Wikileaks ... Friend or Foe?

EastTexas

COUCH WARRIOR wrote: »

Oh! so you've gone from the word of a snitch. Straight to guilty, fair enough so.

Easy there, fella
Snitch and guilty are your words not mine.
Don’t put them in my mouth

BluePlanet

He's a Friend!

It's USA's responsibility to secure their communications, not Wikileaks.
They are just trying to shoot the messenger.

Pathetic, with a capital P.

EastTexas

BluePlanet wrote: »

He's a Friend!

It's USA's responsibility to secure their communications, not Wikileaks.
They are just trying to shoot the messenger.

Pathetic, with a capital P.

Agreed it’s a huge security breach.
Just takes one guy willing to betray.

According to your argument, if a friend of yours whom you trusted robbed you, it’s your fault?
If that person hacked your sensitive personal information,...it’s your fault
And the party he passed the loot to, is entitled to keep it and do as they wish with it?
Meaning they could use your personal information and mails to put up on line for everybody to read.
And that would be just dandy because, hey he’s just the messenger.

BTW, your friend just got arrested, not for this (yet) but for the Swedish sex kafuffle.

gizmo555

EastTexas wrote: »

Assange is not covered under the first amendment.
He is not a US citizen.
Does not reside in the US, legally or otherwise
And isn’t a member of the US press like the Washington Post.

US constitutional rights apply to everyone, US citizen or not, except where it expressly states otherwise, for example, the rights to vote or hold office. That is long-established precedent in US law.

The First Amendment doesn't make any mention of journalists and reporters having to be US citizens in order to avail of its protection. (It also doesn't list which newspapers you need to be employed by in order to be protected.)

Even if you were correct, what it would amount to would be that a US citizen doing exactly what Assange did couldn't be prosecuted. Does it really make sense that he should be prosecuted for being Australian?

EastTexas wrote: »

Not a member of any press at all but vigilante practicing internet jihad.

That's not an argument, it's just name calling.

EastTexas

gizmo555 wrote: »

US constitutional rights apply to everyone, US citizen or not, except where it expressly states otherwise, for example, the rights to vote or hold office. That is long-established precedent in US law.

The First Amendment doesn't make any mention of journalists and reporters having to be US citizens in order to avail of its protection. (It also doesn't list which newspapers you need to be employed by in order to be protected.)

Even if you were correct, what it would amount to would be that a US citizen doing exactly what Assange did couldn't be prosecuted. Does it really make sense that he should be prosecuted for being Australian?



That's not an argument, it's just name calling.

Come on, seriously?
That can’t be that difficult.

Do you really believe an Australian in Europe has US Constitutional Rights?
BTW, that’s the very reason why he cannot be charged with treason, because he can’t commit it not being a US Citizen.

Name calling?
It’s my opinion.
Got a problem with free speech?
Or is that solely reserved for Mr. Assange?
I am being transparent:)

gizmo555

EastTexas wrote: »

Come on, seriously?
That can’t be that difficult.

Do you really believe an Australian in Europe has US Constitutional Rights?
BTW, that’s the very reason why he cannot be charged with treason, because he can’t commit it not being a US Citizen.

You don't have to take my word for it:

. . . experts on whistleblower leaks and Internet security issues said the Obama administration faces a daunting, perhaps insurmountable, series of legal and practical challenges if it wants to shut down WikiLeaks.

The reason the government hasn’t acted to take down WikiLeaks is it knows, as does every First Amendment scholar, that would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case,” said Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He was referring to the landmark 1971 Supreme Court ruling that rejected the Nixon administration’s attempt to stop The New York Times from printing leaked, high-level military reports on the Vietnam War.

“Under the First Amendment, the legal presumption is strongly in favor of free speech and against prior restraint,” Bankston said. “The government would have the burden of demonstrating serious, really imminent harm and would have to do so for each document it wants to enjoin.”

Assange is in custody right now in the UK. Given the relentless way in which the US pursued the extradition from the UK of Gary McKinnon for hacking into military computers, why would they not also seek Assange's extradition, if there was anything they could credibly charge him with?

Digitaljunkie

gizmo555 wrote: »

why would they not also seek Assange's extradition, if there was anything they could credibly charge him with?

They can't, thats why through their friends in this case Sweden are trying to nail him with every other charge they can, even though the charges were origionally dropped.

firefly08

Do you really believe an Australian in Europe has US Constitutional Rights?

When he's in Europe or Australia, no. But when he's in the US, then yes, he does. gizmo555 is correct, the constitution has to specifically say if it limits certain privileges to citizens.

EastTexas

firefly08 wrote: »

When he's in Europe or Australia, no. But when he's in the US, then yes, he does. gizmo555 is correct, the constitution has to specifically say if it limits certain privileges to citizens.

Of course.
That's what I said in my response to "gizmo555" above

EastTexas wrote: »

Assange is not covered under the first amendment.
He is not a US citizen.
Does not reside in the US, legally or otherwise
And isn’t a member of the US press like the Washington Post.
Not a member of any press at all but vigilante practicing internet jihad.

firefly08

That's what I said in my response to "gizmo555" above

It's not quite the same as what you said. Where is resides has nothing to do with it. What matters is where he is. If he's in Australia, then he's not protected by the US constitution. Neither is a US citizen and US resident who's visiting Australia on holidays. But the flip side is, anyone who is not protected by the constitution, by virtue of not being within US justification, is also not subject to US criminal prosecution for the same reason. In order to be prosecuted or sued in a US court, they must first be physically present in the US - and as soon as that happens, they receive all the protection that the Bill Of Rights has to offer. Theoretically.

nyarlothothep

EastTexas wrote: »

Agreed, but consider that Bush left office with an around 20% approval rating, meaning that he most certainly lost the majority of Republican support.
But this is not a Bush whack thread.
So let’s not digress to old favorites

Claims of Bushwhackery should be dismissed when an admin is criticized in the context of developments which have their causation during the time period when they were in office. Such claims are equivalent to "liberal lefty pinko" rants which answer their own questions rather than trying to achieve any meaningful resolution to topic at hand.

Manic Moran

EastTexas wrote: »

Come on, seriously?
That can’t be that difficult.

Do you really believe an Australian in Europe has US Constitutional Rights?
BTW, that’s the very reason why he cannot be charged with treason, because he can’t commit it not being a US Citizen.

Gizmo is generally correct. However, though the Constitution does make distinctions in places between 'Persons' and 'Citizens', (and the 1st does not have a 'citizen' requirement), there are other cases wherein those rights otherwise available to either USians abroad or Foreigners in the US do not apply. See, for example, Johnson vs Eisentrager, wherein the Supreme Court decided that foreign nationals abroad, even if under US Custody, cannot apply to American courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, basically to apply for the protection of the 4th and 14th Amendments.

That said, the circumstances of Eisentrager are sufficiently different that in Assange's case you have the issue of how he would come under the jurisdiction of an American court to try in the first place. Any way that I can think of that he would find himself in front of a civilian American judge would also result in Assange being in a position where the 1st Amendment will apply to him.

Now, that said, this is where I part ways with Gizmo. As with any Constitutional right, the 1st Amendment is not unlimited, and the bit quoted here is the government's 'out' clause.

“The government would have the burden of demonstrating serious, really imminent harm and would have to do so for each document it wants to enjoin.”

The government has suffered serious harm, the problems the US Diplomatic Service is currently suffering from is evidence of this. The court has to basically balance the freedom of speech with the importance of preventing harm to the US, and this is where the previous case of the Pentagon Papers often relied upon diverges radically from the current Wikileaks issue. The PPs were focused on a specific matter of national public importance at a large scale. The Wikileaks documents are of raw, low-level data, most of which are of no concern to the national public. The Wikileaks position would have been far safer had they confined themselves to simply releasing specific data, evidence of wrongdoing or grand strategy. It would be very hard to argue in a court that the public interest in being able to read about the US diplomat's personal opinion of Berlusconi's partying outweighs the interest that the US Government has in maintaining trusted ties with Italy, for example.

NTM

nyarlothothep

EastTexas wrote: »

Agreed it’s a huge security breach.
Just takes one guy willing to betray.

According to your argument, if a friend of yours whom you trusted robbed you, it’s your fault?
If that person hacked your sensitive personal information,...it’s your fault
And the party he passed the loot to, is entitled to keep it and do as they wish with it?
Meaning they could use your personal information and mails to put up on line for everybody to read.
And that would be just dandy because, hey he’s just the messenger.

BTW, your friend just got arrested, not for this (yet) but for the Swedish sex kafuffle.

If an institution is secretive it can either be corrupt or it needs to conduct business under this veil of silence due to special extenuating circumstances. If you look at the history of US involvement in propping up dictatorships in southern america and the ME ref Saddam Hussein in the 80s, funding for Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the CIA holocaust where an estimated 6 million people have died as a result of their activities, the decimation of Vietnam through chemical warfare, MK Ultra, the documents of which were shredded just prior to a congressional investigation, and these are actions/directives of groups/individuals who work for publicly funded institutions, then does it not stand to reason that they should be exposed. In the case of Watergate would you still apply the same analogy of stealing/robbery to the expose of Nixons corruption? In the case of these cables collecting biometric data without consent on UN officials is violation of their rights. You still haven't answered this question. Shouldn't this be exposed? Surely un-ethical actions cannot be justified in the context of the greater good? Surely we know where that road leads eg mass killings/impoverishment of the proles by the managerial classes in Russia for a promised utopia during the Soviet era?

The problem with analogy, is that when applied to these institutions mentioned or any other for that matter where there is corruption, words like betray and rob lose their ethical meaning/force. Alternatively depending on your perspective Nixon could be argued to have been "betrayed" but in another sense to not follow ones conscious is to *puts on picard hat* betray ones humanity.

But I think the deeper aim of wikileaks isn't just to peddle gossip, even though most of the cables aren't highly illuminating. I think what they're trying to engineer is the genesis for a state of affairs whereby open institutions are rewarded whereas those with something to hide die out through natural selection, given a continuous onslaught of leaks, public hearings, investigations etc. The problem with a veil of secrecy is that it can and does facilitate corruption at some point. Public institutions should be closer in spirit to the populace they're meant to serve. To this end a non heirarchical system where people have direct input into public policy which serves them rather than elites is what wikileaks is attempting to get at in the form of journalistic inquiry.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

The government has suffered serious harm

Very difficult to see how it could argue this in a court of law, when the Defense Secretary is on the record saying it hasn't:

gizmo555 wrote: »

Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

firefly08

there are other cases wherein those rights otherwise available to either USians abroad or Foreigners in the US do not apply. See, for example, Johnson vs Eisentrager, wherein the Supreme Court decided that foreign nationals abroad, even if under US Custody, cannot apply to American courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus, basically to apply for the protection of the 4th and 14th Amendments.

But that case actually doesn't refer to either US citizens abroad or to foreigners in the US. The defendants in that case were in foreigners in US custody abroad, but were never under the jurisdiction of the US civil authorities. I still think if they had been brought to US soil, they would have been protected by said Amendments.

Very difficult to see how it could argue this in a court of law, when the Defense Secretary is on the record saying it hasn't:

The "imminent" part from Manic's quote shouldn't be too difficult, and gets around basically anything the Defense Secretary says beforehand. All they'd have do to is show that there's a threat or likelihood of serious damage.

The Wikileaks position would have been far safer had they confined themselves to simply releasing specific data, evidence of wrongdoing or grand strategy.

Safer, but less credible. If he wants to portray himself as "just the messenger", then picking and choosing what to release could ruin his credibility. It would make it look like he has an agenda. Of course everyone who publishes anything has an agenda, but most people prefer to let on that they don't. Personally I prefer the author or publisher to have one, and state what it is - I find that more credible. But I can see the logic of publishing everything.

Manic Moran

gizmo555 wrote: »

Very difficult to see how it could argue this in a court of law, when the Defense Secretary is on the record saying it hasn't:

I don't believe he ever said any such thing. The closest document I am aware of is one which contains a phrase akin to 'There is no evidence of sensitive sources being harmed as a result of the leaks', which futher down the same document, reaffirms the concerns of harm caused by the leak.

There are two issues with reliance on this statement.
1) The Taliban have not been issueing press releases on their actions, and so far Wikileaks has not published any Taliban internal documents. The fact that the US has not been able to prove any positive action against sensitive sources as a direct result of the leak does not prove that it hasn't happened.

2) Harm to non-sensitive sources are not covered by the sentence. Neither, it is to be pointed out, is US credibility. American ability to obtain new sources will doubtless have been somewhat hampered for fear that if they become a source, the associated document could be leaked, in much the same way that the diplomatic cables have resulted in problems for the US diplomatic corps.

NTM

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe he ever said any such thing.

I was quoting verbatim from a briefing given by Secretary Gates at the Pentagon last Tuesday, Nov 30th, as reported by, for example, Bloomberg, Reuters and as already linked to earlier in this thread, the New York Times.

EastTexas

gizmo555 wrote: »

Even if you're right, and we'll have to agree to differ on that, your argument would still be trumped - at least as far as US law is concerned - by the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

News organizations like the New York Times or the Washington Post have published classified government documents on numerous occasions, long before Wikileaks, long before Assange was even born, and no doubt will continue to do so. And that's how it should be.

Perhaps you’re confusing the US constitution/ amendments with general and international law.
By your logic an Australian in Europe would have 2nd amendment rights (the right to bear firearms).

2nd Julian Assange’s right to free speech is not under fire, but his violation of the privacy of others.
He knew these cables are private and classified.
He also knew they where illegally obtained

That said free speech also has its consequences.
For example: you may use it for libel, but can also be prosecuted for that.
Or if you knowingly distribute proprietary company or government information.
You can’t use it to publish stolen credit card numbers to facilitate identity theft
Crime and intentional harm to others is not protected under free speech.
With freedom comes responsibility.

Recently, there was a case where a group of girls harassed one other girl so viciously, which included text messages and abuse on Facebook (using their free speech) that she ended up committing suicide.
They where charged.
Are they just messengers too, merely exercising their first amendment rights?

Mahatma coat

Question.

Did Hillary Clinton Break any Laws when she Ordered her Staff to Spy on United Nations delegates????????

If so Why isnt she being charged with something??

Manic Moran

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Question.

Did Hillary Clinton Break any Laws when she Ordered her Staff to Spy on United Nations delegates????????

If so Why isnt she being charged with something??

Ask the UN, ICHR or whatever appropriate authority that is which would enforce such a law.

was quoting verbatim from a briefing given by Secretary Gates at the Pentagon last Tuesday,

Fair one.

Then again, it's interesting that this time, it's not his department, and he's being a little less vocal about it. Sounds familiar. In terms of long-term issues, yes, the US's position has been fairly modestly impacted by this particular batch of leaks. The near term effects on the Diplomatic Service, however, are pretty undeniable.

NTM

ebay

EastTexas wrote: »

I did not mind him putting out the video of the helicopter shooting and reprehensible attitude of the soldiers doing the shooting.
That was real whistle blower stuff.


But question Julian Assange’s motives regarding the release of private Diplomatic cables.
In undermining the cohesiveness of foreign relations and embarrassing world leaders there is so much more to be lost then gained.
IMHO it reeks more of anarchy rather then the desire the make the world a better place.

Thoughts opinions?

The web is best! I love it

gizmo555

EastTexas wrote: »

Perhaps you’re confusing the US constitution/ amendments with general and international law.

OK, what "general and international" law has he broken? Furthermore, given that the victim of the crime, if there has been one, is the US government; and given further that we have clearly established that Assange could not be prosecuted in the US for receiving and publishing this information, are you suggesting the US government should seek to have Assange prosecuted under some other country's laws for actions which would not be a crime in its own country?

EastTexas

gizmo555 wrote: »

OK, what "general and international" law has he broken? Furthermore, given that the victim of the crime, if there has been one, is the US government; and given further that we have clearly established that Assange could not be prosecuted in the US for receiving and publishing this information, are you suggesting the US government should seek to have Assange prosecuted under some other country's laws for actions which would not be a crime in its own country?

Your post doesn’t make any sense at all.
I think you are just being combative by willfully misreading my posts to provoke a response.
Talking in circles.

Exile 1798

Mr Assange wrote an Op-ed for The Australian shortly before he was arrested. It's very much worth reading.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

The government has suffered serious harm, the problems the US Diplomatic Service is currently suffering from is evidence of this. The court has to basically balance the freedom of speech with the importance of preventing harm to the US, and this is where the previous case of the Pentagon Papers often relied upon diverges radically from the current Wikileaks issue. The PPs were focused on a specific matter of national public importance at a large scale. The Wikileaks documents are of raw, low-level data, most of which are of no concern to the national public. The Wikileaks position would have been far safer had they confined themselves to simply releasing specific data, evidence of wrongdoing or grand strategy. It would be very hard to argue in a court that the public interest in being able to read about the US diplomat's personal opinion of Berlusconi's partying outweighs the interest that the US Government has in maintaining trusted ties with Italy, for example.

NTM

In actual fact that's what they've done so far. The widespread bombastic press reports about "250 000" diplomatic cables being leaked has obscured the reality that only a tiny and select portion have been released online by Wikileaks. 259 to date. They've been selected in consultation with the NY Times, The Guardian, El Pais and Der Speigal. These organisations have chosen what they judge to be important or newsworthy, and WikiLeaks have released those selected cables on their website as they've been published by the papers. In other words, Wikileaks and these four papers have operated in full collaboration. The idea that Wikileaks should be singled out for retribution is clearly a political, not a legal one. If there is to be a proper legal effort to address these possible crimes, then the papers would have to be brought to account as well. Off course that won't happen.

Exile 1798

steelcityblues wrote: »

My bad on thinking they were associated with Wikipedia - has Jimmy Wales launched any proceedings against that given the obvious name similarities?

As for being a 'nut', how do you think Assange got a hold of all of this info if he really is a thorn in the Western countries side. If anything it is trying to present Iran as 'irrational' for even considering to hold nuclear weapons while US backed states do the same. The US authorities will be losing little sleep over what has been leaked.

I didn't call you a nut, that would probably be against forum rules. Plus I can hardly know that about you. I supposed that you got the information you posted from a nut website as all of it was wrong, much of it spectacularly so.

My recommendation not to rely on nut website's wasn't an attack on you, nor was it idle advice. This is a politics forum, facts matter here. I believe there's a conspiracy board on here somewhere if that's where your interest lies.

Manic Moran

Exile 1798 wrote: »

They've been selected in consultation with the NY Times, The Guardian, El Pais and Der Speigal. These organisations have chosen what they judge to be important or newsworthy, and WikiLeaks have released those selected cables on their website as they've been published by the papers.

A description of Sarkozy chasing his son's bunny rabbit around the office is something important or newsworthy? The World's Population have a pressing need to know about Quadaffi's Ukrainian nurse?

There's a wonderful German word. Quatsch.

and given further that we have clearly established that Assange could not be prosecuted in the US for receiving and publishing this information

No, we have not. All we have established thus far is that no general media organisation has been previously successfully prosecuted for similar activities. That does not preclude the possibility of succesful prosecution against Wikileaks, even before one looks at it as a single-purpose organisation dedicated to illegal activity and not a media organisation.

Certainly the jurisdiction question is the big one, but I am not convinced that it is totally insurmountable. There's always wiggle room in laws, I expect that all those highly-paid lawyers are working on a solution. Current bets are on the espionage laws, but I'm unconvinced that they will be able to guarantee an extradition from a country (say, Ecuador) on that basis. I really am curious to know which way they're going to work on it, it's certainly an interesting problem to wrestle with.

NTM

steelcityblues

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I didn't call you a nut, that would probably be against forum rules. Plus I can hardly know that about you. I supposed that you got the information you posted from a nut website as all of it was wrong, much of it spectacularly so.

My recommendation not to rely on nut website's wasn't an attack on you, nor was it idle advice. This is a politics forum, facts matter here. I believe there's a conspiracy board on here somewhere if that's where your interest lies.[/QUOT

Did you read the website I linked to? It could hardly be described to be on a par with 'Elvis spotted in Hawaii' type of guff. The day you realise that more credible journalists have been pushing uncomfortable truths for years with only a tenth of the profile and notoriety of an obvious agent like Assange will be a liberating one for you.

Keep trusting the likes of CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. who have done nothing for decades to highlight a lot of these uncomfortable truths over others if you want to though!

COUCH WARRIOR

EastTexas wrote: »

Assange accepted stolen property from Bradley Manning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Your words guilt - note you've stated this as a fact

EastTexas wrote: »

Manning already admitted to smuggling/ stealing/ transferring and then forwarding classified information to Wikileaks earlier this year.
There will be due process.

and again

EastTexas wrote: »

That’s how he was caught, more precisely turned in for bragging and having a good laugh about it.

Your words, this can only be referring the Adrian Lamo who alledges that Bradley Manning told him he was the leaker

EastTexas wrote: »

Easy there, fella
Snitch and guilty are your words not mine.
Don’t put them in my mouth

In fairness I'm not putting anything in your mouth, your foot's already there.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

A description of Sarkozy chasing his son's bunny rabbit around the office is something important or newsworthy? The World's Population have a pressing need to know about Quadaffi's Ukrainian nurse?

There's a wonderful German word. Quatsch.

This recalls your unforgettable argument against Healthcare reform: Some people stick fireworks up their arses and I don't want my taxes to pay for their care.

Is there a German word for such silly arguments?

Yes, Sarkozy's rabbit was printed by the papers. Also printed:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties.
► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.
► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.
► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".
► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.
► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

A cable from the American Embassy in Kabul, said that, Ahmad Zia Massoud, Vice President of Afghanistan was found carrying $52 million in cash that he "was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination". The discovery was made in the United Arab Emirates by local authorities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1

And much, much more in this and previous leaks.