Problem is, the illegal and immoral conduct the documents reveal, also constitutes crimes. So does concealment of such information: as it constitutes aiding and abetting of crimes.

When criminals are free to designate, with impunity, as criminals those who would expose them, we shall finally have your notion of law and order. It's what places like China and Cuba have today in spades. I hope I never have to live under such a regime.

Under your definition, every whistle-blower is a spy. You obviously value darkness and secrecy more than you do sunshine and transparency. Loyalty over morality. You'd make a perfect employee for your friendly neighborhood mafia Don.

Jan 12, 2011
PinkElephant,
Under your definition, every whistle-blower is a spy. You obviously value darkness and secrecy more than you do sunshine and transparency. Loyalty over morality.


Strange that you would use the word "morality" in reference to betrayal. It is never moral to betray a trust. It is never moral to lie and steal. It is never moral seek to harm others.

Bradley Manning betrayed the trust placed in him. He betrayed his his fellow soldiers, the army and the United States. He lied and stole. He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage. Manning was a traitor and Assange conspired with him in his treason.

Neither of these individuals has any claim to morality.

Jan 12, 2011
It is never moral to betray a trust.
Even if the trust is bestowed by a criminal, relying upon you to hush up the crime?
It is never moral to lie and steal.
Then why should it be immoral to publicly unmask and expose lies and theft?
He betrayed his his fellow soldiers
How, exactly?
He lied and stole.
So do his superiors. Routinely. With impunity. But they are team players: so much better than trouble-makers.
He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage.
Who died and made you judge, jury, and the supreme authority on 'what really happened'?
Assange conspired with him in his treason.
Assange isn't a U.S. citizen; consequently he can't be accused of treason against U.S. Nor do you have any evidence of conspiracy.
Neither of these individuals has any claim to morality.
With your reasoning and interpretation of facts, I'd say you have no claim on sound judgment; never mind morality...

Jan 13, 2011
Bradley Manning betrayed the trust placed in him. He betrayed his his fellow soldiers, the army and the United States. He lied and stole. He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage. Manning was a traitor and Assange conspired with him in his treason.
Bradley Manning has one overriding trust, his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If he feels that the Constitution has been subverted by these covert acts (which it has) then he has fulfilled his oath.

In short, you're wrong.

Jan 13, 2011
Can't reason with people who say immorality is moral, lies are truth, theft is not a betrayal, conspiracy is a null concept and espionage is OK if it is directed against the United States.

Hate, apparently, covers all sins ...

Jan 13, 2011
Ok, so if you want to make the accusation you can now point out where I said
immorality is moral, lies are truth, theft is not a betrayal, conspiracy is a null concept and espionage is OK if it is directed against the United States.

Then you can explain what you mean by
Hate, apparently, covers all sins ...
Because the concept of sin against a government is alien to me in all manners. As for hate, the only hate I see is the vitriol you're spewing against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the latter of which is being tortured and held without a prompt trial, actions which are considered "sinful" in regards to the laws of the Republic of the United States.

Jan 13, 2011
Skeptic Heretic,

(Hands you the silver star)

Thank you for defending the Republic of these United States against the invasion of this forum by foreign invaders and their strange tyrannical ideology. They speak our language, but it's obviously a trick designed to fool the unwary.

I hope they return to whatever primitive eastern nation they launched their attacks from.

Jan 13, 2011
WOW, the US has now laws against foreign nationals obtaining and disclosing its classified information...

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
Assange is a journalist. he's exempt for the law you're thinking of.


No he isn't, otherwise all foreign spy agencies would need to do is give their agents press credentials....

Sorry SH that's a ludicrous statement.

Jan 13, 2011
No he isn't, otherwise all foreign spy agencies would need to do is give their agents press credentials....

Sorry SH that's a ludicrous statement.
Then I challenge you to define journalist under US Federal law as I did dogbert.

Jan 13, 2011
Bradley Manning betrayed the trust placed in him. He betrayed his his fellow soldiers, the army and the United States. He lied and stole. He engaged in a conspiracy with Julian Assange to commit espionage. Manning was a traitor and Assange conspired with him in his treason.
Bradley Manning has one overriding trust, his oath to protect and defend the Constitution....

In short, you're wrong.
He wasnt in a position to make that judgement. He didnt single out one incident but chose to release tons of unrelated documents, apparently out of spite. He is not a hero but a criminal because he was not trying to right a particular wrong, he was simply attacking 'authority' wholesale.

This was not the guys who outed Wm Calley and My Lai or the Mahmudiyah killings and to compare manning to people like that does them an injustice. He wasnt trying to right a wrong, he was committing treason for purely selfish reasons.

Jan 13, 2011
He wasnt in a position to make that judgement. He didnt single out one incident but chose to release tons of unrelated documents, apparently out of spite. He is not a hero but a criminal because he was not trying to right a particular wrong, he was simply attacking 'authority' wholesale.
And what was Mark Felt doing? He released information carte blanche about the administration of the US at the time. He's heralded as a hero in whistleblowing.

If this isn't the mind of a whistle blower...

He said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and several thousand diplomats were "going to have a heart attack" when they discovered that an "entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public ... everywhere there's a US post ... there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed."

Jan 13, 2011
No he isn't, otherwise all foreign spy agencies would need to do is give their agents press credentials....

Sorry SH that's a ludicrous statement.
Then I challenge you to define journalist under US Federal law as I did dogbert.


I don't have to define journalist. What he did is obviously a crime journalist or not.

Jan 13, 2011
I don't have to define journalist. What he did is obviously a crime journalist or not.
Except if a journalist does it, it isn't a crime. If you're saying he isn't a journalist, you have to define what a journalist is and why Assange isn't one.

Jan 13, 2011
I don't have to define journalist. What he did is obviously a crime journalist or not.
Except if a journalist does it, it isn't a crime. If you're saying he isn't a journalist, you have to define what a journalist is and why Assange isn't one.


I'm saying it doesn't matter, again, otherwise all enemy agents would have to do is claim press status. You're making no sense. Were this the case then you could prosecute NO ONE for espionage.

Jan 13, 2011
If he feels that the Constitution has been subverted by these covert acts (which it has) How was the constitution subverted? Secrets are absolutely essential when any govt needs to defend itself against its enemies. Calley thought that one animal was suffering so he attempted to unlock the entire zoo.

And the documents he released have resulted in no formal inquiries into the govt or the military, nor any actions whatsoever against them. Manning is a vandal and a traitor.
Thank you for defending the Republic of these United States against the invasion of this forum by foreign invaders and their strange tyrannical ideology. They speak our language, but it's obviously a trick designed to fool the unwary.
You sure you want to side with people who think and talk like this SH?

Jan 13, 2011
You sure you want to side with people who think and talk like this SH?
Who says I'm on anyone's side?
And the documents he released have resulted in no formal inquiries into the govt or the military, nor any actions whatsoever against them.
Gee I wonder why the government didn't punish itself for being bad.
I'm saying it doesn't matter, again, otherwise all enemy agents would have to do is claim press status. You're making no sense. Were this the case then you could prosecute NO ONE for espionage.
It obviously does matter. If I know something that the government is doing, let's say putting pharmaceuticals in the water supply (jsut to pick something fully hypothetical) and that information is classified, should I leak it to the public?

You're saying I shouldn't because it's illegal. I'm telling you that seomtimes the people who pick their own secrets aren't telling you the truth of what they do in your name. The law says it matters. We need a definitio

Jan 13, 2011
It obviously does matter. If I know something that the government is doing, let's say putting pharmaceuticals in the water supply (jsut to pick something fully hypothetical) and that information is classified, should I leak it to the public?


Sure, but don't claim it's legal. If it's classified then by DEFINITION it's illegal to disclose. I think you're confusing what's moral with what's legal in this case.

You're saying I shouldn't because it's illegal.


No I'm saying it's illegal period. You're kind of putting words in my mouth.

As to Assange's should or should nots that's a matter of opinion. I think he had a political agenda against the United States and it's as simple as that. Nothing he leaked was on the level of putting pharmaceuticals in the water.

All he did was vindictive and put people's lives in danger. He is, in my opinion, a slime bucket and deserves a firing squad, just as that traitor Manning does...

Jan 13, 2011
Sure, but don't claim it's legal. If it's classified then by DEFINITION it's illegal to disclose. I think you're confusing what's moral with what's legal in this case.
No, there's a protection specifically for journalists who are engaging in the very same acts that Assange is. prior to leaking anything about the US government Assange and wikileaks have been part of the journalism establishment, constantly used as a source and referred to as a journalism outfit by the news media.
No I'm saying it's illegal period.
But it isn't if he is considered a journalist. To remove that consideration you must establish that he is not a journalist. In the case of espionage that is easily done by determining where the information went and what was proffered in exchange. There has been no exchange for the information. This is not espionage by definition.

Jan 13, 2011
This is a slippery slope you're on here too SH. When you make a statement of general principle that the government shouldn't be allowed to decide what it keeps secret and what it doesn't.

I see your point, I completely agree with you in some instances. However I KNOW you're intelligent enough to see mine too...

Jan 13, 2011
Gee I wonder why the government didn't punish itself for being bad.
Like it routinely punishes people like Nixon and Clinton and Rangel no matter how embarrassing? The US is better at this than perhaps any other country in the world.

"On 29 July 2010, WikiLeaks added a 1.4 GB "Insurance File" to the Afghan War Diary page...the US television broadcaster CBS predicted that "If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files."

-Apparently the secrets in this insurance file are not as vital to justice and human rights as they are to the continued freedom of our hero assange. If he were a true humanitarian he would have released them already.

Sounds to me like hes more of a posturing narcissist who likes to impress women and get laid rather than a selfless do-gooder eh? And he looks to exploit weak minds like manning to do so. Assange started out as a hacker vandal didnt he? tThe kind who gets thrills from screwing up our computers for us-

Jan 13, 2011
I see your point, I completely agree with you in some instances. However I KNOW you're intelligent enough to see mine too...
But in this instance you're operating on opinion. If we don't look at the law itself and make sure we define the characters involved in the situation, then we're going to be going on opinion. I will never want someone put to death for my opinion of them. That is antithetical to what America stands for.

Jan 13, 2011
So then SH, let's say the NY Times got hold of specifications on the F-22. It's legit to publish that? What about our missile codes? Military frequencies? Troop deployment plans? Secret service itineraries on the President's movements.

Hey they're journalists...

Jan 13, 2011
No, there's a protection specifically for journalists who are engaging in the very same acts that Assange is.
Youre acting on opinion too. We'll have to wait and see if the govt can successfully prosecute him on espionage or trafficing in stolen govt property. Or whether he can be extradited or sent to guantanamo.

Jan 13, 2011
I see your point, I completely agree with you in some instances. However I KNOW you're intelligent enough to see mine too...
But in this instance you're operating on opinion. If we don't look at the law itself and make sure we define the characters involved in the situation, then we're going to be going on opinion. I will never want someone put to death for my opinion of them. That is antithetical to what America stands for.


Yeah but in this case it's my opinion he committed a crime that put American's lives at risk or even is possibly responsible for deaths. At the least he hurt American interests.

The fact is that he did leak this information. I wouldn't want opinions of him to let him off the hook either.

Jan 13, 2011
So then SH, let's say the NY Times got hold of specifications on the F-22. It's legit to publish that? What about our missile codes? Military frequencies? Troop deployment plans? Secret service itineraries on the President's movements.

Hey they're journalists...
That's quite a different situation and I think you're aware of that.
Youre acting on opinion too.
I'm going by the definitions as I understand them. If oyu have a different definition please produce it. Thus far no one has willingly done so.
Yeah but in this case it's my opinion he committed a crime that put American's lives at risk or even is possibly responsible for deaths.
So are you going to prosecute him for a crime or a potential crime?

Jan 13, 2011
So then SH, let's say the NY Times got hold of specifications on the F-22. It's legit to publish that? What about our missile codes? Military frequencies? Troop deployment plans? Secret service itineraries on the President's movements.

Hey they're journalists...
That's quite a different situation and I think you're aware of that.


Well that's my opinion, and your opinion, but what about a "journalist" from North Korea, or Iran?

Jan 13, 2011
Well that's my opinion, and your opinion, but what about a "journalist" from North Korea, or Iran?
We're talking about a journalist from Australia right now. Which means he isn't an agent of the state of Australia. In DPKR and Iran the press is a derivitive power of the state. That would be selling state secrets and thus be espionage.

If you want to apply that to Assange, you would have to show intent. State sponsored journalists are not considered journalists in US Fed law. Now if it was Al Jazeera, that would be a journalist.

Jan 13, 2011
The path the information took to you is irrelevant.

The cogent issue is what do with the information now that you know it.

Jan 13, 2011
U.S. government is hypocrite, in fact they call themself 'democratic' but U.S. government is responsible for the Guantanamo prison, an illegal concentration camp that it's a crime against humanity


Actually we call ourselves a republic. It's in our Pledge of Allegiance. Gitmo isn't illegal, it isn't a concentration camp it's a POW camp, and it wouldn't exist if those people weren't trying to kill Americans in foreign countries. Personally I think we should either do it the French way and cut their heads off, or do it the Italian way and feed them to lions. A prison for those people is just a waste.

@ Frajo:

What did you just say? I honestly can't figure that comment out. I know english isn't your primary language, so don't think I'm trying to insult you. I'm just letting you know that your last comment didn't come out well in english. Please try to rephrase it somehow.

Jan 13, 2011
Actually we call ourselves a republic.
We're ruled by the policies of law, not by majority or edict.
Gitmo isn't illegal, it isn't a concentration camp it's a POW camp
Did all the prisoners in Gitmo come from Congressionally sanctioned wars?

If the answer is no, which it is, then Gitmo is not a POW camp. It may serve as one in part, which it does, but that is not the sole function of the base.

Is Gitmo an illegal internment camp? I don't know. I don't have enough information to make a judgement, but what I've seen so far tells me that further clarity and investigation should be done.

Jan 13, 2011
He and his ilk don't care for crimes, potential crimes, or non-crimes. They want to punish convictions which are contrary to their own exceptionality[sic] thinking which they project onto their government, be it right or wrong.
They'd never call Emile Zola's J'accuse if their own authorities have failed or committed crimes.
And they'd never care if a documentation of another government's crimes would be published.
It's a remnant of the 19th century illnesses of nationalism and chauvinism which drove Europe twice into chaos.
Again, it's a matter of paranoid replacement of a (missing) sound inner self-esteem by the projected esteem of the own nation's grandeur, or "deutschland, deutschland ueber alles".


Bah, you're just pissed because I'm willing to call your heroes in China out for the evil bastards they are.

FTR everything you just said about me is 100% false. Thanks for playing the mind reading game fraj, you lose this round.

Jan 13, 2011
Did all the prisoners in Gitmo come from Congressionally sanctioned wars


Yes, they are part of the ever expanding Korean war, in the Middle East theater of operations. In our efforts to thwart North Korean totalitarian agression, we've had to detain their foriegn operatives who cleverly disguised themselves as Muslim terrorists.

Jan 13, 2011
Do leaks damage the interests of the bureaucracy that tried to conceal the information? Every time. So what?

Do whistle-blowers break the trust and rules of the bureaucracy against which they release information? Of course. And the point is?

Do the motives or integrity of a leaker really matter in the final analysis? IMHO, they're utterly irrelevant. All that matters, is the final effect.

Is Assange anti-American? Hardly. He's anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, anti-corporatist, anti-crime and anti-concealment. Our government shows its true face and nature by going after Assange in the manner it has. It doesn't seem to matter much whether it's Obama or Nixon in charge; the core of the government remains as rotten as ever.

Some secrecy is always necessary, but we all know that even the American government -- as "liberal" as it pretends to be -- conceals far more than is strictly justifiable. Excessive secrecy is a signature of incompetence, criminality, and corruption.

Jan 13, 2011
Excessive secrecy is a signature of incompetence, criminality, and corruption


I agree. Those evil bastards at KFC should tell us what those secret herbs and spices are, and the nazis at Apple need to come clean on the new products they are hiding from us to conceal their incompetence, criminality and corruption.

sorry pink, I just wanted to point out how absurd your comment really was. Oh, and before you say it, my absurd comments above are supposed to be absurd. They are satyrical.

Jan 13, 2011

I agree. Those evil bastards at KFC should tell us what those secret herbs and spices are,
I just want to know that it isn't the Colonel's special recipe "from scratch".

If KFC had a salmonella outbreak and covered it up, would that be ok with you or would you want an employee to step out and say the meat was tainted before it was used?

Jan 13, 2011
We're talking about a journalist from Australia right now. Which means he isn't an agent of the state of Australia.
Actually we dont know this. Journalists can make excellent spies. Many many examples. And you want to give them state secrets.
That's quite a different situation
There could have been F22 plans in the pile of docs manning stole. He probably wouldnt have known. Or cared.
Do leaks damage the interests of the bureaucracy that tried to conceal the information? Every time. So what?
They also can get innocent people killed. So what? They can also damage good governments and strengthen bad ones. So what? They can also get both you and me killed. So what? Freaking anarchists. Dont you realize that anarchy means that all the anarchists with tattoos and nose rings and mohawks and machetes get the opportunity to steal your women??

Jan 13, 2011
Actually we dont know this. Journalists can make excellent spies. Many many examples. And you want to give them state secrets.
So you're trying to say that the various intelligence agencies world wide have completely missed the fact that one of the most popular anti-governmental organizers and most prolific internet journalists was a spy against the US working as an Australian state agent....

How deep does this rabbit hole go?

Jan 13, 2011
There's nothing to gain here - not for me, not for them, not for silent observers.
Conversely, I get an obscene enjoyment out of intellectually slapping someone around for an audience. I really do need to stop doing it. It's so easy and fun but rude and ignorant at the same time.

I really should send Marjon a thank you card.

Jan 13, 2011
So you're trying to say that the various intelligence agencies world wide have completely missed the fact that one of the most popular anti-governmental organizers and most prolific internet journalists was a spy against the US working as an Australian state agent....
The fact is, many famous and influential people have been implicated in passing secrets to enemies. Oppenheimer for one. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Martin Bohrmann. Henry Hopkins. Niels Bohr.
Again many many examples.

If you think like me you might get the idea after awhile that these well-connected individuals were acting as liaisons or couriers in coordinating efforts by 'Opponents' in making sure that mutual efforts would produce a preplanned Outcome.

For what better way to share privileged information than through intelligence agencies, whose members are trained to keep and pass secrets?

Jan 13, 2011
@GSwift7,

I was talking about "EXCESSIVE secrecy". Trade secrets are not excessive or gratuitous in themselves. However, our government has a habit of classifying far more than it needs to. The "national security" blanket is too big and too versatile, and has been provably abused too often in the past. Or are you going to tell me that you trust your government to do the right thing when nobody's looking?

@otto,
They also can get innocent people killed. So what?
How many innocents would be alive, if our government couldn't conspire for mass-murder and illegal warfare in the dark of its secrecy?
They can also damage good governments and strengthen bad ones.
Don't know about you, but I rather enjoyed the public disclosure that the Saudis have been begging U.S. to attack Iran. One would expect hypocrisy to be even more prevalent among the "bad ones" -- so when hypocrisy in general is outed, the "bad ones" ought to be hurt comparatively more.

ctd.

Jan 13, 2011
They can also get both you and me killed.
Don't know about you, but I'm still alive. A bit more honesty and integrity within both internal and international affairs isn't going to hurt anyone. Call me a naive idealist, but as far as your and my security goes, IMHO the intangible value of an incorruptible and wholesome reputation at least equals if not exceeds even a world-encompassing (and economy-bankrupting) military presence. Indeed, many lives might be SAVED, if only our government stopped bolstering "our monsters" and selling your soul on your behalf to "our devils."
Freaking anarchists.
Oh really? So now public disclosure and government transparency and accountability, are tantamount to anarchy? My, my. I don't throw the word around lightly, but it's quite a fascistic mindset you're developing there, otto.

Jan 13, 2011
Oh really? So now public disclosure and government transparency and accountability, are tantamount to anarchy? My, my. I don't throw the word around lightly, but it's quite a fascistic mindset you're developing there, otto.
He does it on purpose. I'm starting to think his area of research has become an obsession.

That being said, only those who perform acts that are unfounded or evil require secrecy.

Jan 13, 2011
How many innocents would be alive, if our government couldn't conspire for mass-murder and illegal warfare in the dark of its secrecy?
Yeah. Off the pigs. Comes the revolution. Let me rephrase your vitriol: How many innocents would be DEAD, if our govt couldnt ally with others to fight oppression by destroying fascist dictatorships by waging LEGAL warfare in the light of public scrutiny? And how many lives of honorable fighting men and women would be lost if the US didnt choose to wage war as it has always been waged, by not telling the enemy how they planned on destroying him??

This is how it is DONE. Since australopithecus tribesmen hunkered in the bush, waiting to ambush their unwitting enemies, this is how it has been DONE. This is the only reason why we are all here. We are the end result of millenia of tribes who were successful on the battlefield.

You dont want to do it this way? Then this is how it will be done to YOU and your family, your friends, your culture.

Jan 13, 2011
Anarchists. Seriously, would you want your daughter carried off by one of THESE guys?
http
://anarchyofpunk.blogspot.com/2010/09/casualties.html

I always liked the music though...
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxcnYFruM8M

Jan 13, 2011
That being said, only those who perform acts that are unfounded or evil require secrecy.
Now whos baiting whom? 'ALL of war is deception.' and since 'All of peace is only the preparation for war', unfortunately, then all of peace must necessarily be deception ALSO. :) This includes all of politics, all of economics, all of education, all of religion, etc.

Are you following me so far? OK. The good guys must necessarily do nasty things sometimes, because that is often the only way to win. And you can cry honor and morality all you want, but if your side loses you may not be around to feel smug about it.

Few people often come to grips with the awful potential of warfare to destroy EVERYTHING. There is so much that the human race possesses today that is irreplaceable. There is so much to lose and not enough time or resources to reconstruct it should we ever lose it again. Babel fell and we went on. The Great Library burned and we survived. We may not get another chance.

Jan 13, 2011
How many innocents would be DEAD, if our govt couldnt ally with others to fight oppression by destroying fascist dictatorships by waging LEGAL warfare in the light of public scrutiny?
And when was the last time that happened? We'd have to go all the way back to the Korean war. Everything since then -- from Vietnam, through Iraq -- has been both illegal and done for the wrong reasons.
if the US didnt choose to wage war as it has always been waged, by not telling the enemy how they planned on destroying him
How about not getting in bed with the enemy -- while pretending otherwise -- to start with?
The good guys must necessarily do nasty things sometimes, because that is often the only way to win.
Those who choose to do evil, are by definition not "good guys". Good guys win wars by pointing out the evil done by the other side. Modern wars are won in the mind, every bit as much as (if not more so than) they are won on the battlefield.

Jan 13, 2011
contd

Jan 13, 2011
Ok, so I've wasted an untold amount of time tring to post and repost a comment that contained a link to an article that detailed the content of several of the leaked cables, and explicated the context of the same, and expanded upon the lies and or cover up committed by our government in efforts to conceal wrongdoing/criminal activity.

Unfortunately, it won't post to physorg.

A number of you are missing out on any kind of overview of the significance of, or contents of these cables, and are leaping to conclusions about where the criminal onus lies.

It is illegal for you, as a citizen of the USA, to have knowledge of illegal activity, and fail to report it. In fact, it is your duty, and responsibility as a citizen, to do so. Even moreso when it involves misfeasance of taxpayer funds, or the endangerment of the lives of US service personnel, agency personnel, and citizens. This is why whistleblowing is protected by special, specific laws, and is not considered espionage.

Jan 13, 2011
If you are interested(and you should be) in reading the article, go to Alternet.org(yes, yes, it is left), and search for the article ;"Wikileaks' most terrifying Revelation: just how much our government lies to us" after reading, you may feel compelled to adjust your opinions regarding this matter.

Jan 13, 2011
According to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798 of the US code there is no provision for the moral content of the information. Therefore, legally, it IS espionage.

Jan 13, 2011
According to TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798
Ok, I've read it. I assume you have too, and understood what's written there. So now explain how ANY of it applies to either Wikileaks or Assange.
there is no provision for the moral content of the information. Therefore, legally, it IS espionage.
Yes. That's precisely the argument used by the likes of Iran and China, to protect their own "state secrets" from seeing the light of day. If you're saying that in this aspect we're no better than they are, I agree.

Jan 13, 2011
It is illegal for you, as a citizen of the USA, to have knowledge of illegal activity, and fail to report it.
Well sure caliban, but I don't know if there was anything specifically illegal indicated in any of those docs. Like I say nobody that I know of has been indicted. There were 1000s of topics in them, most of which manning was almost certainly not aware of. He just grabbed a bunch of stuff and gave it to assange without regard to content. It doesn't appear as if he was interested in helping anyone.

@PE
Yes. That's precisely the argument used by the likes of Iran and China
That doesn't automatically make it wrong does it?

Jan 13, 2011
It is illegal[...]report it.
Well sure caliban, but I don't know if there was anything specifically illegal indicated in any of those docs. Like I say nobody that I know of has been indicted. There were 1000s of topics in them, most of which manning was almost certainly not aware of. He just grabbed a bunch of stuff and gave it to assange without regard to content. It doesn't appear as if he was interested in helping anyone.


Otto- you are right, but only to a point. Should we ignore the big fat baby that was thrown out with the bathwater?
Do we know how much time was available (to Manning) to select individual cables, as opposed to a mass, catchall grab?
All of these docs were classified no more secret than "No Foreign Nationals", and were virtually absent risk to life/limb of US nationals.

Have a look at the article I referenced. I think that you will be disturbed by what you read. You may see how it is the leaks can/should be justified.


Jan 13, 2011
Caliban
Just read your article. Pretty incendiary stuff but also pretty familiar. One
"...after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001 ..."
-This means that the Taliban can replace battle losses faster than they can be killed or captured. The real reason is not that we are creating more enemies by our actions, but that the explosive growth of pops in the region is creating gens of idle, underfed youth looking to blame their troubles on someone, anyone. Afghanistan has one of the highest growth rates in the world. That is why they have almost always been at war. The region has been stripped bare of forests, vegetation, topsoil.

This will not stop until the culture which creates the problem is destroyed. Vietnam is now quiet, peaceful, productive. I suppose Afghanistan will be one day too.

Jan 13, 2011
Caliban
Just read your article. Pretty incendiary stuff but also pretty familiar. One
"...after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001 ..."
-This means that the Taliban can replace battle losses faster than they can be killed or captured. The real reason is not that we are creating more enemies by our actions, but that the explosive growth of pops in the region is creating gens of idle, underfed youth looking to blame their troubles on someone, anyone. Afghanistan has one of the highest growth rates in the world. That is why they have almost always been at war. The region has been stripped bare of forests, vegetation, topsoil.

This will not stop until the culture which creates the problem is destroyed. Vietnam is now quiet, peaceful, productive. I suppose Afghanistan will be one day too.


Jan 13, 2011
I think that you will be disturbed by what you read.
Sure it's disturbing. This_is_War. It is disturbing to read an article by someone who is unfamiliar with it, or pretends to be. If he were more knowledgeable and more even-handed he wouldn't use the term murder quite so much, and might comment that the Taliban tends to fight while surrounding themselves with women and children. He might stress more the disregard for personal safety exhibited by many afghans who encourage their youth to expose themselves or disregard the instructions of checkpoint personnel, who were just trying not to get blown up. After removing accidents and incidents of collateral damage, the author would have some examples of true malice, many of which have been investigated and prosecuted. And many have not. But certainly far fewer I would think than when the soviets (2M? Afghans dead) or the Taliban were in charge. War is nasty, but it still needs to be waged.

Jan 13, 2011
Picture what the region would look like if the allies weren't there. Hussein dead or deposed, the caliphate reestablished stretching from lebanon to Pakistan. A Moslem empire with nukes, unless another major world had started by then to secure Pakistani nukes or save Israel. World economies collapsed from lack of oil and millions of westerners starving as a result. And a possible nuclear winter to make things worse.

As it is, the west has compartmentalized the middle east, preventing any major consolidations and conjoined movements either east or west. For the moment. We continue to bleed off the most contentious and disaffected, as bin laden and the Taliban conveniently round them up for us and send them into our guns. Sounds kinda like a Plan doesn't it?

Jan 13, 2011
Sorry about the quoted post up there- physorg is doing some weird stuff.

There are, of course, legitimate reasons to be in Afghanistan, but lying about the real objectives, and real time frame necessary to accomplish those objectives doesn't in any way help. Military action on this scale is simply insupportable.

Outside of America becoming the Security Bureaucracy/Security Force of the much-phrophesied World Government, I really don't see how this benfits Americans, as America is currently constituted.

If you expect vast changes to take place to America in lockstep with this role as world police, then I can easily see how that could come about. But getting from here to there would be extremely painful, and what will be necessary won't be reconcilable with the principles enshrined by the Constititution, and will inevitably require a shift into Fascism.

And all for nothing, for as long as we keep drinking the Texas Tea. There's some goddam irony.


Jan 13, 2011
As it is, the west has compartmentalized the middle east, preventing any major consolidations and conjoined movements either east or west.

Maybe we should debate consequences of the Cold War and what the aftermath has been. If one has to weigh that; and the policies of MAD. The current make of the mid-east is really a consequence of cold war. If not for leaks though, diplomacy and good analysis we could be dealing with a lot of 50mile wide radioactive holes in the ground.


Jan 13, 2011
After reading many comments both liberal and conservative, I'm siding with the liberals. Wikileaks is important as a backup plan for a free press. A government without criticism is nothing more than a tyrant, benevolent and oppressive or otherwise.

Jan 14, 2011
Ok, so I've wasted an untold amount of time tring to post and repost a comment that contained a link to an article
Unfortunately, it won't post to physorg.
The link, ANY link, is being blocked. Just delete the H in HTTP. Then anyone interested can copy paste add the h back in and go to the site.

Example
ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-wikileaks-grand-jury-twitter.html

This appears a vain and worthless attempt to annoy the spammers. Nothing to do with politics.

Ethelred

Jan 14, 2011
Trying a better way this time I am adding a SPACE, so copy paste delete the space or perhaps add DELETE ME would be even better.

Examples
http ://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-wikileaks-grand-jury-twitter.html

httpDELETE ME://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-wikileaks-grand-jury-twitter.html

Ethelred

Jan 14, 2011
was a spy against the US working as an Australian state agent


There's no reason to assume that he's working for the Australian govt. It could be any country in the world, or even a NGO like AlQida.

would you want an employee to step out and say the meat was tainted


Yes, but I wouldn't want the manager's private emails about company business, such as employee evaluations, printed in the local newspaper.

Jan 14, 2011
@ Pink:

I know what you meant. I was exagerating to make the point that there are gray areas in terms of degrees of secrecy and the reasons for secrecy in various situations. In the case of the wiki leaks, he's exposed a lot of stuff that's not so much secret as much as simply being private. I feel the same way about it as I do about paperazzi invading the personal lives of famous people.

You are probably right when you suggest that people get away with corruption because they are able to hide behind the curtain of 'national security'. However, we have to ask ourselves what kind of government we want to have. It's a value judgement, and there's no correct answer. I personally think there's a need for balance between a government that's soft and cuddly and one that's a bit of a snake in the grass. When we deal with countries who don't play 'fair' we need people who are willing to fight back in kind. Sometimes that means bending the rules. Sometimes we may not WANT to know everythi

Jan 14, 2011
I really don't see how this benfits Americans, as America is currently constituted.
You could surmise from one perspective that the west learned from ww2 that it is wiser to prevent empires from forming before having to fight them. A nuclear-armed Islamist empire which controls the worlds energy supply, and whose leaders have said they want to impose sharia upon the world, may be impossible to resist.

The alternative which we now see, which is to divide, contain, and disarm preemptively, may well have been seen as the only reasonable alternative. The threat will not subside until the religionist culture which causes the explosive population growth is gone.

Jan 14, 2011
After reading many comments both liberal and conservative, I'm siding with the liberals. Wikileaks is important as a backup plan for a free press. A government without criticism is nothing more than a tyrant, benevolent and oppressive or otherwise.
And the governments that the west is forced to fight are extremely oppressive and tyrannical, and giving them state secrets is inviting defeat. In peacetime i might agree with you. But we are, after all, at war.

Jan 14, 2011
Well Pink,

Since it's the portion of the US code which deals with the dissemination of classified information, and also the portion of the code used to prosecute espionage...and since that's what the whole thread has been about I just figured it was relevant.

Silly me...

Jan 14, 2011
Since it's the portion of the US code which deals with the dissemination of classified information, and also the portion of the code used to prosecute espionage...and since that's what the whole thread has been about I just figured it was relevant.

Now include the revisions and case law with it and it would be a suitable legal reference. For comparison, The Constitution isn't the Constitution if you omit the amendments.

Jan 14, 2011
Continued:

When I say 'snake in the grass' I'm talking about someone like Bill Clinton. I really think he was one of our best presidents in recent history because he was good at getting things done behind closed doors. He was mostly clean and open but had the 'get things done' attitude that makes a good leader. This is my opinion, but I honestly don't think the best leader is always the most honest leader. I actually think it's in my best interest to have top leaders who are willing to get their hands dirty for me. If they make a little money on the side, then that's part of the cost of success. Take a corporate exec for example. If my company has a cut-throat CEO who's willing to destroy the competition, then my job is safer. There's always a risk though. If that CEO gets caught doing something bad, the whole house of cards can come down (enron?). Like I said above, it's a balance between good and evil, so to speak. Right and wrong isn't always clear in good leadership.

Jan 14, 2011
Now include the revisions and case law with it and it would be a suitable legal reference. For comparison, The Constitution isn't the Constitution if you omit the amendments.


Well since it was in response to someone who thinks it's legitimate for civilians to decide when they'll follow that law or not I figured it would be upon THEM to provide such references.

Specifically any US laws that state you're comiting a crime if you don't disclose classified information you find morally objectionable (that was the stupendously idiotic implication made which prompted me to look the law up), and/or any relevant law which allows for the legal dissemination of classified information and what standards are used other than "I think the public should know this even though elected officials don't".

I'm not saying classified information should NEVER be disclosed, I'm saying I don't see where you can claim it's legal.


Jan 14, 2011
I'm not saying classified information should NEVER be disclosed, I'm saying I don't see where you can claim it's legal.
Well until you define the term 'journalist" for us we can't. This goes right back to my initial argument that started this entire conversation. There are provisions that depend entirely on the definition as it sits within the court and case law system today. If you don't want to define the terms, then there's no applicable law.

This is why the media doesn't have any real angle on the legality of this story, other than manufactured opinion pieces. They refuse to define their role, probably because it would lead to a massive overturn of the established media, making the majority of them exempt from the journalist moniker and subject to a lot of jail time and fines, plus civil lawsuits for defamation of character.

Jan 14, 2011
Well until you define the term 'journalist" for us we can't.


Well then if no one can define journalist it's never legal I guess...

Jan 14, 2011


... benevolent and oppressive or otherwise.


And the governments that the west is forced to fight...


I don’t want to be rude, but that’s nearly sounding paranoid.

Your country was never "forced" to fight - your country "chose" to fight - for reasons given to you by politicians –

… Ultimately, YOU agreed to it … there was even a compliant media. (the political leanings of current, compliant media are irrelevant.)

This is not lefty or righty “stuff” – this is the way of history.

What we all have to realize is that our opinions have been "spun".

The wording used, has generated a compliant reaction in you and an anti-compliant in me – because of our individual histories.

… and whether we like it or not, the only person who is actually telling the truth and letting us (you and I) make our own minds up, is Julian Assange.

You may not like that Wikileaks exposed these secrets, but hey, that’s life.

Jan 14, 2011
@Modernmystic,
I just figured it was relevant. Silly me...
It's not relevant to either Assange or to Wikileaks, as that part of U.S. code can not be reasonably interpreted to apply to them. It's only relevant to Manning.

@GSwift7,
Right and wrong isn't always clear in good leadership.
You're arguing in favor of benevolent dictatorship. Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Benevolent dictatorships tend to be inevitably succeeded by malevolent dictatorships. The only long-term stable and democratic system is one where the government is fully accountable and transparent in all its actions.

You want information classified as secret? Fine: have a constitutionally mandated, independent and _adversarial_ judiciary body review the request and grant approval. The rule of thumb should be all information must be made public, unless an exception can be strongly justified. But it should by no means be up to the whims of the Executive.

That would be a system I could live with.

Jan 14, 2011
@otto,
Picture what the region would look like if the allies weren't there. Hussein dead or deposed, the caliphate reestablished stretching from lebanon to Pakistan. A Moslem empire with nukes
Sorry, your picture doesn't jive with my understanding of the region. Hussein would never be deposed by radicals; he'd crush them as he's always done. Iran vs. Iraq vs. Turkey vs. Pakistan vs. Saudi Arabia: no way in hell would they ever unite into any sort of empire. They're all adversaries. And oh by the way, it was British and American meddling, respectively, that created the monsters that are modern Iran and Iraq. And incidentally, it was to no small extent American presence in Saudi Arabia and continued unconditional American boosterism of Israel, that feed the pipelines of Al Qaida and every other extremist Islamic group in the region and around the world. Oh, and shall we recall that the Afghani Taliban is blowback from American policy? We literally *invented* the Mujahideen.

Jan 14, 2011
It's not relevant to either Assange or to Wikileaks, as that part of U.S. code can not be reasonably interpreted to apply to them. It's only relevant to Manning.


Well that's one opinion, and a highly debatable one at that as this tread demonstrates.

As to the applicability of the cited code it's not as applicable to Manning as it is to Assange. Manning would fall more under chapter 115.

Jan 14, 2011
Well that's one opinion, and a highly debatable one at that as this tread demonstrates.
Let me clarify.

Firstly, Assange in particular, and Wikileaks in general, owe no allegiance to the United States, are not subject to United States law, and are under no obligation to know, respect, or obey the laws or dictates of the United States -- or of any other nation or organization, except the nation(s) where they operate and/or where they claim citizenship.

Even ignoring that glaringly obvious fact, the paragraph you cited refers to communication intelligence and cryptography. To my knowledge, Wikileaks hasn't published any such information. They've published US' own war reports and diplomatic cables -- not any intelligence that US obtained by clandestinely intercepting secret communications of other countries. Literally NONE of the 4 subsections under section (a) of paragraph 798, apply in this case.

Jan 14, 2011
Sorry, your picture doesn't jive with my understanding of the region. Hussein would never be deposed by radicals
Hussein was OLD; his days were numbered. It is doubtful whether the Sunni baathist minority could have withstood attack from Shiite Iran-backed fundamentalists. The ottoman caliph was a Shiite.
Iran vs. Iraq vs. Turkey vs. Pakistan vs. Saudi Arabia: no way in hell would they ever unite into any sort of empire
-And yet the ottoman, which had lasted 500-some years, ended only a few gens ago. Current artificial 'countries' were established by Brits and the French, and have changed many times.
American presence in Saudi Arabia and continued unconditional American boosterism of Israel, that feed the pipelines of Al Qaida and every other extremist Islamic group in the region
-And without them we'd have a much harder time seeking out radicals to everyones benefit, including the Saudis. Oh, and study a little more.

Jan 14, 2011
We literally *invented* the Mujahideen.
Exactly. You're starting to understand now, a little bit, maybe yes? If Leaders didn't invent their own Enemies, which can be controlled, then they would have to contend with the spontaneous ones, which they can't.

Enemies are inevitable given that cultures such as these always grow past the point of stability. That's what they were designed to do, to replace battle losses faster than, for instance, the Mongols. They're doomsday machines.

Jan 14, 2011
Firstly, Assange in particular, and Wikileaks in general, owe no allegiance to the United States, are not subject to United States law,


Let me clarify, there is no need for any one to be a United States citizen in order to be prosecuted by the United States. It's no different than if a foreign national committed murder in the country. What? They're not "subject" to our laws so we don't prosecute them? Sorry, but there's no other way to say it...you're being an IDIOT, or purposefully dishonest one of the two. Were it otherwise we could prosecute NO foreign national for spying.

Anyone else disagree?

Lastly the section cited clearly refers to ANY classified information. Read it again.

"The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;"

Nuff said.

Jan 15, 2011
I dont see how civilian deaths in afghanistan are considered important to national security except that it makes the united states look like a piece of shit murderer.

I for one see that as a higher crime than anything Assange did. Or Pvt manning for that matter.

And before sum1 quotes some crap about the united states not being a single person it IS a single entity comprised of single people and therefore should be held accountable in MORE ways than a single person.

Jan 16, 2011
MM: Guantanamo. nuff said.

Jan 16, 2011
“Modernmystic”

“Blah, blah, blah

…..

Nuff said. Anyone else disagree?”

Yep, me!

Listen you belligerent blowhard, it doesn’t apply to Julian Assange because he’s an Australian citizen. He’s broken no law in Australia, so you can’t charge him with treason.

Yes “treason” – which is what this is all about.

“It's no different than if a foreign national committed murder in the country.”

Really?

He published information on the internet. That’s hardly murder.

“Blah, blah … risked soldiers lives .. etc.”

Yeah, yeah. Whatever …

You know what? … You don’t want US soldiers taking any risks? ….. then don’t send them into risky situations.

It’s that’s simple.

Don’t want your country being criticized? Then don’t let your government do bad things.

It’s called “maturity” – time to grow up.

Jan 16, 2011
I dont see how civilian deaths in afghanistan are considered important to national security except that it makes the united states look like a piece of shit murderer.
I dont see how civilian deaths in NYC office buildings are considered important to al Quaida national security except that it makes them an enemy of the US as well as anybody willing to harbor them, who could both be considered piece of shit murderers and worth pursuing. So as to keep it from happening again, or something far worse.
I for one see that as a higher crime than anything Assange did. Or Pvt manning for that matter.
I for one see 9/11 as a higher crime than anything the US is doing right now to protect itself.

WE WERE INVITED, by both friends and enemies. The responsibility for death and destruction in afghanistan lies with the people who started the conflict, which was not the US.
He published information on the internet. That's hardly murder.
This will be decided in a court of law.

Jan 16, 2011
Don't want your country being criticized? Then don't let your government do bad things.
-Like not defending its citizens until its too late and 10s of 1000s start to die? Or it finds itself embroiled in another world war, this time with nukes?
It's called "maturity" - time to grow up.
Thats right. Accepting the reality of enemies and the responsibility of defending against them. These are grown-up things- not for adolescent poop slingers like yourself.

Jan 16, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923

"... this time with nukes?"

Using extremes to justify bad-behavior?

No one is saying the USA can't defend itself, but overdoing the wounded-duck act, the woe-is-me chest-thumping routine and pseudo moral-outrage just doesn't cut it with anybody.

It looks and stinks like theatrics ... because it IS theatrics.

Instead of getting mad at Assange for this, you should be grateful that it's highlighted and exposed corruption.

No one is asking you to be happy about such exposure of criminality, but the mature response is to “fight the criminal”, not kill the messenger.

If Bradley Manning actually did do this, which is doubtful, he should be given a medal for exposing criminals, as uncomfortable as it is … not thrown in jail.

.. and you, TheGhostofOtto1923, are ultimately supporting criminality against your government and people by objecting to the truth coming out ...

... and that, whether you like it or not, is the real truth of it.

Jan 16, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923:

"Thats right. Accepting the reality of enemies and the responsibility of defending against them. These are grown-up things- not for adolescent poop slingers like yourself."

… and acknowledging that not everyone who disagrees is your enemy – is also a sign of maturity.

… and calling someone a “poop-slinger” ???

“Poop-slinger”? I’ll have to try and ignore that.

That’s just silly.

I don’t want to be insulting – I’m actually laughing too much, but please.

“Poop-slinger”?

Hah!

That’s something a child would say.

Jan 16, 2011
I dont see how civilian deaths in afghanistan are considered important to national security except that it makes the united states look like a piece of shit murderer.


Like any country who fights a war looks like a piece of shit murderer? Name me a single country who hasn't killed civilians in a war. When you find out how to fight one without killing civilians let us know, until then kindly go fuck off, you ignorant "piece of shit" moron.

The astounding moral bankruptcy and stupendous level of concocted self righteousness from effete little pricks like Cave Man (apt. name that) will never cease to amaze me. I keep hoping someday it won't but obviously that day is long off.

I for one see that as a higher crime than anything Assange did. Or Pvt manning for that matter.


That's because it's painfully obvious you are an unqualified fucking halfwit.


Jan 16, 2011
Listen you belligerent blowhard, it doesn’t apply to Julian Assange because he’s an Australian citizen. He’s broken no law in Australia, so you can’t charge him with treason.


Can you read? Listen to me you illiterate fuckstick, I said he needs to be charged with espionage and YES he is subject to any laws US laws he's broken citizen or not. That's why we have extradition and treaties. Get over it pissant.

Yes “treason” – which is what this is all about.


No, espionage, that's what this is about. Try to keep up.

He published information on the internet. That’s hardly murder


Never said it was, any idiot could see that. I said the PRINCIPLE that we can charge foreign nationals with a crime is well established...and I'm 1000% right.

You know what? … You don’t want US soldiers taking any risks? ….. then don’t send them into risky situations.


Tell the other side to quit blowing up buildings and we'll oblige.

Jan 16, 2011
Don’t want your country being criticized? Then don’t let your government do bad things.

It’s called “maturity” – time to grow up.


Why tell me? Tell the Afghan people if the don't want a shit storm in their backyard they shouldn't have let their government do bad things

"It's called maturity", all kinds of growing up needed here....

Jan 16, 2011
Don’t want your country being criticized? Then don’t let your government do bad things.


Well then I guess the Afghan people could take a lesson from that...if you don't want a shitstorm in your backyard then don't let your government blow up buildings and kill 3000 civilians belonging to the world's only superpower...

Jan 16, 2011
Sorry for the "double post", browser or physorg servers are wonky.

Jan 17, 2011
Even as prosecutors build a case against the Army private suspected of passing hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, the State Department is promoting a documentary film that celebrates Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.

Amid its struggle to contain damage from the WikiLeaks revelations, the State Department announced Saturday that "The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers" has been selected as one of 18 films that will tour the world this year as part of its "American Documentary Showcase" program.

Ellsberg, whom the film portrays as a whistle-blower of conscience...

Ellsberg spent months copying the top secret Pentagon Papers on a Xerox machine, and when the documentary was released in 2009 before WikiLeaks' earned notoriety, he recalled it took The New York Times three months to review the study and decide to publish it.

Jan 17, 2011
It wasn't a government.


Of course it was.

belonging to the world's only superpower...
Double standards are ok for you.


Not at all. That wasn't my implication. My implication is that if you kick a 2000 pound bull in the nuts and cry about the fact he proceeded to stomp a mudhole in your ass you're a complete idiot.

As to being "more responsible" for your governments actions if it's a democracy...

If you live in a democracy, specifically America you realistically only have one more bad choice on the ballot to make than someone who lives in a shithole dictatorship...say like China. Pick your poison. That doesn't absolve people for taking ultimate responsibility for the government they live under however. On that point at least we seem to agree.

Jan 17, 2011
Here's another reason why so much effort is being put into stirring anti-Assange/Manning/Wikileaks sentiments into a frothing, foaming, frenzy(besides the obvious one of helping people to forget the Rule of Law): anyone with half a brain (including most lawmakers and government functionaries -and, more importantly, those who issue them their marching orders) is well aware that -sooner or later- WikiLeaks is going to come into the possesssion of information of truly "bombshell" importance, of significance sufficient to irrevocably alter the political/social/economic Status Quo.

We may be on the verge of just such a revelation, if this story is at all accurate:

h(DELETEME)ttp://www.alternet.org/world/149559/swiss_banker_gave_wikileaks_information_revealing_crimes_by_world's_most_powerful_people,_as_attacks_on_wikileaks_continue/

Things like this make the existence of WikiLeaks very, very inconvenient for those who would prefer to keep their "doin's" in the dark.

Jan 17, 2011
Is "dogbert" a government stooge. He and others of his ilk sound like it.
If the US officials were not such a bunch of self opinionated dickheads they would not have put such derogatory comments in writing (electronic or otherwise) and if others were not such a shifty bunch of arseholes there would not be anything to expose.
The problem is to do with the class and integrity of Gov't officials.
In going after Assange et. al. the Government is simply trying to shoot the messenger because they don't like the message.
Wouldn't it be better to put a superior class of people in those jobs and rid the US of those problems?
Going after Assange is simply a cover up, leaving the idiot dickheads in place to continue their stupidities.

Jan 17, 2011
Au-Pu,
Is "dogbert" a government stooge. He and others of his ilk sound like it.


No, and making such claims is typical leftist agenda. That is, if you have no argument, attack someone.

Asssange has engaged in espionage. There is no argument you can present which will negate his activity. Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people laud it.

Jan 17, 2011
@Modernmystic,
there is no need for any one to be a United States citizen in order to be prosecuted by the United States. It's no different than if a foreign national committed murder in the country.
Key phrase being: "in the country". Assange and Wikileaks are NOT within U.S. jurisdiction.
Were it otherwise we could prosecute NO foreign national for spying.
Spying on our soil, or spying from half-way across the world? There's a major difference there. For instance, I can post right now that Islam is a load of BS, Mohammed was a loony, and drawings of him look funny. That does not mean that suddenly I am subject to extreme sanction under Pakistani blasphemy laws. I would be, if I actually resided in Pakistan... But I don't, so I'm not.
Lastly the section cited clearly refers to ANY classified information.
But not obtained through ANY method. Read items (a) through (d). The classified info is clearly related to or obtained through communications intelligence only.

Jan 17, 2011
dogbert opined
Asssange has engaged in espionage.

Evidence, please? Can you post the link to the evidence showing Assange approached Manning and had him steal the cables for wikileaks? Evidence would be nice, especially since you seem so committed to observing the legalities here. One doesn't convict someone of a crime without evidence.

Jan 17, 2011
dogbert,s opinion - he likes to call it fact, alas it remains an opinion; one he is entitled to, and as he is unable to support his opinion with facts it shall remain an opinion. Just as the bush administration was of the opinion that Iraq had WMD's, justifying another cluster fuck invasion.... Subsequent supply of facts proved that particular opinion erroneous.

Jan 18, 2011
MorituriMax,

Why do you insist on returning to arguments already settled?

Mirriam-Webster
espionage: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company


The whole purpuse of Wikileaks is espionage.

Can you post the link to the evidence showing Assange approached Manning and had him steal the cables for wikileaks?


Since espionage includes "using spies", not just spying, it is espionage if Assange uses information obtained by someone else's spying.

Again, espionage is the purpose of Wikileaks.

Continuing to argue that it is not espionage when it plainly fits the definition of espionage is foolish.

Jan 18, 2011
dogbert, be very clear on this: the only argument already settled regards Wikileaks' Assange being guilty of any crime has been in your mind. You have decided his guilt in your own mind. His actual guilt remains extremely questionable in legal and moral terms.

Jan 18, 2011
Thats something a child would say.
No, see, you missed the sarcasm, it is something one would say when talking to an adolescent poop-slinger on their level.

You assume that, because something is there to be exposed, that this indicates the presence of criminality or corruption. No such things were uncovered or exposed.

The compulsion to expose secrets probably comes from children wanting to find out whats going on in their parents bedroom when they hear strange noises coming from there. You're not old enough yet to know, apparently, as you cannot appreciate the value of secrecy. By the way, what's your social security #? I'm just curious.

Jan 18, 2011
Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people laud it.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people declare it secret.


The issue with this whole thread is what constitutes "bad behavior" or more specifically "bad enough behavior worth risking lives to expose".

Guess what :-) none of you, nor me either, have a sufficient definition. We just have opinions. THAT is the closest thing to truth you're going to hear about that.

ON EDIT: There also seems to be some kind of worry from the "other side" that if Assagne gets prosecuted (which despite all the name calling and angst in the world he did commit a prosecutable crime) that there will be a chilling effect on things like this in the future.

Well isn't that why he's a "hero"? He took a chance, he rolled the dice for what he thought was right (personally I just think he's a self righteous prick who hates the US...). You can't have your cake and eat it too (cont)

Jan 18, 2011
(cont) IOW we need laws against treason and espionage. Sometimes those laws will be applied in accordance with your opinions, sometimes they won't. That's just the way it is. Someone has a better way for it to work let me know.

Jan 18, 2011
dogbert, the core problem here, whether you support Assange or think he's scum is the precedent being set.

PE touched upon it above.

If the US is allowed to dictate legal proceedings in other countries simply because we're the world superpower, would that make it acceptable for China to control legal proceedings over US citizens if the situation reverses?

I think I already know what your answer is.

Jan 18, 2011
bog_mire,
When you dispense with the meaning of words, you dispense all semblance of rationality. You cannot argue rationally if your words have no meaning.

Assange's activities fit the meaning of the word "espionage". Saying that espionage means whatever you want it to mean is irrational. You have lost the basis of argument by denying word meanings.

Jan 18, 2011
@dogbert,

I suppose next you'll be trying to indict the FBI for espionage against organized crime syndicates...

Jan 18, 2011
dogbert, the core problem here, whether you support Assange or think he's scum is the precedent being set.

PE touched upon it above.

If the US is allowed to dictate legal proceedings in other countries simply because we're the world superpower, would that make it acceptable for China to control legal proceedings over US citizens if the situation reverses?

I think I already know what your answer is.


So if a United States citizen endangered the life of the English Prime Minister by publishing his movements to the IRA...there's no crime there? The English aren't going to want him extradited? He never left our "soil"....

I think you already know the answer to this.

on edit: And for the painfully idiotic people on this thread who insist on comparing my examples to wikileaks I'm NOT saying it's the same thing.

I'm trying to establish a PRINCIPLE of law here so we can get past this bullshit of "if a crime was committed" and move on to "when SHOULD this crime be committed".

Jan 18, 2011
MM, not an apt comparison. Again, goes allllll the way back to the definition of the law and the provisions of the case law.

Jan 18, 2011
MM, not an apt comparison. Again, goes allllll the way back to the definition of the law and the provisions of the case law.


Irrelevant, the point I was actually making stands. Someone was trying to say that you can't commit a crime against another nation as long as you're on your own soil.

I said bullshit, and I'm totally correct.

Jan 18, 2011
Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people laud it.

Bad behavior remains bad behavior even when some people declare it secret.
Lets see... Using word math, we can expand the meaning of this restricted and rather myopic equation to our benefit:

'GOOD behavior remains GOOD behavior even when some people declare it secret.'

Lets try again:

'NECESSARY behavior remains NECESSARY behavior even when some people declare it secret.'

-There. Both equally as valid I would surmise. Also a lot more applicable in this instance; and less paranoid and misarchistic I might add.

-I would also just like to point out that many people are not qualified to judge behaviors of this type as to whether they are good, bad, necessary, or otherwise because they lack the backround, training, or experience or demeanor to do so; although convincing them of this may prove daunting. We should just be thankful that they are in a very small minority.

Jan 18, 2011
IOW we need more brave people who don't help the reckless ones to cover up their reckless deeds. Sometimes those people will act in accordance with your opinion, sometimes they won't. That's just the way it is.


Again it's all a matter of opinion, I don't see anything terribly reckless the government was doing in this case. I see a lot of stupidity, and I see a lot of people's lives being destroyed for no reason other than this slime bucket Assange doesn't like American foreign policy.

Just my opinion.

Jan 18, 2011
dogbert opined,
Why do you insist on returning to arguments already settled?

Mirriam-Webster
espionage: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information.....


Settled? How do you say it is settled. You raised the point yourself above in the definition you yourself quoted: "the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information"

(1) WHERE is your EVIDENCE that Assange himself spied by hacking into the government computers to obtain the cables?
(2) WHERE is your EVIDENCE that Assange had Manning do it himself, then turn over the cables to Assange?

If you don't have that evidence your own definition defeats your point. I HARDLY consider this settled by the person who says it is when he refuses to address the question, where/evidence? Should be easy since you say it is settled. Links please.

Jan 18, 2011
MorituriMax ,

I can't help your inability to read and understand. The definition of espionage does not require that the person engaged in espionage either spy or hire spies. It only requires that the person engaging in espionage "use spies" to obtain information.

Assange used Manning to obtain his information -- hence he engaged in espionage.

Now stop talking. You embarrass us with your inability to understand coupled with your YELLING.

Jan 18, 2011
@dogbert,
Assange used Manning to obtain his information -- hence he engaged in espionage.
No, he did not "use" Manning. If Manning -- on his own initiative -- printed out all the documents, put them in a box, and mailed them to your house address -- without your foreknowledge or even assent -- would that mean that you can be accused of USING Manning to commit espionage?

Wikileaks is little more than a glorified bulletin board. Its only difference from physorg is that on physorg users post commentary and questions, whereas on Wikileaks users post leaked information.

Neither Wikileaks nor Assange do in any way induce or coerce such contributions. All they do is provide a safe forum, where there is a promise that the identity of the posters will be protected, and their material made available to the general public. People send information to Wikileaks of their own accord, on their own initiative.

You're seriously twisting language and rationality, by calling Assange a spy.

Jan 18, 2011
PinkElephant,
You're seriously twisting language and rationality, by calling Assange a spy.


Are you having trouble reading and understanding too? I never said Assange was a spy. I said he engaged in espionage. He did and continues to engage in espionage.

Read the definition of espionage again and try to understand it. It does not require the person engaging in espionage to purchase, induce or coerce information. It only requires that the person engaging in espionage use spies to obtain information. That is what Wikileaks does. It was designed from the beginning to engage in espionage.


Jan 18, 2011
dogbert, by your own definition practically every media org world wide would also be guilty of espionage by propagating leaks PUBLISHED in wikileaks, would they not? As they also PUBLISHED said leaks, thus exponentially increasing their public exposure. Just my opinion....

Jan 18, 2011
@dogbert,

A person who engages in espionage is by definition a spy. Before you accuse others of trouble reading and understanding, I suggest you look in the mirror.

Receiving unsolicited information from anonymous sources cannot be reasonably equated to using spies. Using spies entails an operation that actually manages and supports a spy network. Wikileaks does no such thing.

Jan 18, 2011
Additionally, I have not heard a single word here in regards to any of the other articles about wikileaks, et al, about the slippery slope hypocrisy of accusing them of treason/espionage -what have you, when, in point of fact, employees of the federal government, on a more or less daily basis, leak confidential, classified, or otherwise sensitive information to the politicians, media and other agencies for the purpose of advancing policy, influencing votes, or to provide advance warning of changes to come. Not legal, but tolerated, encouraged, and indulged in without penalty, day in and day out.

Not trying to change the direction of the debate here, but thought it worthwhile to point it out, and provide some kind of context for all these goings-on.

Jan 18, 2011
Bog Mire,
dogbert, by your own definition ...

Not my definition. Mirriam-Websters.

PinkElephant,
A person who engages in espionage is by definition a spy.

You fail to understand the meaning of words again. A spy is engaging in espionage. Not all people who engage in espionage are spying.

Jan 18, 2011
MorituriMax ,Now stop talking. You embarrass us with your inability to understand coupled with your YELLING.


Ahhh censorship, the final tool of those who have not met the burden of supplying facts to back up their position. And I wasn't YELLING, I was applying EMPHASIS to certain words, if I were YELLING, I WOULD BE WRITING LIKE THIS, YOU OVERBLOWN BUFFOON AND USING WORDS LIKE BUFFOON... but I wasn't. So THERE.

Jan 18, 2011
dogbert opined,
"Not my definition. Mirriam-Websters."
Not to put a fine point on it, but if you USE the definition, it's yours. You picked it, and you keep misusing it to characterize someone as doing it.

Jan 19, 2011
MorituriMax,

First, I don't claim to be the arbiter for the meaning of words. Dictionaries do that. The definition is not mine, it is, as I noted, Mirriam-Webster's definition.

I am not misusing the definition. I am only using the definition because we need to agree on terms if we intend to discuss issues. You choose to disregard definitions and meanings of words.

Espionage includes the use of spies -- that is the definition. I did not make the definition and you cannot make the definition go away because you don't like it.

Jan 19, 2011
So dogbert, a spy volunteers information to wikileaks and foxnews, both of whom publish said information. (except foxnews profits from such a transaction) who is guilty of espionage?

Jan 19, 2011
Bog_Mire,

Read the definition. I have been discussing events. You now want to discuss hypotheticals. Read the definition. Discuss your own hypotheticals.
espionage:
the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company

Jan 19, 2011
wellll foxnews has been publishing leaks, from many sources including wikileaks and governments for ages. Do ya wanna hang em as well? No more semantics about definitions, just give me an opinion.

Jan 19, 2011
No, he did not "use" Manning. If Manning -- on his own initiative -- printed out all the documents, put them in a box, and mailed them to your house address -- without your foreknowledge or even assent -- would that mean that you can be accused of USING Manning to commit espionage?
Of course you all can yapyap all you want, but hopefully these things will be hashed out in a court of law. As I posted earlier the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible.

Jan 20, 2011
the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible

The US needs to start behaving like a responsible citizen of the world, not as a A belligerent bully.

Jan 20, 2011
the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible

The US needs to start behaving like a responsible citizen of the world, not as a A belligerent bully.
The US sets the standard for world citizenship.

That we wish to make an example of Assange in order to inhibit pillaging of state secrets is the height of responsibility. That we probably won't succeed demonstrates the strength of our core principles.

Jan 20, 2011
That we wish to make an example of Assange in order to inhibit pillaging of state secrets is the height of responsibility. That we probably won't succeed demonstrates the strength of our core principles.


The paradox at the heart of the issue, uvavontuba.
You've expressed it quite nicely. I only gave you 4, however, because I disagree with your (at least contextual) definition of "responsibility".

Jan 20, 2011
The paradox at the heart of the issue, uvavontuba.
You've expressed it quite nicely. I only gave you 4, however, because I disagree with your (at least contextual) definition of "responsibility".
I used "responsibility" in the context of "fiduciary duty" - meaning; the legal obligation to act in our own best interests.

I suppose I could have used, "is understandable." but it sounds wishy-washy.

Anyway, I'll gladly accept the 4.

Thank you.

Jan 20, 2011
The paradox at the heart of the issue, uvavontuba.
You've expressed it quite nicely. I only gave you 4, however, because I disagree with your (at least contextual) definition of "responsibility".

I used "responsibility" in the context of "fiduciary duty" - meaning; the legal obligation to act in our own best interests.

Understood. I would argue that definition should more rightly be based upon the notion of "principle" that you also mention, so that defense of the indefensible isn't a responsibility.

I suppose I could have used, "is understandable." but it sounds wishy-washy.

Anyway, I'll gladly accept the 4.

Thank you.


No problem.

I reckon it just goes to show that there's always hope of agreement about something, at least.

Like, if there were an italic function for these comments, I could probably reduce wording by 20 - 25%. And I'm certain everyone here -and I do mean everyone- would agree that would be a good thing.


Jan 20, 2011
QC managed italics. Butt he has ties to a higher authority....

Jan 20, 2011
the US is exploring ways of charging assange with complicity in espionage or stealing govt property- so at least it is possible

The US needs to start behaving like a responsible citizen of the world, not as a A belligerent bully.


WOW this is the kind of shit that just kills me hehehehe. We get attacked and WE are the bully. WTF did they expect? Turn the other cheek and all that happy horseshit?

They're getting the shit kicked out of them, they DESERVE to get the shit kicked out of them. They BEGGED us to kick the shit out of them. The fact that they're CRYING about getting the shit kicked out of them now is totally irrelevant, totally expected, and funny as hell.

Jan 20, 2011
Receiving unsolicited information from anonymous sources cannot be reasonably equated to using spies. Using spies entails an operation that actually manages and supports a spy network. Wikileaks does no such thing.


So does that mean a guy who gets reliable information that there is going to be a bank robbery and instead of calling the cops to stop it all, because he's a "journalist", instead decides to videotape the whole thing for more exciting copy and footage isn't committing a crime? In fact he jumps for glee when a bystander gets shot because he has it on film, and boy oh boy that's juicy shit...

I mean hey he's not supporting a "network" of bank robbers, he's just advancing his career by using the information he gets right?

That's not even an apt analogy because it doesn't go far enough. In order to be guilty of DISCLOSING classified information you don't have to have gathered it...you just have to DISCLOSE it...it's not fing rocket science.

Jan 20, 2011
The fact that you knowingly accept the killing of innocent civilians in order to feel something "funny as hell" is telling more than enough about your mental state.
Frajo will never understand bitter sarcasm. But frajos own mental disconnect is displayed in a single sentence- frajo disregards the 5000+ innocent civilians killed on 9/11, or even one innocent journalist:
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgspDyTxDc

-In order to vent frajos rabid misarchy. In war civilian casualties are unavoidable.

One should place blame where it belongs- on those who made war necessary, on those who use their own families as human shields, on those who value death far more than life. Because their culture makes misery a way of life by their insistance that women do nothing else but make and raise children.

THIS is what makes war inevitable. THIS is what causes aggression against others, out of the desperate need to feed children.

Do you see anything wrong with this reasoning frajo?

Jan 20, 2011
WOW this is the kind of shit that just kills me hehehehe. We get attacked and WE are the bully. WTF did they expect? Turn the other cheek and all that happy horseshit?
If you look at it historically, we have been the bullies. We fought WW1 in their lands, destroying massive amounts of infrastructure. Then we did it again in WW2. Then we started messing around with their government structures so we could ensure who we would be trading with.

We're not blameless in this endeavor, we're not the clear cut aggressors, but we're certainly not blameless.

Jan 20, 2011
SH, that's certainly one opinion, one I've heard before. I can't say I roundly reject it, but there's little there I agree with.

Frajo, weren't you the one saying how people are responsible for the actions of their governments? If you fall back on that idiotic "the Taliban wasn't a government", my obvious answer is they're responsible for THAT state of affairs as well, and for the same reasons.

What's "funny as hell" about the situation isn't the fact that any innocent people get killed anywhere. It's funny as hell that people have the nerve to be surprised by it, and/or bitch about it (like you) after doing what they did, or failing to do what they should have with respect to 9/11.

The fact that you don't see that if we'd done nothing after the WTC that innocent civilians would still be being killed says something unflattering about both YOUR moral state of mind and lack of mental acuity.

You should spend a little more time being critical of religious fascists than democracies.


Jan 20, 2011
I mean hey he's not supporting a "network" of bank robbers, he's just advancing his career by using the information he gets right?
That would be immoral, but not illegal. And at any rate, he can't be accused of robbing banks (the way you've been accusing Assange of espionage.)
In order to be guilty of DISCLOSING classified information you don't have to have gathered it...you just have to DISCLOSE it...
Now that's interesting, because DISCLOSURE in itself is not idempotent with espionage. Nor can you automatically call it treason: to begin with, the very term "treason" only has meaning in reference to people who are under sworn obligation to honor the very authority they've offended. Foreign nationals can't commit treason against a country of which they are not citizens or even residents. For instance, I can't commit treason against the King of Saudi Arabia, because I'm not his subject.

Jan 20, 2011
Why the HELL are we still talking about treason?

That strawman has been shot, stabbed, burnt, hanged, run over, buried, dug up, sodomized, decapitated, and fed to wolves who were starved for six weeks...

DISCLOSING classified information is a CRIME. Try it sometime, PLEASE. See if you get arrested...lemme know how that works out for you.

Jan 20, 2011
Yep, with all the insults flying around, not a single link anywhere to evidence that Assange (1) told Manning to steal the secrets or (2) stole the secrets himself.

Not one. And not one criminal indictment of Assange by the big bad USA Justice Machine so far. And they are the ones who CAN charge him as a spy and/or terrorist. Hell, he hasn't even been abducted by the CIA and spirited away to one of those black houses all over the world.

Jan 20, 2011
Not one. And not one criminal indictment of Assange by the big bad USA Justice Machine so far. And they are the ones who CAN charge him as a spy and/or terrorist. Hell, he hasn't even been abducted by the CIA and spirited away to one of those black houses all over the world.
Not yet but they are just getting started. A fence who receives stolen goods from a thief is also committing a crime. Hopefully assange has much time in custody to think up more congenial ways of getting laid. He is a glorified hacker- a thief and vandal who is the reason you need to spend hundreds of euros on protection software.

Jan 20, 2011
DISCLOSING classified information is a CRIME.
By definition of the nation that claims to be injured. However, other countries aren't bound by the U.S. codex. So the real question is, does it rise to the level of extradition? I think to meet that threshold, the crime has to be very serious indeed, from a UNIVERSAL (i.e. nation-independent) point of view. Stuff like theft, murder, rape, etc.

Simply publishing something that another country didn't want published, isn't in and of itself enough of an offense in any reasonable polity. Otherwise, those Mohamed-caricaturing Danish newspaper cartoonists would've long-since been extradited to Yemen or some other hellhole, for public stoning or beheading or whatever. Not to mention, YOU would have to think twice before posting anything critical of the Chinese Communist Party (lest you be extradited to spend quality time in a Chinese gulag.)

BTW, Wikileaks does scrub the information that it publishes, to reduce potential for harm.

Jan 20, 2011
BTW, Wikileaks does scrub the information that it publishes, to reduce potential for harm.
They DO do they? And how are they possibly qualified to know what can cause harm and what can't? They're releasing domestic corporate info that affects the lives of everyone in a corporation. They have no knowledge or understanding of what they're doing and who they're affecting. Will companies be forced out of business due to contracts rendered void? Will some vital program sink because they out some executive?How would they know?

Jan 20, 2011
BTW, Wikileaks does scrub the information that it publishes, to reduce potential for harm.

They DO do they? And how are they possibly qualified to know what can cause harm and what can't? They're releasing domestic corporate info that affects the lives of everyone in a corporation. They have no knowledge or understanding of what they're doing and who they're affecting. Will companies be forced out of business due to contracts rendered void?


Dirty business is dirty business, and inherently risky, over and above mere moral hazard.
Being able to cover up wrongdoings don't make them right, or defensible.
A real misfortune for any one who loses their job because of ownership's criminality, but it can and should happen, nevertheless.
Why don't we change the law so that former employees can sue for compensation out of the offenders' personal holdings? That would be fair.

Jan 20, 2011
If you look at it historically, we have been the bullies. We fought WW1 in their lands, destroying massive amounts of infrastructure. Then we did it again in WW2. Then we started messing around with their government structures so we could ensure who we would be trading with.

We're not blameless in this endeavor, we're not the clear cut aggressors, but we're certainly not blameless.
Wow. You REALLY need to take a history class.

Jan 21, 2011
Wow. You REALLY need to take a history class.
You're really going to try to dispute this? Look in the mirror next time you say that.

Jan 21, 2011
We fought WW1 in their lands, destroying massive amounts of infrastructure
No. We mostly fought over previously fought over land. Land in France taken by Germans and then churned for years. We were invited by France.
You're really going to try to dispute this?
I just did. You are wrong on WWI. WWII, yes we did destroy a lot of enemy infrastructure. Too effing bad. We interferred with the occupied countries new governments. GOOD the previous sucked and were guilty of crimes against humanity.

Otto
A fence who receives stolen goods from a thief is also committing a crime.
Assange didn't break any laws in the countries he living in. If he broke US laws that is for the courts to decide in the OTHER countries wether he can be sent to the US for trial. In which case Fox and ANYONE else that printed anything from Wikileaks should be tried.

I am ambivalent on this situation BUT I have a problem with some of the alleged logic on both sides of this discussion.

Ethelred