Wikileaks

[Pandemic]

whis·tle·blow·er or whis·tle-blow·er or whistle blower
n.
One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority: "The Pentagon's most famous whistleblower is . . . hoping to get another chance to search for government waste" (Washington Post).



Wikileaks, in their latest leak, is not a whistle blower because, to the best of my knowledge, nothing they leaked is illegal or even immoral. Wikileaks is obtaining stolen classified material purely for the purposes of distribution. God knows what their intent is but they aren't doing this for the good of the people or even to shed light on an illegal activity.

Whistleblowers should be protected ONLY when they're reporting something illegal. Everyone associated with wikileaks including their sources should be prosecuted.

[Jon]

Have nothing else to add as you have said it all.

[19dabeast85]

For most of the info, yes, but there are some pretty disturbing things that have been exposed about the attitude of our military towards civilians. Immoral if you ask me, but not surprising to me or alot of others.


Here's an idea: The Gov't has the capability to shut down pretty much any website/domain (and has shut down a few) and has the tightest internal security of pretty much any organization, it's unlikely any bloke just let this info loose.....is it possible these "leaks" are on purpose to give the Gov't a reason to "need" to have more control over internet content? If they wanted the info to remain private they'd have shut down every server in the world as well as take the head leaky guy to Guantanamo a long time ago because the US military doesn't play games (unless it's not really a game but a strategic "leak")....just my thoughts.

[Xsjado]

will he become time magazines man of the year.
he did sleep with 2 swedish spies.
it's sex without a condom 'suprise sex' not rape.
we have every rite to know what is happening i see no wrong doing.

I"m intrested to see what comes out in his encrypted files being circulated if something happens to him.

I'm just recycling info i have heard.
I don't follow the news closely what has he done that is all so bad.

[h22sparkle]

What about when they said that one or a couple of more people sold shit to undercover agents for money on the low. So then the same person selling the information got all their shit confiscated. We said alot of shit about other countries too. But who's to say they didnt say shit about us too.

[RagingAsian]

The founder of Wikileaks should be shot.

[TheFirstNutZo]

Wikileaks isn't a whistleblower, the person who is giving the information TO wikileaks would be. Whether or not something illegal is happening, and thus that person should be protected (instead of being tried for treason or another very serious crime), has nothing to do with wikileaks and everything to do with the person leaking information.

As far as I have read, which has been a decent multitude of articles, wikileaks isn't breaking the law. They are protected (at least as far as the US is concerned, no clue about other nations' laws) by free speech laws. They are no different than the NYT or any other news organization by publishing classified documents (which is LEGAL). The person that committed a crime was the individual that LEAKED the information to wikileaks, as the initial dissemination of the classified information is illegal. Once a news organization (wikileaks, in this case) gets it however, its fair game.

I'm not really sure how you would go about prosecuting wikileaks for exercising the very rights that the government is theoretically protecting (and using classified documents to do so more effectively).

Now it seems likely that the US govt or another govt is going to trump up bullshit charges and get the organization shut down for other reasons, or will use this as an opportunity to have the US govt run the internet as a while and censor as it sees fit.... but still, wikileaks is fairly legal. Do you have a specific understanding to the contrary that makes what they are doing illegal?

[h22sparkle]

Wikileaks isn't a whistleblower, the person who is giving the information TO wikileaks would be. Whether or not something illegal is happening, and thus that person should be protected (instead of being tried for treason or another very serious crime), has nothing to do with wikileaks and everything to do with the person leaking information.

As far as I have read, which has been a decent multitude of articles, wikileaks isn't breaking the law. They are protected (at least as far as the US is concerned, no clue about other nations' laws) by free speech laws. They are no different than the NYT or any other news organization by publishing classified documents (which is LEGAL). The person that committed a crime was the individual that LEAKED the information to wikileaks, as the initial dissemination of the classified information is illegal. Once a news organization (wikileaks, in this case) gets it however, its fair game.

I'm not really sure how you would go about prosecuting wikileaks for exercising the very rights that the government is theoretically protecting (and using classified documents to do so more effectively).

Now it seems likely that the US govt or another govt is going to trump up bullshit charges and get the organization shut down for other reasons, or will use this as an opportunity to have the US govt run the internet as a while and censor as it sees fit.... but still, wikileaks is fairly legal. Do you have a specific understanding to the contrary that makes what they are doing illegal?

I can understand that but again you have to realize that this is a commonwealth country they make up laws as they go along and as they see fit.

[Pandemic]

For most of the info, yes, but there are some pretty disturbing things that have been exposed about the attitude of our military towards civilians. Immoral if you ask me, but not surprising to me or alot of others.


Here's an idea: The Gov't has the capability to shut down pretty much any website/domain (and has shut down a few) and has the tightest internal security of pretty much any organization, it's unlikely any bloke just let this info loose.....is it possible these "leaks" are on purpose to give the Gov't a reason to "need" to have more control over internet content? If they wanted the info to remain private they'd have shut down every server in the world as well as take the head leaky guy to Guantanamo a long time ago because the US military doesn't play games (unless it's not really a game but a strategic "leak")....just my thoughts.

Wikileaks isn't a conspiracy thought up by the US. Why do people insist on conspiracies?

will he become time magazines man of the year.
he did sleep with 2 swedish spies.
it's sex without a condom 'suprise sex' not rape.
we have every rite to know what is happening i see no wrong doing.

I"m intrested to see what comes out in his encrypted files being circulated if something happens to him.

I'm just recycling info i have heard.
I don't follow the news closely what has he done that is all so bad.

No offence Xsjado, but you don't have the right to know what's happening. Furthermore, with the freedom of information act we WOULD have known what's going on just at a more appropriate time.

The encrypted file is probably nothing more than a fake to throw world governments into a frenzy.

Wikileaks isn't a whistleblower, the person who is giving the information TO wikileaks would be. Whether or not something illegal is happening, and thus that person should be protected (instead of being tried for treason or another very serious crime), has nothing to do with wikileaks and everything to do with the person leaking information.

As far as I have read, which has been a decent multitude of articles, wikileaks isn't breaking the law. They are protected (at least as far as the US is concerned, no clue about other nations' laws) by free speech laws. They are no different than the NYT or any other news organization by publishing classified documents (which is LEGAL). The person that committed a crime was the individual that LEAKED the information to wikileaks, as the initial dissemination of the classified information is illegal. Once a news organization (wikileaks, in this case) gets it however, its fair game.

I'm not really sure how you would go about prosecuting wikileaks for exercising the very rights that the government is theoretically protecting (and using classified documents to do so more effectively).

Now it seems likely that the US govt or another govt is going to trump up bullshit charges and get the organization shut down for other reasons, or will use this as an opportunity to have the US govt run the internet as a while and censor as it sees fit.... but still, wikileaks is fairly legal. Do you have a specific understanding to the contrary that makes what they are doing illegal?

You're right, to a point. Those who are actually blowing the whistle on someone or something illegal should be protected. Had we had a whistle blower in Enron, it would have helped a lot.

The difference here is nothing that the US has done in those files are illegal. The sources should be found, tried, and if found guilty, executed. PFC Mannings should be the first.

Wikileaks SHOULD be reviewing the files and only releasing the ones which could be illegal. It's criminal negligence to release files that put lives in danger for no reason.

Further, how do you figure that a foreign person and a foreign company are protected under the US Constitution? Especially for spilling classified information. Where are your sources saying doing so is legal for a media organization?

[Supergenius]

The founder of Wikileaks should be shot.

Absolutely

[Bullhorn7]

No. He should be protected. He stands for everything were to scared to believe in, if this had happened 20 years ago there would have been a full on civil war. Hes a visionary reporting what I see are atrocities. Performed by my own government in the name of "peace". I wish to see this man clear of alligations and for him to be allowed to continue his work.

The first information war has begun. Will you stand by and watch proof of your own country murdering and stealing from the innocent, while you sit in the comfort of your home.

Call me a terrorist whatever I cant look at all that he has released and think about America the same way, or at least its government. We push around people because we think were the baddest dogs in the ring and nobody has had the balls to stand up to us since WW2 and then Julian comes by and releases proof of atrocities that would have had other countries under military tribunal for war crimes. The UN turns its back and all of america follows. If we let these things continue what will happen?

I love this country. I will stand and fight a lawful fight. But il have no part in what iv seen released by Wikileaks,


No censorship, and that all countries should be made accountable for there actions. That is what I believe in.

[Pandemic]

No. He should be protected. He stands for everything were to scared to believe in, if this had happened 20 years ago there would have been a full on civil war. Hes a visionary reporting what I see are atrocities. Performed by my own government in the name of "peace". I wish to see this man clear of alligations and for him to be allowed to continue his work.

The first information war has begun. Will you stand by and watch proof of your own country murdering and stealing from the innocent, while you sit in the comfort of your home.

Call me a terrorist whatever I cant look at all that he has released and think about America the same way, or at least its government. We push around people because we think were the baddest dogs in the ring and nobody has had the balls to stand up to us since WW2 and then Julian comes by and releases proof of atrocities that would have had other countries under military tribunal for war crimes. The UN turns its back and all of america follows. If we let these things continue what will happen?

I love this country. I will stand and fight a lawful fight. But il have no part in what iv seen released by Wikileaks,


No censorship, and that all countries should be made accountable for there actions. That is what I believe in.

Do you want to list a few of these "atrocities"? So far it's nothing more than diplomats name calling. Well that and the release of top national security sites around the world. Good work WL on releasing either documents nobody cares about or documents that will be awesome for terrorists...

[19dabeast85]

Wikileaks isn't a conspiracy thought up by the US. Why do people insist on conspiracies?

Just an opinion I heard. I haven't gathered enough information to form my own opinion about it yet.

Do you want to list a few of these "atrocities"? So far it's nothing more than diplomats name calling. Well that and the release of top national security sites around the world. Good work WL on releasing either documents nobody cares about or documents that will be awesome for terrorists...

I'd like to see a list also with the specific documents to go view.

Most of the documents I read were just diplomats conveying news and opinions back and forth. That being said, I only looked over 3 letters.

The video of the attack on the civilian reporters is a bit disturbing but the fact is this is how the military is designed to attack....get in kill everything that moves and get out with no remorse over "collateral damage". What sucks is the young soldiers who are seeing children and other innocent people blown to bits simply because they were in the wrong place and got in the way. There are already reports of unprecedented psychological issues with soldiers returning from the current war because they must either take part in the destroying of innocent lives or get court martialed for disobeying orders.

The issue I have is the military is being used as a police force and they aren't trained to act that way. So we have tons of civilian casualties that are very unfortunate and IMO unacceptable.

[TheFirstNutZo]

You're right, to a point. Those who are actually blowing the whistle on someone or something illegal should be protected. Had we had a whistle blower in Enron, it would have helped a lot.

The difference here is nothing that the US has done in those files are illegal. The sources should be found, tried, and if found guilty, executed. PFC Mannings should be the first.

I feel like we're in agreement here. Mannings and others who leak classified information are breaking the law. Occasionally, exceptions need to be made to said laws (whistleblower clauses) WHEN illegal things are being leaked. When they aren't illegal, whistleblower laws do NOT apply. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Wikileaks SHOULD be reviewing the files and only releasing the ones which could be illegal. It's criminal negligence to release files that put lives in danger for no reason.

Fundamentally I agree with you, but I would like to point out that "no reason" is relative, and what is good for the US government is not necessarily a universal good. There may be plenty of legitimate reasons for releasing information that you or I do not agree with, but are legitimate nonetheless. Releasing documents that illustrate human rights violations (while "legal" in a warzone) that are the catalyst for behavioral changes that reduce those violations is a good thing. Whether it is justifiable or not, is a separate issue. Likewise, releasing a document that puts political pressure on our congresspeople to drastically reduce collateral damage has value. Whether it is worth risking American lives for Iraqi lives is a judgment call -- obviously both have value.

Further, how do you figure that a foreign person and a foreign company are protected under the US Constitution? Especially for spilling classified information. Where are your sources saying doing so is legal for a media organization?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12...ks-law-and-you

The first document is released by the CRS (Congressional Research Service) and is linked to in the second article. I believe it gives solid backing for the concept that there is at least a STRONG legal argument for the NYT and other news organizations. Obviously, there is a gray area and as such, depending on how the court is stacked it could potentially go either way. I would argue, however, that no sitting President will be willing to be the "bad guy" that crashes the free speech party and fails to pardon the individual. The political damage that he would suffer thereafter would be catastrophic.

Certainly there are additional issues given that Assange is not an American, but I think we all know that our political system has decided that treating foreign nationals (especially those in the public eye with a significant amount of public support) as enemy combatants and charging them in a military tribunal is NOT politically viable (look at that fucking 9/11 trial fiasco) and as such IF we ever press charges against Assange, he will be tried in a US court under US law and will have constitutional protections -- whether he should or not.