There is a point where corporate secrets and government secrets are a threat to a democratic government. Bush clamped down on Whistleblowers, gutting their protections. We need whistleblowers to be free to expose the harm that corporations and governments do. Wikileaks is just a clearinghouse for those who feel there are wrongs being done that the people should know about. Knowledge does not harm you . It is the deeds .
Absolutely not. So a few politicians and diplomats get embarrassed, like that never happens. :rolleyes: It’s a nice little wake up call to tighten security, expose and and clamp down on the untrustworthy individuals who are feeding Assange the information. If anything, it demonstrates how little (you think) we as a government have to hide.
Wouldn’t you like to know the stuff Wikileaks doesn’t have?
Assange would agree with you.
You seem to have no clue how Wikileaks actually works.
Can you point to secret info that should have remained secret (e.g. the name of a spy or something) that was outed by Wikileaks?
I’m not sure if this is the same story I’m thinking of that involved an Apache firing on a van. Was this the same tape that was selectively edited to remove the bad guys holding weapons? And has anyone been prosecuted for this?
See, I don’t agree with this: I think that you’re right about Manning: he’s certainly eligible for a UCMJ conviction and a nice long stay in Leavenworth (don’t think “Treason” is as airtight, personally, at least not by the letter of the Constitution). Assange, though? It seems to me that part of Freedom of the Press should include the rights of journalists to publish any information that they acquire by legal means–and “a whistleblower told me” should expressly be legal, even if the whistleblower himself is punished for breaching secrecy regulations. Assange (or any other journalist, for that matter) is in no position at time of publishing, due to the longstanding tradition of “off-the-record” leaks that are authorized by the government, to know with certainty whether or not a given leaker has the authority to leak the information involved.
New York Times Co. v. United States, unfortunately, is of dubious use as precedent due to the vast number of concurrences on differing grounds.
According to the Executive Editor of the New York Times, yes, Wikileaks did release information that the Times thought was dangerous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
What a bizarre claim from the Times, seeing as the Department of Defense concluded not a single sensitive intelligence source was compromised by the Wikileaks Afghanistan leaks. Naturally, if you can point to a single US informant that was targetted as a result of Wikileaks, I’m all ears.
Yeah, except when you accept in excess of $50 billion dollars of taxpayer money to keep you liquid you lose some of the expectations of privacy, especially if it can be shown that the actions leading up to needing that money were in fact illegal.
This has been covered before. “Sources and methods” is a reference to a specific type of informant or process used in the intelligence business. Those who contribute information to operational forces are not the same as intelligence sources. This type of information is highly classified, and would not appear in the type of documents Wikileaks got its hands on.
If you read the letter which is contained within the link, the Secretary of Defense also states that “The documents do contain the names of cooperative Afghan nationals… We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage…”
I understand that the difference between intelligence sources and methods and informants on tactical operational matters is a technical distinction that may not be apparent unless one has experience in working with these terms of art, but it would really help if you read your own cites.
I’m curious: do you think the Times did wrong by acting with caution over revealing the names of informants? Was this essential to the public interest that people know the names of these informants?
That is one. Other incidents are described (such as firing on people attempting to surrender).
And prosecuted? Seriously? The point of a coverup is to avoid such things. Absence of a prosecution is indicative of nothing in this case.
The Times was fine to exercise their discretion in this.
Wikileaks info is only given to major media organizations. It is then up to those media organizations to do exactly what the Times did. The media then hands the info to the State Department which redacts as necessary and then it goes back to the media for publishing.
Watch this short video. Should help clear things up for you.
Ravenman. I read my cite. Yes, there’s an amorphous claim that “some” individuals may have been put in danger. But who? Why don’t you quit the sophistry and name a single source or individual that was killed or is currently being hunted by the Taliban due to the leak? Given the collective boner that some sections of the US intelligence community popped over the leak, it seems pretty reasonable that they’d be making hay out of any incident of this kind, yet you can’t name a single one. Weird that.
I get your point: you don’t care about protecting the names of informants in Afghanistan unless they start getting killed.
I just disagree.
Sorry, can’t watch videos on this computer. But everything I have read to date (including the NY Times piece) indicates that the redaction process is significantly different than “the State Department gets it then hands it back to the media.”
To my understanding, it’s more like Wikileaks gives the information to media outlets that are in its good graces. The media outlets do their due diligence, including allowing the government to comment. Media outlets consider the government’s comments, make some changes it believes are reasonable, and release stories and small numbers of documents it has thoughtfully considered.
Meanwhile, Wikileaks claims to review the documents in a haphazard manner dependent on the whims of volunteers who are not knowledgeable about the subject matter, ignore pleas from the government not to do something rash, and release huge numbers of documents that may or may not have been reviewed.
But again, I can’t watch the video, so Wikileaks may be somewhat more charitable towards their own efforts. Which I’m sure are just exhaustive. Really.
Yeah, but the information is out there now. Any prosecutor can see it. So far as I know, nobody has been brought up on charges on this incident, which leaves three possibilities: 1) the powers-that-be continue to conspire to cover up a crime, leaving the will of the public unfulfilled; 2) this matter has been investigated and there is no crime; or 3) the investigation is continuing three years after the case.
Number 3 seems implausible. Number 1 seems conspiratorial, but not impossible. Number 2 seems most plausible to me.
From Scott Shane, New York Times national security reporter (this is a transcript):
It is the military that would prosecute. Apparently they operate differently than the civilian courts do.
Then I commend them for showing some responsibility for their actions and improving their process. Why do you think they didn’t take these common-sense steps in the first place? You know, before the horse was out of the barn?
Live and learn and note even at the first they did not just dump all the info out for anyone to see. They were exercising caution from the start.
And you have yet to point to someone being physically harmed due to a Wikileaks leak.
It does not appear to have happened. I’m not clear why that is. It could be because the local thugs that were snitched upon have been dealt with, or it could be that those groups who were ratted out aren’t Internet-savvy. (I hear 3G and ISP service in the Korangal Valley is somewhat spotty.) It could be that those named have taken precautions. Why do you think no reprisals have taken place?
But you cannot deny that publishing those names is a good thing. If Wikileaks obtained court documents naming confidential police informants who implicate your local biker gang/meth dealers in their crimes and violence, surely you wouldn’t think that it would be a good idea to release their names, would you? I’d say that’s a reckless thing to do regardless of the consequences, because it is a bell that cannot be un-rung.
Let’s say those bikers start harassing the informants – maybe not weeks later, but months or years later. The names of the informants are out there in perpetuity. And, more importantly, the names of the informants probably serve no public interest whatsoever.
If Wikileaks had done nothing wrong with releasing the names of informants, surely they would have maintained their policy of not redacting anyone’s name. Perhaps they realized their actions were, indeed, reckless… something you seem loath to admit.
Frankly, I think Wikileaks simply didn’t think to care about the welfare of Iraqis named in the papers. My guess is the first thing on their mind was to score points against the US government. Second thing was to make sure Mr. Assange gets lots of positive media attention. Last thing on the mind was what impact the papers might have had on the “little people.” When the welfare of the little people began to impact the positive media attention, they tweaked their policies a little.
Is United States national security so weak that a couple of guys with computers can take us down by publishing our secret information? Someone has put too many eggs in one basket in that case. If Wikileaks is a threat to the US then it is because we have allowed it. Either by doing things that are embarrassing to the nation (which are apparently plentiful the leaked documents), by documenting things that are so secret as to be dangerous and/or by allowing too many people access to the info.
Why is Assange allegedly a hero to the left? I thought suspicion and mistrust of government was a right-wing meme.