Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by (marc), Jan 8, 2011.
From the NY Times
It's sad to see the US turning into a frightening mix of 1984 and fascism.
I'm on the side of Wikileaks. You all can hate me all you want for that, but I fail to see what this guy did that was wrong. We need more people like this in the world. Obama promised us transparency, so there should be no problem here.
like it or not handing over classified documents is treason. Big time for someone in the military. The list of crimes he did is pretty long on doing that. Since the handing over of the classified documents is illegal the US government has every right to find out who supplied them and can go about using court orders to require that info be handed over.
As for Obama transparency we already know he lied on that one.
So we need to know the vital locations for national security for the US?
And do the nefarious define the word "classified" to include embarrassment??
Exactly, except "they" will say that to speak to this would be harmful to the United States.
Wow. Can you find anything more disgusting than this?
It's all about 'don't let the Public find out' than anything else.
does not matter. They were classified. Some of the documents were of a personal nature as well. End of the day it was classified. Iraq and Afghanistan were also all classified.
I am not using it as classified as how you put it "classified". The were classified in the sense that they require you having a security clearance to have access to them.
well if you want to create some carnage and terror ... knowing these places does come in handy ... thanks Wikileaks.
Bridges, tunnels, airports, nuke plants, water systems, etc. OK, happy now??
I don't think laws have ever been examined to address an issue such as the one on hand. The concept of freedom of speech vs. national security is a very new concept when it involves the internet as a means of publication.
National security has become synonymous with national interest.
Indeed and that soldier will be punished for handing them over, but Wikileaks did nothing illegal by receiving them and publishing them nor is Wikileaks under direct US jurisdiction only some of the affiliates may be. If this soldier had handed the data to another country and that country redistributed the data for all to see the US could not stop it either. This issue is kind of a cross between corporate espionage and political espionage, On one hand if one of two competitors in different nations stole another's company secrets the country hosting the offended company could do very little beyond barring import, but not always if the secret is out the people will find a way of getting it. This leak was the cross, a government lost its secrets to a business not regulated by the US the governments focus should be fixing the leak on its end and since this is also a first amendment matter that the rest of the world already knows about so why bother trying to cover it back up?
If you are driving with a flat tire you don't run over the guy who was told by the guy sitting in your passenger seat that the tire is leaking.
Similar to how Google Earth helped map out the Attacks in Mumbai ... Wikileaks is also helping with information on the very security targets you have listed above ... for me it does not take an attack to know the seriousness of this ... and certainly not something to be spiteful about.
Given that Twitter is a US company, it's hardly surprising that they were subpoenaed. While WL is outside US jurisdiction, Twitter is certainly not and it is possible that under US law they were/ are aiding and abetting WL which would then violate US law.
Posted from my iPad.
And they will get their day in court.
It's a good thing they didn't "rape" any Swedish ladies.
Not necessarily, except under the most self-serving definition of treason.
Wikileaks haven't broken the law any more than the New York Times has and noone is remotely considering legal action against them.
Besides as 3 million people had access to that information any remotely serious adversary would already have known everything worthwhile in the leaked documents.
While they did not break any laws they do have info tracing done to those people who did and it does take a court order for that info to be handed over. I do not expect twitter or others to be charges with anything but they will be required to hand over the the information of those people who did break the law.
I believe that the issue lies in how WL got the information and their intentions with said information.
I'd love to see someone try to defend how WL got the information vs how the NYT got the information and how the NYT acted with said information vs how WL acted with said information.
Well yes, in the extremely unlikely case of Wikileaks personally being involved hacking the US government then there might be some sort of charge against them.
As they aren't US citizens that's unlikely to stick however.
The facts appear to be that some other individual hacked the US government system and then uploaded it to Wikileaks.
It seems extraordinarily unlikely this Icelandic MP has broken any laws at all.
Just because someone gives you something doesn't mean you have to act on.
Ethics, morals and professional responsibility should come into play.
There fixed that for you.
Ethics and morals are too subjective to be standardized.
Yes, I suppose the morality of getting US HUMIT sources killed, and perhaps their families, is subjective.
Yeah, but you shouldn't even be requesting it unless there is a plausible motive.
In this case there is no such plausible motive.
WikiLeaks associates redacted all leaked documents, obfuscating individuals' names and not leaking documents where the data source could have easily been figured out.
This is obviously error-prone, but WikiLeaks did not act as irresponsible as some people would like to believe.
When I made that comment, I meant that in the context of just because some traitor gives you information, it doesn't mean that you (WL) have to publish it.