• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks poll

What do you think of wikileaks?

  • Total voters
    135
xkcd:
wikileaks.png
 
For those who don't think Wikileaks gets First Amendment protection, how do they distinguish it from, for example, the NY Times publishing the same information?
 
deepatrax said:
no, no, no...the Pro-Wikileaks people here aren't arguing that there should be no Govt. secrets....they're merely arguing that it should be Julian Assange who should have final say as to what remains secret and what gets published.

is that so hard to accomodate?

Run everything by Assange and if he gives his approval, it can be classified, if not, he gets to publish it!
Click to expand...

Not quite.

At Nuremburg we established the principle that even the people are in part responsible for the crimes of their government. We actually have a duty to act.

It doesn't mean only Assange has this authority, as you have cast it. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the guy who gained access to the documents and turned them over to Assange is the one who made the decision in this case.


ETA: However, if you're going to allege that Wikileaks published leaked documents resulting in danger to someone because of improper redacting of sensitive information, the burden is on you to prove it. Saying that this position means that I am saying only Assange should have the authority to decide what should or should not be published isn't reasonable.
 
Last edited:
To the poll producer: not terrorists, anarchists, or more correctly, anarchist wannabes.

Julian Asshinge isn't that much of a problem, but a soldier named Manning, and some pretty sloppy internal processes for handling classified information, are two actual problems that my nation's government, at the least, need to address. Simply foaming at the mouth about Asshinge does nothing. Given how some of the leaks came about, that vulnerability was well known as far back as 2003, probably farther back than that, when I was still on active duty. Obviously, internal controls were not up to the challenge that was thoroughly briefed and disseminated up and down the chain of command.

Not sure how other executive branch secretaries approached and dealt with the vulnerability and its mitigation, but I do see how DoD didn't quite get it right.

I am far more concerned about the damage done to the cross national trust and diplomatic protocols than most other things that have come to light ... Walker's leaks didn't sink us, it just hurt for a while.

Note: Asshinge didn't leak the info, others leaked it to him.

THAT's where a few problems' solution sets needs to be put into place.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
The people they are supposed to be serving, the people who elect them and who pay their wages.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the Government should release all their secrsts so that the general public can decide what they shouldn't have released? How is that supposed to work?
 
deepatrax said:
This is a key part of the Pentagon Papers incident and the subsequent legal case:

"The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case"
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's appropriate to post here the following stirring words, written by Justice Black in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case:

“I believe that every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. . .Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country. . .The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. . .In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do. . .The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.”
 
The SPIEGEL opinion piece posted by Oliver ends like this, and i think it's very true:

SPIEGEL said:
If the state derives its democratic authority from citizens having comprehensive information, then providing information becomes a civic duty. And breach of secrecy becomes a mark of the quality of a democracy.
Click to expand...


If those relatively trivial documents are able to cause such a scandal, something is wrong with the system.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The SPIEGEL opinion piece posted by Oliver ends like this, and i think it's very true:

If those relatively trivial documents are able to cause such a scandal, something is wrong with the system.
Click to expand...


The really interesting aspect of that whole story and the US Governments reaction to those "trivial" cables is that there seems to be very intriguing information withing those cables that didn't see the light of the day yet. Otherwise it does not make any sense that they're so upset about the cables while the Iraq Diaries should've been a much more embarrassing and dangerous thing for the Government and Intelligence involved.

And out of irony:
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
The really interesting aspect of that whole story and the US Governments reaction to those "trivial" cables is that there seems to be very intriguing information withing those cables that didn't see the light of the day yet. Otherwise it does not make any sense that they're so upset about the cables while the Iraq Diaries should've been a much more embarrassing and dangerous thing for the Government and Intelligence involved.
Click to expand...


The reaction fits within the usual "u don't respect my authority" Cartman pattern. Regardless of the content. Assume that the action is at least two steps ahead. I have a big grin on my face right now, after rethinking this from a social engineering perspective. They are hacking the system. For the good of all of us.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The reaction fits within the usual "u don't respect my authority" Cartman pattern. Regardless of the content. Assume that the action is at least two steps ahead. I have a big grin on my face right now, after rethinking this from a social engineering perspective. They are hacking the system. For the good of all of us.
Click to expand...


Mhmm, I don't remember the same amount of outcries from the US after the Iraq diaries and the collateral murder video. Sure, there was a pile of condemnation, but it's on another lever now, especially concerning the intimidation of Government employees and students.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
For those who don't think Wikileaks gets First Amendment protection, how do they distinguish it from, for example, the NY Times publishing the same information?
Click to expand...

Sure...sure...Julian Assange gets U.S. First Amendment Protection...BUT...because he's not American, we can't prosecute him under U.S. law...arrggghhh!!!

funny how that works..

Assange, you're a slippery one...you got us again!

btw, there is a distiction here

Assange:
- was asked by the Govt. not to publish the material beforehand
- did it anyway
- was asked by the Govt. to remove it after
- ignored the request

NYT:
- was NOT asked by the Govt. not to publish the material beforehand
- when they did publish it, they did so with the caveat "Wikileaks published leaked documents which say x,y,z"

At which point in this saga did the STOLEN secret Fed. Govt. documents become not stolen material anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom