WikiLeaks

[Mejane]

What do you think of this website, especially in light of the latest leaks? Should it be protected by the First Amendment even if it endangers our soldiers and possibly our national security? Or do you see it as a vehicle for truth?

 

 

For those not in the know:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333807/WikiLeaks-Unflattering-US-assessment-Cameron-Gordon-Brown-released.html?ITO=1490

[asta]

I think the founder is a narcissistic misogynist on a power trip (snap! one and the same!). I think he is under the misguided notion that he (and he alone) can "restore order to the world" by "exposing corruption" and, I don't know, hopefully toppling governments?

 

Only he doesn't realize that the real world doesn't work that way. The real world makes mistakes, has subterfuge, has war, spies, revolutions... and guess what? Keeps on going. People die from all of it, regardless of jerks like this guy.

 

He'll be another blip on the historical radar who is found dead in a hotel room.

 

I'm a ray of sunshine, aren't I?

 

 

a

[Mom in High Heels]

 

I'm a ray of sunshine, aren't I?

 

 

a

 

Yes, asta, you are, but I {heart} you for it and agree with everything you said. What a moron.

I don't think the first amendment covers knowledge that endangers others.

[RoughCollie]

Should it be protected by the First Amendment even if it endangers our soldiers and possibly our national security?

 

 

NO.

[TN Mama]

Yes, asta, you are, but I {heart} you for it and agree with everything you said. What a moron.

I don't think the first amendment covers knowledge that endangers others.

 

:iagree:

[Audrey]

What do you think of this website, especially in light of the latest leaks? Should it be protected by the First Amendment even if it endangers our soldiers and possibly our national security? Or do you see it as a vehicle for truth?

 

 

For those not in the know:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333807/WikiLeaks-Unflattering-US-assessment-Cameron-Gordon-Brown-released.html?ITO=1490

 

 

I don't have a problem with Wikileaks. I think when governments are doing nefarious things, they should be exposed.

[Melissa in Australia]

I don't have a problem with Wikileaks. I think when governments are doing nefarious things, they should be exposed.

:iagree: But it will be interesting to see how many Americans agree with us.

[Parrothead]

I don't have a problem with Wikileaks. I think when governments are doing nefarious things, they should be exposed.

:iagree:Nefarious things - yes.

 

 

National security issues - no.

[Melissa in Australia]

:iagree:Nefarious things - yes.

 

 

National security issues - no.

 

and what one person's definition of national security is can be very different to another's

[LauraGB]

I think the founder is a narcissistic misogynist on a power trip

 

On one hand, I completely agree. On the other hand, I think this guy (and everyone who contributes to his site) is just plain stupid.

 

National security is way more important than just one guy (or several, regardless) looking for "justice for all". And he's exposing entirely too much information.

 

I do see, however, where the law gets in the way of retribution. And I find that to be a shame.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't have a problem with Wikileaks. I think when governments are doing nefarious things, they should be exposed.

 

I think that much of what was just released will enable regimes that don't tolerate opposition to identify and punish their citizens who dared to discuss topics that are off limits.

 

You don't even have to go into the realm of espionage to find possible examples. In China, lawyers who offered to try cases about contaminated infant formula ended up charged themselves.

 

It wasn't so many years ago that a man advocating for homeschooling in Germany was charged with encouraging a crime (that crime being homeschooling). (I'm not suggesting that Germany will go after individuals named in the released cables. I am pointing out that in the legal systems of other countries you don't have an absolute freedom of speech and that things that are unremarkable in the US - like advocating for a change in a law or telling people how to get around an untolerable law - may land you in jail somewhere else.)

 

I am honestly sick to my stomach just thinking about what info may be in some of these cables. We did a tour at an embassy. We were on the reception and coffee circuit with folks from other embassies. I hope to God that none of the lovely wives I knew ends up a widow because her husband was willing to offer an candid opinion that is later considered unacceptable.

 

I find the lack of outrage in the media about the probable consequences for real families from this release disturbing.

[pqr]

I don't have a problem with Wikileaks. I think when governments are doing nefarious things, they should be exposed.

 

How about when they are not doing "nefarious things" but the information in those reports may still get someone tortured to death.

 

The Afghan who wants his daughter to go to school, and to ensure that she can, tells a Westerner the location of a Taliban informant may now be killed. He could die, and horribly so, because of the deliberate actions of a group whose behavior you "don't have a problem with".

 

Should he really be exposed? Must he die? Do you really think that Wikileaks is on the side of the angels? Do you honestly believe thatWikileaks should make the call? Do you trust them?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

The first cable that came up on NYTimes was about Libya and Qadhafi. True the actual name of the person being referred to is redacted. But there aren't that many people who are in a position to be arranging details of international travel for a head of state. So the person who made the comments, which make Qadhafi sound paranoid, physically weak and obsessive wouldn't be that hard to identify.

 

Think that a person like Qadhafi will take kindly to being made to look foolish?

[In The Great White North]

:iagree:

 

And I find it truly amazing that he actually requested info on who it would out at risk (from the original article)

 

Responding to Assange's letter asking for information of individuals at risk,

 

As if anyone could possibly believe he wouldn't publish that too, thereby painting the bulls-eye on them even more clearly.

[Hannah C.]

IMHO, some of this information could have life-altering or perhaps even life-threatening consequences for people mentioned in these documents, because of their countries of origin.

 

With things like this, I think it really depends on what the documents have in them. If you release, say, documents on the war in Iraq which contain the names of informants, those informants could be put in serious danger. Or if you release documents about Chinese people who have protested something the government has done, they could also be in danger.

 

If you're just releasing information about how the US President and the Prime Minister of the UK don't get along, well, that's different. That probably isn't going to do anything but make them look bad. But it definitely seems to me that some of the information on this site could put people's lives in danger, and that is not okay. This is not an opinion based on the idea of rights or lack thereof though...just on simple "common sense."

 

As for it being protected by the First Amendment or not...well, the man who runs it is not an American, and the servers are located all over the world. So the question may be rather moot.

[Mejane]

I'm sure the NYT and other media are enjoying every minute of this. Bottom-dwelling scum.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Mejane

[Disney Dreaming]

:iagree:Nefarious things - yes.

 

 

National security issues - no.

 

:iagree:

[mcconnellboys]

No, I do not think it should be protected. And I think our government should get much, MUCH tighter on who has the sort of clearance to access documents that might prove problematic if released....

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes, asta, you are, but I {heart} you for it and agree with everything you said. What a moron.

I don't think the first amendment covers knowledge that endangers others.

:iagree: I hope our government finds a way to shut down this site by hacking it:D It is a disgrace to put our service people at risk because of this IMHO.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree:Nefarious things - yes.

 

 

National security issues - no.

 

:iagree:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Whenever I read about this case (or instances of leaks or mistreatment of classified documents like Sandy Berger's), I can't help but think of a naval officer who was a shipmate of dh's when they were both junior officers. This young man (about 23) was the classified materials custodian, which mostly meant that he was responsible for items that contained frequently changed code keys. He was also responsible for the destruction of the same, which I think was through burning.

 

This was about a decade after the Walker spy ring was exposed and tried.

 

This young officer, with the other custodian, went through a periodic destruction of outdated materials, BUT, there was a glitch in the computer program that kept the inventory and a couple items were not marked as destroyed. Go forward several months and there is an impending inspection of the account. The officer realizes that there are items on the inventory that are no longer onboard. He panics and falisifies the records (remember that no actual classified items have left the ship).

 

This is pretty much the end of his career. He left the Navy shortly after, having lost his clearance and any hope of holding another gov't job that required a clearance.

 

But some yahoo who willfully downloads reams of documents (which in the case of the cables he had to go and look for, they weren't just sitting on his desk in a file folder) AND removes them from their secure setting (breaking his oath to follow the requirements of his security clearance on several levels) AND then provides them to someone else with the intent of having them published is treated as if he is some sort of Robin Hood style paragon of justice?

 

And the "journalist" who maintains this website cheefully posts documents without regard to whom will be hurt thereby because the public has a "right" to know. Really. I thought that the public included people like the families of servicemembers who might have an interest in their soldiers and marines being able to act on tips from concerned villagers instead of having to rely on blunt house to house searches or roadblocks. Because shortly folks will know that if they talk to the military, their identity will not be kept confident.

 

We've had threads here about reckless drivers or unpleasant neighbors or co-workers who were lying to the boss. It's not hard to understand the desire to report a concern without having your identity flaunted all over the report in these instances. But if it is happening in the context of international diplomacy there is some theoretical "public right to know"? Really.

 

Oh, and I'm supposed to take the word of a soldier who just willfully downloaded and distributed classified material that it was because of his intense interest in the greater good? Because when he's talking about motivation, then he's being upfront and trustworthy, when he was a deceitful sneak when it came to his oath to protect classfied material.

 

What was the word a few months back? Oh yeah. Depraved.

 

I understand the feeling that the government shouldn't be able to just classify its way out of the consequences of actual wrong doing. But the bulk of what seems to have been released isn't about nefarious deeds hidden behind a cloak of secrecy. It was released because it was titillating, will drive traffic to various sites and will damage the US.

 

When we are less able to achieve a diplomatic solution to the next hot spot outbreak, don't think that it is unrelated to the damage done by this act of espionage.

[Rivka]

He's not an American citizen and his servers aren't located in America. The applicability of the First Amendment is irrelevant here.

[Peela]

 

I understand the feeling that the government shouldn't be able to just classify its way out of the consequences of actual wrong doing. But the bulk of what seems to have been released isn't about nefarious deeds hidden behind a cloak of secrecy. It was released because it was titillating, will drive traffic to various sites and will damage the US.

.

 

I will be interested to see if this is actually true. I am more inclined to feel its a good thing that classified information is released, myself, but I understand your point above too.

I think it is too easy to dismiss others motivations as inferior when we disagree with them. The fact they were in those positions does give them an inside view and they may well be following the call of THEIR conscience to speak up, whatever it costs them or looks like to others. The government they swore alliegance to is not God itself, not the highest truth around...we each have our own conscience to deal with. You may be right..it may be sensationailsm...but it also may not be, and you don't know either, yet.

I feel these are the times, in our present day world situation, that such things are inevitable and possibly important, and I watch the unfolding with curiosity, and dont jump into judgement yet. As I said in another thread...we will only know in retrospect the true effect (if we ever do).

It is happening, whether we like it or not.

[justamouse]

I think the founder is a narcissistic misogynist on a power trip (snap! one and the same!). I think he is under the misguided notion that he (and he alone) can "restore order to the world" by "exposing corruption" and, I don't know, hopefully toppling governments?

 

Only he doesn't realize that the real world doesn't work that way. The real world makes mistakes, has subterfuge, has war, spies, revolutions... and guess what? Keeps on going. People die from all of it, regardless of jerks like this guy.

 

He'll be another blip on the historical radar who is found dead in a hotel room.

 

I'm a ray of sunshine, aren't I?

 

 

a

 

 

We can be rays together. Perchance we could make a full fledged beam?

[lovemyboys]

I think that much of what was just released will enable regimes that don't tolerate opposition to identify and punish their citizens who dared to discuss topics that are off limits.

 

You don't even have to go into the realm of espionage to find possible examples. In China, lawyers who offered to try cases about contaminated infant formula ended up charged themselves.

 

It wasn't so many years ago that a man advocating for homeschooling in Germany was charged with encouraging a crime (that crime being homeschooling). (I'm not suggesting that Germany will go after individuals named in the released cables. I am pointing out that in the legal systems of other countries you don't have an absolute freedom of speech and that things that are unremarkable in the US - like advocating for a change in a law or telling people how to get around an untolerable law - may land you in jail somewhere else.)

 

I am honestly sick to my stomach just thinking about what info may be in some of these cables. We did a tour at an embassy. We were on the reception and coffee circuit with folks from other embassies. I hope to God that none of the lovely wives I knew ends up a widow because her husband was willing to offer an candid opinion that is later considered unacceptable.

 

I find the lack of outrage in the media about the probable consequences for real families from this release disturbing.

 

:iagree:

 

That's just it. We assume that what we know of governments is the way it is in other countries. "We" sitting in safety have little idea what it's like to be on the wrong side of things under some of these regimes.

 

Look no further than at the evil the Iranian students have been subjected to just for marching in the streets and protesting the government. If you read any blogs during that time or saw video, the suffering that went on is horrendous and heartbreaking. Have you ever heard what happened to the Iraqi national soccer team when they lost while Saddam Hussein was in power?

 

If that's how they treat students and athletes, how much more so for lawyers, business people, teachers, political opponents?

[Suzanne in ABQ]

It is dangerous.

[VeritasLogos]

Give Julian Assuage the Congressional Medal of Honor.

[Mrs Mungo]

Assange responded by saying Wikileaks tells its sources it “will try to get the maximum political impact for the material that they give to us.”

 

Straight from the horse's mouth. It's not about truth or justice. It is about global politics and (one logically presumes) anti-Americanism. Eta: Also, his information cannot be trusted since he admits to heavily editing it. The editing choices he has made reveal his true intentions.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Sebastian (a lady)]

He's not an American citizen and his servers aren't located in America. The applicability of the First Amendment is irrelevant here.

 

You are right that WikiLeaks isn't in the US. However, the NY Times and some of the other media who are republishing the documents that WL has provided them are and are counting on the shield of a free press.

 

Also Americans tend to assume that everyone has a freedom of speech, even when they don't have that right codified in their country's laws. So the debate in the US about the publishing of the information does have a lot to do with our understanding of the limits of free and responsible speech (does the publishing of this info rise to the public danger level demonstrated by yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre).

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't think that the military servicemember supposed to have provided this information had any special insight to the recently leaked documents. He certainly did not serve at each of the embassies involved in the leaked diplomatic cables.

 

He did evidently have access to the classified system on which he could access the documents. He was not in a position to make an informed decision about the possible or probable impact of leaking this information.

 

I guess a good analogy would be someone at the IRS who had access to people's tax returns and chose to leak the returns of everyone who had received government money (welfare, gov't employee, worked for companies that got bailouts). Or someone who worked at the section at the state department who had access to passport applications deciding to release all of the application info for everyone running for a public office.

 

The people potentially hurt aren't just hypotheticals. They are people I shared meals with. People I laughed with and shared sorrows with. Or people like them that were in contact with Americans in other countries.

 

The people who leaked this info are oath breakers.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are right that WikiLeaks isn't in the US. However, the NY Times and some of the other media who are republishing the documents that WL has provided them are and are counting on the shield of a free press.

 

Americans tend to assume that everyone has a freedom of speech, even when they don't have that right codified in their country's laws. So the debate in the US about the publishing of the information does have a lot to do with our understanding of the limits of free and responsible speech

 

I agree. The US understanding of these rights is that they are inalienable-they are not given by the government, they are protected as basic human rights.

[Mom in High Heels]

We can be rays together. Perchance we could make a full fledged beam?

 

If the 3 of us joined together we could create and entire ball of sunshine!

 

Honestly, anything released that could get someone killed or tortured is inexcusable. What is the point in releasing this stuff? For some traffic and media hype? Great, hope this idiot gets everything he deserves.

 

 

The people potentially hurt aren't just hypotheticals. They are people I shared meals with. People I laughed with and shared sorrows with. Or people like them that were in contact with Americans in other countries.

 

The people who leaked this info are oath breakers.

 

Exactly this! James Bond is not a hypothetical to me. Neither are our friends and neighbors. They are real people.

[asta]

Give Julian Assuage the Congressional Medal of Honor.

 

He's not an American citizen.

 

Idiot.

 

 

asta

[FaithManor]

Free Speech 1st amendment rights protect the individual from government apprisal for speaking their opinion including questioning/criticizing their government. However, that right also comes with responsibilities. None of us have a right to shoot off our "mouths" in a manner which then places the life of another in jeopardy. Leaking state secrets puts military and civilian law enforcement lives on the line and the potential for others to die is very high. Everyone loves to talk about their rights but all rights come with responsibility or those rights end up infringing on the rights of others.

 

That's why treason is very clearly defined in the constitution so that there is no 1st amendment protection for treason. Otherwise we'd have mass chaos in our national security and many, many, many deaths because of it. If those involved in the leaks are not American, they could then potentially be labeled enemies of the state and the U.S. has some rights to attempt to capture them. If they are U.S. citizens, our country can prosecute and punish if any of the leaks meet the treason test. Treason being a capitol crime, this means the possibility of the death penalty though many cases end in life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

 

The interesting question is if the wikileaks perpetrators are not US citizens yet anything they've leaked has jeopardized NATO intelligence operations, then what will our NATO allies have to say about it? Anyone of them could choose to prosecute for treason within their own borders if they feel that this jeopardizes their NATO position, violates the treaty, or puts their own citizens in peril.

 

It will be interesting to watch it all play out. I am no fan of the government attempting to restrict the citizen's first amendment rights but I think this may be outside the bounds of 1st amendment protection and has either inadvertently or possibly knowingly dropped into enemy of the state/enemy of NATO territory.

 

Personally, the founder strikes me as a sociopath that enjoys feeding off chaos. He craves power and in some sick way, thinks that by making these leaks, he gains power. Of course it could be worse, he could be payed off by some nut-job dictator (thinking North Korea or Iran here but there are others as well), who have a vested interest in destabilizing the US and her allies.

 

Faith

Edited November 29, 2010 by FaithManor

[In The Great White North]

The US understanding of these rights is that they are inalienable-they are not given by the government, they are protected as basic human rights

 

"Inalienable" only applies to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (from the Declaration.)

 

The First Amendment restricts Congress:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

It is in the Bill of Rights, right above the right to not have to submit to unreasonable searches, which has practically eliminated by the DHS. Freedom of Speech is no more guaranteed.

[Mrs Mungo]

Free Speech 1st amendment rights protect the individual from government apprisal for speaking their opinion including questioning/criticizing their government. However, that right also comes with responsibilities. None of us have a right to shoot off our "mouths" in a manner which then places the life of another in jeopardy. Leaking state secrets puts military and civilian law enforcement lives on the line and the potential for others to die is very high. Everyone loves to talk about their rights but all rights come with responsibility or those rights end up infringing on the rights of others.

 

That's why treason is very clearly defined in the constitution so that there is no 1st amendment protection for treason. Otherwise we'd have mass chaos in our national security and many, many, many deaths because of it. If those involved in the leaks are not American, they could then potentially be labeled enemies of the state and the U.S. has some rights to attempt to capture them. If they are U.S. citizens, our country can prosecute and punish if any of the leaks meet the treason test. Treason being a capitol crime, this means the possibility of the death penalty though many cases end in life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

 

The interesting question is if the wikileaks perpetrators are not US citizens yet anything they've leaked has jeopardized NATO intelligence operations, then what will our NATO allies have to say about it? Anyone of them could choose to prosecute for treason within their own borders if they feel that this jeopardizes their NATO position, violates the treaty, or puts their own citizens in peril.

 

It will be interesting to watch it all play out. I am no fan of the government attempting to restrict the citizen's first amendment rights but I think this may be outside the bounds of 1st amendment protection and has either inadvertently or possibly knowingly dropped into enemy of the state/enemy of NATO territory.

 

Personally, the founder strikes me as a sociopath that enjoys feeding off chaos. He craves power and in some sick way, thinks that by making these leaks, he gains power. Of course it could be worse, he could be payed off by some nut-job dictator (thinking North Korea or Iran here but there are others as well), who have a vested interest in destabilizing the US and her allies.

 

Faith

 

Faith, I completely agree. My point was that the US understanding of "rights" does not stop at our borders. I did not say that I believe this sort of activity was covered under freedom of speech.

[mcconnellboys]

:lol::lol::lol:

[Heather in WI]

As for it being protected by the First Amendment or not...well, the man who runs it is not an American, and the servers are located all over the world. So the question may be rather moot.

 

 

What about Amazon.com acting as a server?

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/29/wikileaks-using-amazon-servers-after-attack/

[Paige]

I think the wikileaks people are straight up murderers. They know what the consequences of their actions are and willfully do not care. They are in effect paying for the torture and murders of innocent people with information rather than cash.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

What about Amazon.com acting as a server?

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/29/wikileaks-using-amazon-servers-after-attack/

 

Now I'm going to have to decide if I keep using Amazon. Grr.

 

Good thing I'm going back to the US, so I'll have alternate ways of getting books.

[asta]

Well, Assange has screwed himself. You don't p!ss off the Russians.

 

Idiot.

 

(I seem to be using that word a lot lately)

 

 

a

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Well, Assange has screwed himself. You don't p!ss off the Russians.

 

Idiot.

 

(I seem to be using that word a lot lately)

 

 

a

 

Given the tendency for muckraking Russian reporters to end up shot dead in their apartment building lobbey, it seems like a bad idea to bait this particular bear.

[Heather in WI]

Given the tendency for muckraking Russian reporters to end up shot dead in their apartment building lobby, it seems like a bad idea to bait this particular bear.

 

:iagree:

[Heather in WI]

 

Amazon dumps WikiLeaks

 

 

 

Amazon.com Inc. forced WikiLeaks to stop using the U.S. company's computers to distribute embarrassing State Department communications and other documents, WikiLeaks said Wednesday.

 

 

 

The ouster came after congressional staff had questioned Amazon about its relationship with WikiLeaks, said Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut.

 

 

 

WikiLeaks confirmed it hours after The Associated Press reported that Amazon's servers had stopped hosting WikiLeaks' site. The site was unavailable for several hours before it moved back to its previous Swedish host, Bahnhof.

 

 

 

w00t!

[alpidarkomama]

I'm aghast. There's a pretty good article about it here that pretty much sums up the traditional Jewish point of view:

 

http://www.aish.com/ci/s/WikiLeaks.html