Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[NWO Sentryman]

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.

Oh, please, For ****'s Sake. Dr Fascism, how many times have many on this forum spoken against Operation TELIC/Iraqi Freedom?

How many were critical of the Bush Administration? Indeed, much criticism (although some veer on bds, as in thirdworldtraveler "ZOMg! Naomi Wolf said Bush will replace the American flag with a Swastika!") can be found on this forum.

And would we be fine with it if Cameron/Obama decided to create a fascist state? hell no.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

He's entirely right about the degree of authoritarianism, though.

 

[marksman]

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

Most countries will respect the secrecy laws of its allies so that its allies will in turn respect their secrecy laws. The authorities in Australia, for instance, are investigating whether Wikileaks has violated Australian law by releasing American confidential documents.

I doubt that such a prosecution would be defeated by reference to freedom of speech rights. Freedom of speech generally does not cover the right to reveal government documents protected by secrecy laws. Now, perhaps a defense could be made that some of the documents show a cover-up of some crime (I don't know if that's true, but it may be). But it cannot be doubted that most of the documents Wikileaks produced are not evidence of a criminal cover-up. And for each of those documents, I see no defense... assuming Australia actually will prosecute someone for violating American secrecy laws (which is probable).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Most countries will respect the secrecy laws of its allies so that its allies will in turn respect their secrecy laws.

Last I checked, Wikileaks wasn't a country, and has never entered into any treaty or convention.

While most countries might have their own laws protecting state secrets of other countries, it still doesn't follow that the U.S. has jurisdiction over everyone on the planet.

And it certainly doesn't mean someone who publishes these documents is automatically an enemy of the U.S. and deserving of summary execution. (FWIW, summary executions are illegal everywhere by international law.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it is naive, at least, to think that governments are not entitled to some secrecy when engaging in diplomacy.

Has anyone argued that position?

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 [sic] 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.

Yep--that's the point I've been making. Just leaking secret documents doesn't make you automatically an enemy of the U.S. (or even necessarily a criminal). In some cases, as you point out, one might be morally and legally obliged to expose secret documents.

FWIW, the U.S. has at least some whistle-blower protection laws. It's not a nice uniform bit of legislation, though, but a complicated hodge-podge.

Probably pertinent here is the Military Whistleblower Protection Act which prohibits any restriction (or retaliation) for any member of the armed services to communicate with a member of Congress, even if that communication is copied to others. So the guy who did the leaks would have been wise to send a copy of everything he gave to Asange to a Congressperson.

 

[Leif Roar]

assuming Australia actually will prosecute someone for violating American secrecy laws (which is probable).

No, that is absolutely unthinkable. No country on (or off) earth will prosecute another country's laws. It goes against the very concept of jurisdiction.

What might be the case, though, is that releasing the leaked messages might somehow have violated one or more existing Australian laws, although that does seem like a long shot. Unless something actually comes off it and charges are raised, I would consider this political rattling of pans and pots to make some noise.

 

[Toontown]

Yeah. The whole thing is very odd.

I don't like Assange, but I'm afraid he'll hack me if I say anything against him. Perhaps maintaining an internet connection is no longer worth the risk. If not now, I'm sure the unacceptable risk threshold will be passed soon.

I will venture to say this, at the risk of my C drive:

The entire concept of rummaging around in other peoples' private communications and then exchanging them for embellished paper which can in turn be exchanged for goods and services, is odd. Except on an ape planet. And even on an ape planet, the practice is sufficiently odd to raise some eyebrows.

This whole thread is odd.

Many of the posters in the thread are odd.

I am odd.

The universe is odd. Especially the butt-ape part.

The list of oddities could go on.

 

[Big Les]

I'm interested in US military opinion of my county's efforts (as flagged up by the press as being one of the aspects "revealed" by this leak), but none of those details have yet been released.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I don't like Assange, but I'm afraid he'll hack me if I say anything against him. Perhaps maintaining an internet connection is no longer worth the risk. If not now, I'm sure the unacceptable risk threshold will be passed soon.

I will venture to say this, at the risk of my C drive:

The entire concept of rummaging around in other peoples' private communications and then exchanging them for embellished paper which can in turn be exchanged for goods and services, is odd. Except on an ape planet. And even on an ape planet, the practice is sufficiently odd to raise some eyebrows.

This whole thread is odd.

Many of the posters in the thread are odd.

I am odd.

The universe is odd. Especially the butt-ape part.

The list of oddities could go on.

You're misconstruing what I meant by "odd." I meant odd as in "suspicious." I have trouble believing a story ran by the unofficial PR agent of an egomaniacal, neurotic hacker which says that this same hacker was confessed to by a complete stranger on a chat room. It's very doubt-worthy, but it's all we have to go on at this point.

Also, should be noted that, despite your best efforts to characterize as such, Wikileaks does not engage in investigating or attempted infiltration of the organizations which own the documents it leaks to the public. It acts as a third party so that whistleblowers can more successfully avoid the consequences one would imagine go with being a whistleblower.

 

[Toontown]

Also, should be noted that, despite your best efforts to characterize as such, Wikileaks does not engage in investigating or attempted infiltration of the organizations which own the documents it leaks to the public. It acts as a third party so that whistleblowers can more successfully avoid the consequences one would imagine go with being a whistleblower.

Which is an oddity in itself.

Every day, in every way, the butt-apes keep getting odder and odder.

 

[hgc]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if China had its best minds working out the problem of putting N. Korea out of existence without a) millions of refugees streaming across their mutual border, b) a commerce-disrupting war on the peninsula, and c) losing face.

 

[WildCat]

Most countries will respect the secrecy laws of its allies so that its allies will in turn respect their secrecy laws. The authorities in Australia, for instance, are investigating whether Wikileaks has violated Australian law by releasing American confidential documents.

I doubt that such a prosecution would be defeated by reference to freedom of speech rights. Freedom of speech generally does not cover the right to reveal government documents protected by secrecy laws. Now, perhaps a defense could be made that some of the documents show a cover-up of some crime (I don't know if that's true, but it may be). But it cannot be doubted that most of the documents Wikileaks produced are not evidence of a criminal cover-up. And for each of those documents, I see no defense... assuming Australia actually will prosecute someone for violating American secrecy laws (which is probable).

I doubt America could prosecute Assange under American law... so how could Australia do it under American law?

 

[lomiller]

I doubt America could prosecute Assange under American law... so how could Australia do it under American law?

I’m not sure about Australia, but if a document has a NATO top secret classification (AKA cosmic top secret :lol: ) releasing it could well violate the laws in multiple countries regardless of whose document it was.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Which is an oddity in itself.

Every day, in every way, the butt-apes keep getting odder and odder.

Please don't troll me. I can't take being trolled. Years of therapy...all from one troll...I'm already breathing fast...

 

[Toontown]

I thought I was living under a rock, but the surprise some of you have expressed at the, uh, "revelations" revealed by these diplomatic communications suggests that many of you may be living deep under the ground my rock is sitting on.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Last I checked, Wikileaks wasn't a country, and has never entered into any treaty or convention.

While most countries might have their own laws protecting state secrets of other countries, it still doesn't follow that the U.S. has jurisdiction over everyone on the planet.

And it certainly doesn't mean someone who publishes these documents is automatically an enemy of the U.S. and deserving of summary execution. (FWIW, summary executions are illegal everywhere by international law.)

I agree that no one involved should be executed. However, Assange is an Australian citizen and, as such, subject to the same treaties and conventions. He would be prosecuted under Aussie law and should be, IMO.

 

[Leif Roar]

I’m not sure about Australia, but if a document has a NATO top secret classification (AKA cosmic top secret :lol: )

None of the documents in question are above SECRET.

 

[Toontown]

I wouldn't be surprised if China had its best minds working out the problem of putting N. Korea out of existence without a) millions of refugees streaming across their mutual border, b) a commerce-disrupting war on the peninsula, and c) losing face.

China would actually gain face by shooting it's rabid dog. The rabid dog is a deep embarrassment.

time to get down to it
mad dogs are dragging us down
should have got tough long ago

what if you knew Chuckie
and saw saw him holding a Taepodong
how can you run when you know

tin soldiers and Chuckie's coming
we're finally on our own
this morning I heard the drumming
Chuckie's got him a Taepodong-on

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The mind boggles at using that song as a reference point to create a decidedly hawkish parody.

 

[Region Rat]

The mind boggles at using that song as a reference point to create a decidedly hawkish parody.

I kind of thought the same thing.