Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[Skeptic Guy]

The question of course is who actually undermined the US Government. Was it the government official who said or did something bad, believing nobody would find out? Or was it the person who exposed him?

On a related note, who undermined the Catholic Church? Was it the priest who took sexual advantage of a young boy? The bishop who covered it up for him? Or the victim's brother who three decades later exposed it all?

If the US government starts murdering its officials who were responsible for the actions that now embarrass it, that would certainly cut down on the deficit by reducing government-salaries.

From what I can read of the more recent release of the diplomatic cables, no one did anything wrong. Diplomats, in the course of doing their job, came across information that would probably be of benefit to their government. They also proposed ideas that might have or might not have been adopted by their government. The fact is that governments do have the right to secrets and in the world of diplomacy secrets are necessary to formulate a unified foreign policy. It is unconscionable that these secret cables were released to the world undermining the US government's work in a very sensitive area of the world.

Assange is not in it to release data that uncovers wrong-doing, but rather just releasing secret information in a scatter-shot manner in hopes of embarrassing the US government and its allies. I don't know where he got his vendetta but it needs to end.

The Australian government is investigating him for numerous criminal offenses and I can only hope they prosecute.

If he was a journalist and was provided with a "smoking gun" like the Watergate information, he might be providing a beneficial solution, but he's not. He's merely a clearing house for state secrets.

What if the leaks show that the politicians didn't act in the best interest of the American people, but rather the reverse? Wouldn't you have liked to know? Or are elected politicians allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they're able to keep it secret? If they classify the information about it, does that mean they don't have to be held accountable? Sounds insane to me.

This does not seem to be the case in this instance.

 

[fuelair]

What does your question suggest?

I wasn't "suggesting" anything. I was commenting on the coincidence. I quipped that Roadtoad should seek a security clearance to satisfy his thirst for classified knowledge, and he just happened to have had one.

Don't worry your pretty little head about it. I'll take his word for it. A low level security clearance is not that rare. It is not a claim that requires proof. It doesn't violate Occam's razor.

I would have gotten one myself, but I was too honest. I admitted that I had once smoked pot when asked.

Interesting. I had a Black Security badge in the Army when I worked at Ft. Detrick Md. It was what let you go into the "secret" parts behind the big security fence to work on things like SEB/SEA (if you don't know I will only say the first word is Staph). Once carried enough of it across the post through the gate to the monkey lab to have poisoned half of DC had I done anything naughty. My point, I have no way to prove that - no paperwork to me, never took a picture during that time (of me with badge on), gave me the badge in late'68 or very early '69 and took it back when I headed to 'Nam in March. Hard to prove an old security clearance.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The flag represents nationalism.

I figured that, but at the same time there are plenty of New Zealanders I'd rather see under a bus than any US Soldier (yes I'm looking at you Keith Locke) or even a few Australians. If a guy is a prick, it doesn't mean that you have to support him due to having the unfortunate luck to be born in the same country.

 

[Wildy]

You're assuming that I think Assange is a prick though.

 

[3point14]

Probably because those specific job prospects are probably not merit based, but social connection based. Lots of idiots have great social connections.

Is this demonstrably true? I mean, I believe it, but is it true?

If so, why do we stand for it?

[/derail]

 

[anduin]

When a non-American puts U.S. lives at risk in an action that isn't sanctioned by the U.S. government, yes that's eligible for murder. As a last resort...if he can't be reasoned with.

Assange is an enemy of the U.S.

So, can China murder any non-Chinese who they think endangers the security of the PRC?

 

[3point14]

This is another thread that makes it really difficult to throw off my 'Americans are a bit bloodthirsty' prejudice.

 

[jakesteele]

A meeting could go many different ways...one possibility goes something like this:

"Mr. Assange, my name is John Doe and I have some very important U.S. documents you might be interested in, let's talk over coffee"

Assange and John Doe have coffee.

Two days later, after repeated efforts by the hotel staff to get any response from Assange in his hotel room, they enter to find him deceased. Autopsy results reveal nothing.

Nothing? It's usually ruled as a suicide which takes his friends and family completely by surprise because he was in really good spirits the day before and was about to blow the lid off of a huge govt. conspiracy.

 

[jakesteele]

So people think he should just be murdered for publishing documents? So, undermining the US Government using nothing but information is a capital crime? Can we also execute Rush, Beck, Hannity, Murdoch, and Palin too?

Just checking who's eligible for this kind of murder, and who isn't? I'm new to this.

Hey, you're supposed to be an equal opportunity offender. Don't forget Rachel Maddox and Keith Oberlin, etc.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Most of it wasn't new.

I liked all the characterisations of world leaders.
Angela Merckel shows strong leadership but is not creative.
Putin is an alpha male.
Belusconi is is a corrupt horn-dog who does nothing for Italy
Etc.

All of it more predictable than Bono's opinion on world affairs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think so. He was arrested in May. Facing court marshal in the new year.

Court martial, that is.

Having perused a lot of the "big" stories from the leak, I must agree that there wasn't much that wasn't already known or assumed by those who've been paying attention. I was kind of astounded at how uncontroversial most of it was.

Isn't that why they held this group for the last? They released the bigger stories in the first two rounds. The reason it took so long is that they needed time for the news outlets to go through them all.

Remember, this is the 3rd batch of documents to be published.

 

[anduin]

And another question. Why do the people claiming that Wikileaks endangers American servicemen and diplomat's lives have yet to produce a single example of how this is so? I'm just asking for one example.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And another question. Why do the people claiming that Wikileaks endangers American servicemen and diplomat's lives have yet to produce a single example of how this is so? I'm just asking for one example.

Yep. And the first two batches of leaked documents--the ones that have been out much longer--were the ones more likely to have done that, yet nothing came of it.

I think it's because Wikileaks, along with the news outlets that helped check the documents, did a good job of removing names of people who might be endangered.

It sounds like the strongest arguments against the leaks has been that it's politically embarrassing to a lot of different parties. That's certainly not grounds for summary executions!

 

[Beerina]

Apparently China would be fine with a unified Korea, run by the south. That is surprising.

 

[Region Rat]

Apparently China would be fine with a unified Korea, run by the south. That is surprising.

I don't know, I'm not really all that surprised. China's fighting a PR battle to show that they can be a viable partner to the western world. They did a good job with the Olympics. To have the NK tick on their back doesn't help their cause very much. I think they'd be glad to get rid of it without taking any direct, overt action against it.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

And another question. Why do the people claiming that Wikileaks endangers American servicemen and diplomat's lives have yet to produce a single example of how this is so? I'm just asking for one example.

Because there's a strong nationalistic tendency in some of the skeptics here, both liberal and conservatives alike, and that disobeying authority is inherently evil and in some ways, harmful. And the government claims this is harmful, so naturally, they parrot out this claim not just because they believe in it but because it's also thus linked to their ideology.

In essence, there's a faith in the government authority as it currently exists here, partly due to the fact that they want a perfectly running system that shields certain facts from the poles in order to run more efficiently, partly so they have something that will be able to outlaw homeopathy, psychic pretenders, and other con artists--and still be able to look up to it.

Psychologically speaking, they are not very far off at all from those that are actual dyed-in-the-wool fascists that believe in strict adherence to order and the edicts passed down upon to us by authority. Many here believe that justice is Rule of Law, and only partially based on Rightness of Action.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

It sounds like the strongest arguments against the leaks has been that it's politically embarrassing to a lot of different parties. That's certainly not grounds for summary executions!

It is if you're an authoritarian that believes that authority figures, those higher-up in the hierarchy, are to be revered and obeyed. And you'd be surprised how strong this element is within skeptical circles.

 

[marksman]

I agree that "summary executions" is ridiculous hyperbole. The people who leaked the documents to Wikileaks are probably in violation of some secrecy law and should be prosecuted, not killed. If there is a defense on the grounds that the secrecy laws were being used to cover up a crime (and I'm guessing they probably do allow such a defense) let the defense be raise din court. I imagine that if the defense does not hold up, such people will be facing many years in a federal penitentiary.

If Wikileaks founder is in violation of Aussie law, he should be prosecuted. He should not be killed by America (or anybody else).

I think it is naive, at least, to think that governments are not entitled to some secrecy when engaging in diplomacy. We want diplomats to be able to opine openly about the character of government officials in other governments (including our allies). We don't want those diplomats to have to hold their tongue because the embarrassing if banal opinion they report might be released to the public while those officials are still alive. Diplomacy is often about massaging egos and revealing State Department assessments of Merkel, Berlusconi, Putin, and others, no matter how humorous they might be, can be damaging.

Who decides? I think courts should decide. If a government official comes across a classified document that he believes evidence a crime, and he believes it's classification as a secret was done to cover up the crime, he has a choice. On the one hand, he can respect the classification, avoid prosecution, but then be complicit in the cover-up of the crime (and possibly be prosecuted for that if his involvement with the cover-up is subsequently revealed from other sources). On the other hand, he can ignore the classification, reveal the cover-up, and face prosecution. If he was wrong about there being a criminal cover-up, he pays the consequence. If he's right, he should have a defense to the crime of breaching secrecy laws.

Does this seem like a Catch-22? A little bit, yes. I think that's the price you pay when you have been entrusted with security clearance by a democratic government -- it's not just an obligation to keep secrets, but an obligation to reveal them when appropriate as well. But I think this properly balances the need for governments to keep state secrets for legitimate reasons against the need for the public to be made aware of the government using secrecy laws to conceal criminal activities.

 

[JihadJane]

Great posts, Doctor!

 

[Matt78]

That's simply not true. The U.S. doesn't have the legal or moral right to kill anyone who they think puts U.S. lives at risk.

It should also be pointed out that the responsibility for preventing such leaks in the first place lies with those in charge of the information, e.g., U.S. government employees. Once the information is leaked beyond U.S. borders due to their incompetence, they have no right to interfere with whatever freedoms of speech and the press exist in other countries just to draw attention away from their screwups (well, they can try to do something about it, but that could be an act of war, unless they somehow get the other country to limit its freedoms of speech and the press in these cases via negotiations).