Wikileaks

[Happy Face 29]

Has Bradley Manning had fair treatment?

[Happy Face 29]

cruel, inhuman and degrading

[ewerk 27120]

Nothing leaked has shown to have caused any intelligence related harm to anyone working in the services or otherwise. Not sure why you are worried bout the non juicy stuff that was leaked.

 

Okay then, no harm done. Go on about your business.

 

Did Assange know that these documents would cause no harm? Had he analysed all 251,000 cables? Was he in a position to decide what was and what wasn't capable of causing harm and what was of genuine national security?

 

You're basically saying that anyone should be free to release classified information as long as they feel it's okay to do so?

[Happy Face 29]

Okay then, no harm done. Go on about your business.

 

Did Assange know that these documents would cause no harm? Had he analysed all 251,000 cables? Was he in a position to decide what was and what wasn't capable of causing harm and what was of genuine national security?

 

You're basically saying that anyone should be free to release classified information as long as they feel it's okay to do so?

 

No, I'm saying anyone leaking classified information should be put on trial for doing so. That includes Manning, the President and Panetta. They should have the right to justify themselves in court and be judged accordingly. Unfortunately the US don't have a system of justice that works like that at the moment, in the US if you're a nobody you're jailed indefinitley without charge, tortured, pronounced guilty by the president or killed. If you're in government or high ranking in the military, nothing is done.

 

Assange has leaked nothing, he's only revelaed the details that were leaked to him. As many Newspaper editors have done for decades without retribution.

[ewerk 27120]

Has Bradley Manning had fair treatment?

 

Of course there appears to have been serious issues with the way he has been detained but that doesn't affect the issue of whether what he has done is 'right or wrong'.

[ewerk 27120]

No, I'm saying anyone leaking classified information should be put on trial for doing so. That includes Manning, the President and Panetta. They should have the right to justify themselves in court and be judged accordingly. Unfortunately the US don't have a system of justice that works like that at the moment, in the US if you're a nobody you're jailed indefinitley without charge, tortured, pronounced guilty by the president or killed. If you're in government or high ranking in the military, nothing is done.

 

Assange has leaked nothing, he's only revelaed the details that were leaked to him. As many Newspaper editors have done for decades without retribution.

 

If you're the Commander in Chief then yeah, you get a little leeway.

 

And as previously stated, the US aren't looking to charge Assange with simply leaking, I believe they want to prove that he encourage and helped facilitate the theft of classified information.

[Happy Face 29]

Okay then, no harm done. Go on about your business.

 

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,"

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell

 

"I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought,"

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates

[Happy Face 29]

Of course there appears to have been serious issues with the way he has been detained but that doesn't affect the issue of whether what he has done is 'right or wrong'.

 

That's reason enough to grant asylum though, no? If we're pretty sure that Assange will suffer cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment at the hands of a foreign power, before he even gets charged with anything.

[ewerk 27120]

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,"

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell

 

"I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought,"

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates

 

So the US should go on ignoring these alleged crimes until one or more of their people are killed as a result?

[ewerk 27120]

That's reason enough to grant asylum though, no? If we're pretty sure that Assange will suffer cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment at the hands of a foreign power, before he even gets charged with anything.

 

Should all countries then halt all extraditions to the US?

[Happy Face 29]

If you're the Commander in Chief then yeah, you get a little leeway.

 

I don't think you do. The idea of America was to move away from a monarchy, all men were created equally and are judged by the same laws.

 

And as previously stated, the US aren't looking to charge Assange with simply leaking, I believe they want to prove that he encourage and helped facilitate the theft of classified information.

 

Claiming that WikiLeaks does not merely receive and publish classified information, but rather actively seeks it and helps the leakers, is the DOJ’s attempt to distinguish it from “traditional” journalism. In theory this would mean “the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times.”

 

 

But this distinction is totally illusory. Very rarely do investigative journalists merely act as passive recipients of classified information; secret government programs aren’t typically reported because leaks just suddenly show up one day in the email box of a passive reporter. Journalists virtually always take affirmative steps to encourage its dissemination. They try to cajole leakers to turn over documents to verify their claims and consent to their publication. They call other sources to obtain confirmation and elaboration in the form of further leaks and documents. Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau described how they granted anonymity to “nearly a dozen current and former officials” to induce them to reveal information about Bush’s NSA eavesdropping program. Dana Priest contacted numerous ”U.S. and foreign officials” to reveal the details of the CIA’s “black site” program. Both stories won Pulitzer Prizes and entailed numerous, active steps to cajole sources to reveal classified information for publication.

 

http://www.salon.com/2010/12/16/wikileaks_21/singleton/

[Happy Face 29]

Should all countries then halt all extraditions to the US?

 

Maybe try to restrict to people accused of a crime.

[Happy Face 29]

So the US should go on ignoring these alleged crimes until one or more of their people are killed as a result?

 

The crimes are the thousands of citizens already killed by airstrikes revealed in the leak. To argue we have to imprison the men who shine a light on that, in order to avoid the zero deaths so far, years down the line or the potential deaths that result from the imaginary national security risk is to accept doublethink in the most extreme.

[ewerk 27120]

Are you saying that Wikileaks and The New York Times should be treated the same? They shouldn't. Wikileaks is an information portal that offers no editorial comment on the items that it publishes. It also made no effort to distinguish between the information that was in the genuine public interest and that which was not. The NYT would not have chosen to publish 99% of what Wikileaks did as it has a journalistic responsibility.

 

Wikileaks appears to now exist merely as an enemy of all government secrecy rather than as a champion against government corruption and wrongdoing. We haven't seen the US government go after responsible journalists and I hope we never do. What Assange did was irresponsible and he put most of the information out there because he could rather than because of any reasonable belief that it was something that the public needed to know.

[ewerk 27120]

The crimes are the thousands of citizens already killed by airstrikes revealed in the leak. To argue we have to imprison the men who shine a light on that, in order to avoid the zero deaths so far, years down the line or the potential deaths that result from the imaginary national security risk is to accept doublethink in the most extreme.

 

The issue here is not the airstrikes, nor is it the leaks that revealed wrongdoing of the US Army and government. The crime is the irresponsible way in which Assange acquired and released massive amounts of information that should not have been in the public domain.

[Happy Face 29]

From the Obama White house transition agenda on whistleblowing. "Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled,"

 

 

Obama has brought more prosecutions against whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than any previous president and all presidents combined.

[ewerk 27120]

Were those acts of whistleblowing genuinely patriotic? How many of them were thrown out by the courts?

[Happy Face 29]

Are you saying that Wikileaks and The New York Times should be treated the same? They shouldn't. Wikileaks is an information portal that offers no editorial comment on the items that it publishes. It also made no effort to distinguish between the information that was in the genuine public interest and that which was not. The NYT would not have chosen to publish 99% of what Wikileaks did as it has a journalistic responsibility.

 

Wikileaks appears to now exist merely as an enemy of all government secrecy rather than as a champion against government corruption and wrongdoing. We haven't seen the US government go after responsible journalists and I hope we never do. What Assange did was irresponsible and he put most of the information out there because he could rather than because of any reasonable belief that it was something that the public needed to know.

 

Wikileaks is no different and would like to work with the US government in redacting sensitive information not in the public interest. However, the US government views the NYT more favourably and refuses to work with Wikileaks to that end. It is the US government that is therefore responsible for any information getting out there that they deem irresponsible.

 

See the linked letter from the Department of Defense to Wikileaks which says as much.

 

http://openanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/gc-letter.pdf

 

This is NOT restricted to Assange and Manning by the way. See the stat provided above. Look at the cases of John Kiriakou and Tom Drake. Shamai Liebowitz, Jeffrey Sterling and James Risen from a cursory google search.

[Happy Face 29]

The issue here is not the airstrikes, nor is it the leaks that revealed wrongdoing of the US Army and government. The crime is the irresponsible way in which Assange acquired and released massive amounts of information that should not have been in the public domain.

 

So no act of investigative journalism that reveals classified secrets can be justified on the basis of what is revealed, even if the source tries to do it responsibly and the government refuses to help limit the release of sensitive information not in the public interest?

[ewerk 27120]

If the story is in the public interest then that's fine. Assange and his colleagues released a massive amount of information not in the public interest in an irresponsible way.

[Happy Face 29]

If the story is in the public interest then that's fine. Assange and his colleagues released a massive amount of information not in the public interest in an irresponsible way.

 

Ignoring the wealth of information that clearly was in the public interest. I'm interested to hear what was irresponsible about releasing the remaining 'noise' deemed not to have been in the public interest. Can you point to anything specific that the defense secretary of the US and the Pentagon spokesman couldn't, that would justify that accusation?

[ewerk 27120]

Had Wikileaks analysed the 251,000 cables to see whether there was anything that would endanger lives? Even if they did, were they in a position to make that judgement? That is what was irresponsible about it.

[Happy Face 29]

Had Wikileaks analysed the 251,000 cables to see whether there was anything that would endanger lives? Even if they did, were they in a position to make that judgement? That is what was irresponsible about it.

 

So what should they have done with the information? Given that the US government refused to cooperate with redactions? Just sit on it?

 

They seem to have made the perfect decision, given that there has been no evidence to the contrary at all.

[Happy Face 29]

....I go back to the double speak.....to take just one fact revealed, that the US were concealing 15,000 known civilian deaths. Should taht be kept secret in order to avoid single digit threats that may or may not arise? That so far, have not, and not looking likely.

 

The fact that the US formal policy was to ignore reports of rape, torture, murder etc by Iraqi forces....that was best kept concealed to avoid anyone coming to harm? What about the victims of rape and tortureand murder going ignored?

[ewerk 27120]

So what should they have done with the information? Given that the US government refused to cooperate with redactions? Just sit on it?

 

They seem to have made the perfect decision, given that there has been no evidence to the contrary at all.

 

They should've taken the time to release relevant information as originally planned, instead they put the whole thing online as a deterrent to the US government not to come after them. It was a selfish and irresponsible act.