Wikileaks is an enemy of the United States

[marksman]

Alan I think I see where the confusion is.

The Act says it is illegal ... "if he publishes it or willfully retains it when the government has demanded its return" You're wondering what the "or" modifies.

You're reading it as it being illegal if he either 1) publishes it, or 2) willfully retains it when the government asks for it back.

I think the statute is intended to read that it is illegal is you 1) either publish it or willfully retain it, 2) when the government asks for it back.

deepatrax seems to be saying that the government asked Wikileaks not to publish it and they did. That would be illegal under either interpretation.

He also seems to be saying that the government did not ask any media outlet to forebear form publishing it after Wikileaks released it. That would mean the media outlets are not liable under the second interpretation, but conceivably would be under the first.

Am I making this clear or am I just muddling it further?

(I have no idea what the law states, by the way. The second interpretation just seems to be the more reasonable of the two.)

 

[deepatrax]

Alan I think I see where the confusion is.

The Act says it is illegal ... "if he publishes it or willfully retains it when the government has demanded its return" You're wondering what the "or" modifies.

You're reading it as it being illegal if he either 1) publishes it, or 2) willfully retains it when the government asks for it back.

I think the statute is intended to read that it is illegal is you 1) either publish it or willfully retain it, 2) when the government asks for it back.

deepatrax seems to be saying that the government asked Wikileaks not to publish it and they did. That would be illegal under either interpretation.

He also seems to be saying that the government did not ask any media outlet to forebear form publishing it after Wikileaks released it. That would mean the media outlets are not liable under the second interpretation, but conceivably would be under the first.

Am I making this clear or am I just muddling it further?

(I have no idea what the law states, by the way. The second interpretation just seems to be the more reasonable of the two.)

yes, marksman that is what I was meaning to say...you clarified it better. I wasn't trying to not answer Alan, it's just that I didn't understand what his question was...it didn't make any sense to me.

In fact, most if not all news organizations aren't publishing the story as "secret Government documents say x, y, z", but instead they're saying, "secret Government documents MADE PUBLIC BY WIKILEAKS say x, y, z"

There is a legal distinction here.

 

[Wildy]

He is facilitating this effort and he is NOT a journalist.

So what would make him a journalist?

 

[Alan]

That is helpful, marksman. Thank you.

 

[Oliver]

Yes, we all know Assange wants the downfall of America.

"Instead, he is trying to strangle the links that make the conspiracy possible, to expose the necessary porousness of the American state’s conspiratorial network in hopes that the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller."

In other words, he wants America to be dumber, slower and smaller to defend itself against its enemies. He wants America to be unable to react, organize and gather its intelligence, and to act on its threats. This is clear.

No matter how you try to put it, or to intellectualize it, he wants to disrupt the function of the US gorvernment, to make it vulnerable.

No news here.

You do realize that the "Wikileaks Network" is a group of people and that they published quite a lot of government and corprorate secrets from all around the globe. Yet you make up a story that it's all about Assange and all about the US.

Seriously, where do you get your facts on issues like this from? ... Lieberman ... Palin ... Both???

 

[Oliver]

Now this might be interesting for our friends at the alternative reality corner:

Assange in todays Guardian interview:

achanth
Mr Assange,
have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?

Julian Assange:
Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules.
1) that the documents not be self-authored;
2) that they be original.
However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

 

[Oliver]

Concerning the OP I have a question:

What if the informant who gave the Cable-data to Wikileaks had forwarded the information directly to those media outlets like Spiegel, New York Times, Le Monde, the Guardian etc.?

Would those Media Outlets also be "an enemy to the US" or is it just easy to attack Wikileaks for not being a traditional Media Outlet? ... Given the fact that Spiegel, Guardian and Co. are publishing the sensitive data as well.

 

[Seismosaurus]

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.

Rush saying, "Obama is a Socialist!" isn't putting any lives at risk.

Does this work both ways? If a US citizen leaks documents that show, oh, say North Korea in a bad light, is the North Korean government justified in murdering said citizen as an enemy of the state?

 

[Oliver]

Does this work both ways? If a US citizen leaks documents that show, oh, say North Korea in a bad light, is the North Korean government justified in murdering said citizen as an enemy of the state?

No, no if the bad guys would call for an assassination, that would be a no-go for the American sense of justice and freedom of about -uh- everything.

In other news: Claims that lives are at risk are propaganda out of self-defense gullible people actually buy ...

 

[Arcade22]

they are an enemy of the USA.

I guess that would make anyone in favor of freedom, decency, openness and truth an enemy of The United States of America.

 

[stokes234]

Apologies if this has already come up, but I just read this: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/71l2t1

Is this true? Is Assange genuinely wanted by interpol for cheating?

 

[deepatrax]

So what would make him a journalist?

working for an accredited news organization.

doing actual reporting, etc

not roaming the globe trying to avoid rape charges while he looks for servers to post classified documents which contain NON-ILLEGAL information he has no rights to.

 

[deepatrax]

I guess that would make anyone in favor of freedom, decency, openness and truth an enemy of The United States of America.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif[/qimg]

Julian Assange is fighting for openess??

He's not being too open about the two women who are accusing him of rape...no, he's storming out of interviews whenever the subject comes up.

btw, nobody without security clearance has the right to know about the secret NON-ILLEGAL communications between the State Dept. and other countries.

 

[lionking]

Julian Assange is fighting for openess??

He's not being too open about the two women who are accusing him of rape...no, he's storming out of interviews whenever the subject comes up.

And what does this have to do with the OP?

 

[deepatrax]

And what does this have to do with the OP?

Julian Assange created Wikileaks...

his current legal status seems relevant to me.

 

[lionking]

Julian Assange created Wikileaks...

his current legal status seems relevant to me.

So his alleged (and very far from proven) offenses in Sweden has something to do with Wikileaks being an enemy of the US? Interesting.

 

[deepatrax]

So his alleged (and very far from proven) offenses in Sweden has something to do with Wikileaks being an enemy of the US? Interesting.

yes, it does.

Julian Assange, who I've already agreed is an enemy of the U.S. in response #1 to the OP in this thread (did you even read this entire thread??), is now wanted by Interpol and there are 2 women who are alleging he raped them.

He seems quite adamant about openness when it comes to secret US documents obtained ILLEGALLY...but he's not so open when it comes to questions about the rape allegations.

 

[Wildy]

working for an accredited news organization.

doing actual reporting, etc

The Center for Investigative Journalism considers Assange to be a journalist. Alex Massie says that he's a journalist. Amnesty International considers him a journalist.

Assange himself said here:

I coauthored my first nonfiction book by the time I was 25. I have been involved in nonfiction documentaries, newspapers, TV and internet since that time. However, it is not necessary to debate whether I am a journalist, or how our people mysteriously are alleged to cease to be journalists when they start writing for our organisaiton. Although I still write, research and investigate my role is primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists.

not roaming the globe

Apparently he's currently in the UK.

trying to avoid rape charges

Allegations, not charges.

while he looks for servers to post classified documents which contain NON-ILLEGAL information he has no rights to.

It appears that he's already found servers.

Incidentally why does it matter if the classified documents contain non-illegal information or not? As far as I understand it if the classified documents contained illegal information he still wouldn't have had any right to them.

He seems quite adamant about openness when it comes to secret US documents obtained ILLEGALLY...but he's not so open when it comes to questions about the rape allegations.

He has already stated that he didn't rape them. What more do you expect from him?

 

[Toke]

This whole fuzz reminds me of the irregular verb from "Red Tape"

I am giving confidential briefings.
You are leaking.
He is charged for breaking laws on state secrets.

Wikileaks were fine as long as it were other peoples informations that came out.
Now when it is America, people are (literally) screaming bloody murder.

 

[lionking]

Wikileaks were fine as long as it were other peoples informations that came out.
Now when it is America, people are (literally) screaming bloody murder.

Yup, hypocrisy is a strong theme in this thread.