KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

You're a ******* idiot, do you seriously not think that printing documents with informants name sin them is a bad thing?

Quite frankly, no, at least not if this is the capacity in which we find out. there is protection out there for "whistle blowers" that utilize the proper channels to reveal illegal/immoral operations. This is not a situation where that was the purpose, the ******** motive was to hurt the US Government, US Military, and Coalition forces in any way that he could, when are you going to get THAT through YOUR head?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

-sigh- No, no that's not the case. And I'm telling you this when I've read most of what they've published KP.

This is being blown out of proportion, and politicians are trying to save their asses. Wikileaks has actual damaging material on their hands, they haven't published it. What they HAVE published gives our politicians a black eye, but even our politicians admit no one has been harmed by it - unless you consider politicians being proved as liars harm.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

this has not really been blown out of proportion. if anything, it's been downplayed.


what have you learned from these leaked state department cables? the same ones any person with a clearance can read everyday?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

(Edit) Nice ninja edit Brain. As for what you said: No, it HAS been blown out of proportion. The Pentagon Papers were far, far more damaging than anything Wikileaks has done. You didn't see the same reaction back then.

That our politicians are gossipy SOBs that belong back in high school and need their asses kicked?

KPLAFIN

iTrader: (1)

Why don't you gun run for office somewhere, you seem to have the mental capacity of the average congressman, you'll fit right in.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Re-quoted, as this is kind of a key point that I think bears repeating.

We will, for the moment, handwave over the issue of Assange's citizenship and just pretend that he lives and works in the US.

Wikileaks isn't "the press".

The Press consists of organizations that go out and do actual newsgathering. They analyze information, conduct interviews, present editorial commentary, and in general, they create content.

Now, you might be able to make an argument that some of the various members of the global community of Bloggers & Co. (including websites such as the so-called Huffington Post), collectively, constitute a sort of micro-press. While they don't typically expend resources to do original newsgathering, they do provide analysis and commentary, and act as a sort of aggregator and filter. It's sort of a fine-line, of course. At some point, this line of reasoning could be applied to claim that every fool with a printer (or in a slightly older time, a photocopier) can be "the press" just by handing out leaflets espoucing his or her point of view. (Basically, the Mel Gibson character from "Conspiracy Theory")


Wikileaks, by comparison, is nothing more than a drop-box. Assange isn't gathering news, he's not analyzing facts, he's not providing any added-value whatsoever. All he's done is create a service which encourages others to steal information (whether it be corporate trade secrets or government documents) and provides a safe and anonymous mechanism for them to distribute this information.

Wikileaks is Napster.

turotufas

iTrader: (7)

Blaen, you are acting in contravention of our objectives. You are now classified as an enemy of the state, a crime punishable by death.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

Unrelated to the topic, but just ran across this.

Back to topic:

Joe, I disagree. Wikileaks has journalistic intentions. People are trying to twist and manipulate things so as to narrowly define Wikileaks into a specific category so they can fulfill a political agenda.

This is bad for our country. People accuse Wikileaks of targetting the US - it has already been covered they do NOT focus on the US, nor do they publish with the intent of causing the US harm. People throw similar wild accusations across the board, without knowing what they are talking about and solely to serve a political purpose.

This is not a good thing. Go read the Wikileaks documents, Joe. You'll come over to my side quickly. Why?

Because there's nothing in there other than our politicians being ******* high school *****.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Because it was an American Patriot who risked his career and jail time to inform the public about the current administrations wrong doings. There's a big difference.

It's not about the damage. The ends do not justify the means.



and FWIW, The courts really didn't "state quite clearly, that it is not illegal to publish leaks." The ruling was that the gov't failed to meet the burden of proof required for the restraint injunction placed on the papers publishing the documents.

The Gov't used a section out of the Espionage Act for their injunction. Nothing in the pentagon papers were proved to be "...relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

So they lost the case.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You are forgetting that in our county, it is assumed legal unless proven illegal (Simplified, more to it, blah blah blah).

The only established court precedent on this is that it is legal to publish classified information if you are not the leaker.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yeah, but you're allowed to ask for an injunction, they did and failed.

unlike the "immigration" bill in AZ which had their injunction upheld.

what's your point?

JasonC SBB

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_795014.html

Oh great, you didn't click, it was a transcript of a speech Ron Paul delivered:

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

My point is this:

Why has our government not pursued real legal means against Assange and Wikileaks, but instead has been involved in political skullduggery, FUD, and generally doing anything but pursuing this in a way one would if laws were broken and if what Assange is being accused of is true, other methods that they would have available to them?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

because they are the gov't and they are here to help you!

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

No, they absolutely did NOT say that.


What the court said was that, in the specific instance of the Pentagon Papers case, the government failed to demonstrate that its need for secrecy was superior to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, and that the requirements for Prior Restraint were therefore unfulfilled.

In other words, the court specifically and deliberately allowed for the possibility that in some other instances, the need for secrecy might outweigh the interest of the press.



I've said this a number of times in this thread, and I'm going to say it again because it's clear that some folks aren't getting it: Not everything in life is Black or White, True or False, Legal or Illegal, For Us or Against Us.

There are many shades of grey.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

im glad you said shade and not color. black is a shade. white is a value.


is that racist?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Damnit Brain. Quit with the ninja-editing :P

But seriously, Assange is in custody. Do you really think we couldn't get the UK to extradite him to the US if we had a case? If Assange had actually done anything wrong? If he actually published anything damaging (And by damaging, I mean NOT embarassing politicians)?

Okay, I'll grant you that. To some extent, I overstate it.

However, again. Go read the Wikileaks releases if you want proof. There's just...nothing in there that is damaging to us beyond embarrassing politicians. Politicians we should be demanding resign, at that. They are desperately squirming for their careers right now, and trying to distract people.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

No, I won't. You seem to presume that I'm acting under the assumption that the documents in this specific case contain some incredibly important military secrets, or that releasing them will cause irreparable harm to our nation. I'm not making that assumption at all, mostly because I admit that I don't know what information might ultimately be damaging and what information might not be.

I'm simply stating the fact that, by my interpretations of US Law:

1: It is not always "OK" to publish classified documents, without restriction, just because someone other than you did the initial theft.

and

2: Wikileaks is acting in a criminal capacity.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

And again, the actual contents of the documents are not relevant.

Folks are trying to argue that Assange is not a criminal because the particular classified information that his website facilitated the release of wasn't particularly damaging. And that's just not the case.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I can't. I have a clearance that's not high enough to allow access to this level of classified documents. I risk losing it if I do, let alone talk about the classified information within the cables.


I understand your point, but you are discounting mine and Joe's. If you read most of my posts, or my signature, you should be able to feel out my viewpoint on gov't very easily.