Thread: Is Wikileaks culpable?

I have to admit that some of the things are interesting to hear, but the leak is still treasonous, and the distribution is still espionage.

I'm stuck between a little and a lot. As I see it, the existence of Wikileaks is an open request for classified information with the intent that it will lead to accessing that information. That's enough for an espionage charge in my book.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

I'm not a fan of the guy, but then again, I sort of am. The guy had an idea to shake up the world, and he gave the world a venue to help out. He is literally risking his life to play this game. We'll see if he makes it out alive from his next incarceration. He might not.

It is not his information. He is just distributing it. I have two thoughts on this matter:

1.) Get the people providing the info and prosecute them if applicable.

2.) If it's serious information and needs to be stopped - stop it. Might have to have him killed.

Thoughts?

On 1):

Absolutely, with the exception of legitimate 'whistleblower' leakage of concealed crimes and official misconduct, etc. That's where leakers and sites like WikiLeaks prove invaluable. IMO, however, Pfc Bradley Manning went well beyond that into simply downloading everything he could for malicious and voyeuristic purposes IMO and dumping them online with WikiLeaks. That guy needs to be tattooed with a long prison sentence for having illegally procured and leaked all that information that went beyond 'whistleblowing' stuff.

On 2):

IMO, WikiLeaks would go much further and have much more sympathy if it exercised discretion in what is presented to them and published only such material that is legitimately helpful and fair for the public to have and is more or less being wrongfully withheld from the public. If Assange's overall purpose is to sow trouble and embarrass people, be voyeuristic where there is a reasonable expectation that he should show respect for privacy for good personal and public purposes, that's another matter. IMO, he crossed the line with much of the material he leaked and that is what got him into trouble.

Seems like with this small sample, the consensus is espionage at a minimum, which is interesting since he ostensibly has no specific client and no specific target!

This is only the beginning. Wikileaks are going to pop up all over the internet, and that's why you're seeing UN crackdown on the internet. It's going to be an interesting 5 years.

Wikileaks is just a scapegoat, a patsy in all of this.

You can't charge a foreigner for releasing information that they did not themselves steal. You can't even charge a US citizen for releasing information they did not steal.

Wikileaks was not the only publisher of this information; it was released in co-operation with about 20 other news outlets, none of whom have been charged.

Bradley Manning must have his day in court, but as for Wikileaks and Julian Assange there is nothing in terms of the law that says even independent journalists can't report information they receive.

Wikileaks is a consequence that the powers that be must simply face when they operate in secret or hide the truth from the public. If a country rushes into a war based on misinformation and lies, than sooner or later it will face the truth.

Wikileaks now lives forever as long as there is corruption in the upper echelons of power among governments and industry. Wikileaks is now an idea, a movement for truth, and no longer just an organization.

Any culpability on these kinds of matters goes back to the individuals who leak the information. And in this particular case, US intelligence outfits and the military bear some responsibility for letting a 20 yr-old have access to that kind of information.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

On 2):

IMO, WikiLeaks would go much further and have much more sympathy if it exercised discretion in what is presented to them and published only such material that is legitimately helpful and fair for the public to have and is more or less being wrongfully withheld from the public. If Assange's overall purpose is to sow trouble and embarrass people, be voyeuristic where there is a reasonable expectation that he should show respect for privacy for good personal and public purposes, that's another matter. IMO, he crossed the line with much of the material he leaked and that is what got him into trouble.

He wouldn't be much different than the federal government in that case, which is supposed to release information that doesn't pertain to current or future national security (but usually doesn't).

I think its more appropriate to release pretty much the bulk of what he released while redacting names which he did for a while.

I think the latest release was problematic because of the names of so many countries, leaders, and diplomats along with their inner workings.

Originally Posted by Commodore

I have to admit that some of the things are interesting to hear, but the leak is still treasonous, and the distribution is still espionage.

Can you prove this assertion? There's already been a precedent set that proves he is in fact innocent. My guess, no one will admit to that.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...6I7PEw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...XVoEXQ&cad=rja

I'm going to go with O'sullivan as well. It's taken a lot of pondering but I feel Assange is doing something very noble only he took it a half a step too far. Telling the world that Yemen lied to their people and didn't conduct their own anti-terror raids basically puts that government in danger of being overthrown and replaced by an extremist government and then everyone becomes less safe. I think that was the worst leak of them all. Stuff about atrocities in Iraq should be public knowledge. Anything he has on corporate America should be as well.

Commodore, et al,

While I understand the feeling, I don't believe that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange are technically chargeable with either Treason (under the Constitution, or Espionage under Title 18.

Originally Posted by Commodore

I have to admit that some of the things are interesting to hear, but the leak is still treasonous, and the distribution is still espionage.

(COMMENT)

When this started, it appears (although not proven) PFC Bradley Manning, who was the inside the government source.

Any activity within the government, that deals with secrecy, takes a risk when they grant access to someone. Out of the hundreds of thousands of people who currently have a SECRET Clearance, which is the highest level of material released, if you have a 99.999% success rate in your personnel security program, that .001 means that at least 100 people (out of a 100 thousand) will make an unauthorized disclosure of some magnitude. In the old days, before computers and massive storage devices, networked systems, and rapid transfer processes, that meant only a few documents would be compromised. Today, in a matter of moments, hundreds of documents; continuously over a period of time --- thousands of documents.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are not the real problem. I would not want to be on the Counterintelligence Investigation that is charged with the prosecution. It will be a loser, even if they get a conviction at some level. Because that is not the problem. The problem is the identification and vetting of the people we trust with the nations SECRET. And SECRET material (the disclosure of which would cause grave damage) is not even very sensitive information if you live in that environment. There are compartmented programs that are so sensitive, that mentioning the name is SECRET in itself; even the Non-Disclosure Agreement only mentions them by their approved short-title or initials.

The government must take the compliant position, that is, the person with access must not make a disclosure to persons not authorized to receive that level of information. BUT, there are much broader questions that this massive dump of information rises to the surface. If those issues are not solved, tomorrow, we will face the exact same risk that we face today, with little or no improvement is personnel security.

No, I understand your feeling; but, if your thought is to better protect our nation tomorrow, your are focusing on the wrong target.

By the way, I hope that you know that Congress has been informed that WikiLeaks is directly involved with redacting the information they received to minimize and mitigate the disclosures. And you should also know that the US Government had declined to participate. Again, the Government is only concerned about the Compliance Oriented piece, and not the actual protection of the content or mitigating the damage.

Our government must learn from the 20th Century, but also begin to think along 21st Century lines.

Most Respectfully,
R

What needs to be done is that guy should be tortured to death to make an example out of him and the video of his grisly demise should be released on the web in order to discourage similar behaviour by others.


And for those who might whine about human rights or whatever....Well... two words... fuck you.

That is the reason our constitution grants the chief executive the power to pardon whoever tortures that motherfucker to death.

And then go after the NYT and other obvious traitors.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

What needs to be done is that guy should be tortured to death to make an example out of him and the video of his grisly demise should be released on the web in order to discourage similar behaviour by others.

And for those who might whine about human rights or whatever....Well... two words... fuck you.

That is the reason our constitution grants the chief executive the power to pardon whoever tortures that motherfucker to death.

And then go after the NYT and other obvious traitors.

Buy me dinner first.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

What needs to be done is that guy should be tortured to death to make an example out of him and the video of his grisly demise should be released on the web in order to discourage similar behaviour by others.
.

You mean just like the Islamist terrorists you're fighting do ? Good to see you clinging to the moral high ground there.