Wikileaks to release more info

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The Wikileaks, IMHO, are damaging to U.S./foreign relations in the sense that certain ambassadors/diplomats may refrain from being so candid with us in the future due to fear of a leak. That could end up having disastrous consequences. It also makes the U.S. look negligent in securing classified info.

As far as I know, none of the information was actually Classified - that may be purely semantic, or may be important, but I have no idea which (and I'm not at all qualified to say).

Regardless, I see what you're saying - on the other hand, the leaks actually did happen, so it's sort of the tail wagging the dog on some level ... if the leaks make it look like there is the possibility of leaks, well ...

Other than that, Wikileaks seem to be all show, no go. I also fail to see how any of the released documents "help" Americans or foreign nationals. More people Seem to be enchanted with the fact Assange leaked the docs, not necessarily with the content itself. Where's the good stuff at? The documents that talk about how rising cancer rates in the 20th century were linked to the polio vaccine, or the CIA cable giving the order to kill JFK or MLK JR?

This is a really good point, and kind of what I'm getting at.

A more-open US military/gov't/etc. really removes the power from future dickfaces dealing in leaked information, especially stupid minutiae or "startling" revelations like citizen deaths in a bombing run.

These things could easily have no teeth - but people love to feel like they're seeing the smoking gun, or something top-secret that they're not supposed to have. See: the website by that very name, TMZ, how the tobacco industry lost 50 yrs worth of profits, the popularity of CSI, and late-model Oliver Stone.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

As far as I know, none of the information was actually Classified - that may be purely semantic, or may be important, but I have no idea which (and I'm not at all qualified to say).

Regardless, I see what you're saying - on the other hand, the leaks actually did happen, so it's sort of the tail wagging the dog on some level ... if the leaks make it look like there is the possibility of leaks, well ...

They were all classified. AFAIK it was an Army PFC who forwarded to documents to Wikileaks. Apparently he just copied every file he could acess to an external drive and sent it in to wiki. Im on my phone so it'd be a pain to look it up. I hear the government wants to slap treason charges against him. Good for them. If they can prove this kid joined the military just to gain acess to sensitive info so he could disseminate or sell it illegally, he's screwed.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

They were all classified. AFAIK it was an Army PFC who forwarded to documents to Wikileaks. Apparently he just copied every file he could acess to an external drive and sent it in to wiki. Im on my phone so it'd be a pain to look it up. I hear the government wants to slap treason charges against him. Good for them. If they can prove this kid joined the military just to gain acess to sensitive info so he could disseminate or sell it illegally, he's screwed.

My bad - I might be confusing the diplomatic cables with the whole? No idea.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No.. more like this:

The church told us that the Earth was flat, so that if we tried to circumnavigate it, we'd fall off the edge of the Earth.
We sailed around the Earth and it turned out to be round.
Then we came back bitching because we were supposedly lied to.

Actually, no. Aside from the apples to oranges comparison already noted, unless the church also knows that the Earth is round, there is no lie involved. It is a mistake or ignorance (even willful ignorance), not a lie. As I remind my children, it's not a lie unless there is intent to deceive.

It's really like this:

You advise your client, who is trying to negotiate a property settlement, of the possible scenarios and risks involved in going to trial, making sure your client understands the possible worst-case outcome. Your client, against your advice, goes to trial. You do your best at trial, and your client gets a more favorable result than the settlement would have provided or than you had predicted as likely.

Did you lie to your client? Was your advice more spin than reality? Or were you doing what your client paid you to do? Only someone in the the-only-good-lawyer-is-a-dead-lawyer camp would say it was "prudent" to label your advice as more spin than reality, or as lies.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't. I have a problem with a person (Assenge) or an organization (Wikileaks and the news organizations that have worked with it) that elects itself as the arbiter, without any check, of what classified documents should be made public.

But hey, at least Wikileaks is busy enough with all this that maybe it's not posting certain other esoteric/secret information anymore.

This.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

but if our best efforts to keep those areas safe were "hope the enemy doesn't know/figure out the importance!" then the areas were never truly safe to begin with.

i akin it to hiding in plain sight.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We have the cables in their entirety.

do we know that this is the entire extent of communications between our foreign posts? there are other documents that wikileaks weren't privy to and couldn't release.

[Psi U MC Vito]

ON the classfication matter, IIRC wikileaks said that they were all at least confidential classification with a large number classified secret. And I'm glad they are prosecuting the soldier, but the question is, does this meet the definition of treason?

[AGDee]

I will leave it to the legal eagles to figure out whether Assange's initial acts were criminal or not. Ethics is a whole nother ball game though and this was definitely unethical. His recent threats border on extortion in my mind though. I wonder how long he can stay in hiding. He seems to be acting exactly like those he purports to expose.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

ON the classfication matter, IIRC wikileaks said that they were all at least confidential classification with a large number classified secret. And I'm glad they are prosecuting the soldier, but the question is, does this meet the definition of treason?

Treason
–noun
1.the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

[Psi U MC Vito]

I meant the legal definition in the Constitution.

[AGDee]

Well, he is not a US Citizen so he has no allegiance to the US. He is an Australian citizen. I read that they are looking at charges based on the Espionage Act of 1917. What that says, I don't know

He has turned himself in.. in London, for the rape charges in Sweden.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, he is not a US Citizen so he has no allegiance to the US. He is an Australian citizen.

Exactly. One can only commit treason against one's own country. Even if he were a US citizen, treason in the US consists only of actually participating in war against the US or in giving "aid and comfort" to enemies of the US. I doubt what Assange has done would meet this test.

I don't know what qualifies as treason under Australian law.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, he is not a US Citizen so he has no allegiance to the US. He is an Australian citizen. I read that they are looking at charges based on the Espionage Act of 1917. What that says, I don't know

He has turned himself in.. in London, for the rape charges in Sweden.

You are correct with Assange but PFC Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen and therefore open to a charge of treason. We simply don't know the breadth of damage his actions may or may not have caused. There are certainly assets in the field that have been compromised. Whether these assets have or might be liquidated is now a concern. If Manning is found guilty he should be shot (but we probably don't have the balls to do so).

Whether one likes it or not there are certain documents that should remain classified for a purpose. There is just too many bad things that can come out of this for it to out weigh any positive.

Assange appears to have a deep hatred for "democracy". I believe he should be treated as either a spy or ememy combatant. Either way we should attempt to extradite him for trial or try him in absentia. Or even take him out.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

You are correct with Assange but PFC Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen and therefore open to a charge of treason. We simply don't know the breadth of damage his actions may or may not have caused. There are certainly assets in the field that have been compromised. Whether these assets have or might be liquidated is now a concern. If Manning is found guilty he should be shot (but we probably don't have the balls to do so).

How many assumptions did you make in that paragraph?

Assange appears to have a deep hatred for "democracy". I believe he should be treated as either a spy or ememy combatant. Either way we should attempt to extradite him for trial or try him in absentia. Or even take him out.

How the hell would you treat him as a spy? How is he any different than a journalist when you come down to the facts?

I'm sure shooting him would be the best answer though, Internet Tough Guy.