No, the politics of all the other nations on the planet.
America has the “legal power” to declare whatever it likes a crime; that doesn’t mean foreign citizens outside its borders are required to agree.
Of course. Although you’re adding an additional premise now, which is that the US would have to interact with some foreign country in order to prosecute Assange. Not so, if they arrest him here.
How would they stop the US from doing so, exactly?
Assuming we’re talking about physically extraditing someone from a foreign country, and assuming the US didn’t want to just secretly kidnap the person, what makes you think the country wouldn’t just extradite the person willingly? If I’m able to point to examples of foreign countries extraditing non-US citizens to the US to be prosecuted for crimes occurring outside the US, will you be persuaded otherwise?
Why would they? For acquiring secret American information? Something other nations and subnational groups do all the time? America can indulge in an attitude of “we can spy on everyone else, but no one is allowed to spy on us” position all it likes, that doesn’t mean the rest of the world will do anything but collectively roll their eyes at us.
Ok. But now we have a much more refined objection from your original smiley-face objection. Your position is that, if the US decided to prosecute him and needed to extradite him from another country, there is some chance that this other country would not voluntarily comply. I agree with your refined objection. There is some chance of that.
My point was in response to Hellestal who seemed to be asserting that the conduct in question did not violate any US criminal laws. Moreover, the point still stands with respect to arresting Mr. Assange in the US.
I find it hard to believe you’re serious about this.
One of your supposed “benefits” to WikiLeaks is, yet again, based on the a priori notion that they’re evil scumbugs who would deliberately screw over innocents. I could start with the same assumption about the Pentagon and it would be equally vacuous. You don’t get to decide in advance that the people you disagree with are evil, and work from there. Judging from real actions, not determining good and bad in advance, has been a point I’ve been hammering since my first post in this thread. What’s more, the Pentagon itself legitimized the information by making such a big hairy deal out of the situation. The very fact that they’re raising such a storm about it–while conveniently neglecting to mention their own missed opportunity–is all anyone needs to know about authenticity.
As for the other lazy off-the-top-of-the-head “benefits”, you’re acting like this is some brand new thing that WikiLeaks is demanding, like it’s never happened before. Not remotely true. WikiLeaks is not some special snowflake that is demanding unique privileges here. Here’s an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article that Camus linked.
The inaccuracy here is that WikiLeaks’ model did not, in fact, eschew that step. Well, they do tend to publish the whole thing unless they’re given reason not to, but they did contact the Pentagon for reason not to. The idea that they didn’t was another fabrication, one that was swallowed just as readily by the WSJ as it has been by so many others.
But the other part of it is accurate. There is a normal procedure when journalists get their hands on potentially sensitive information. I’m not sure why I expected others to already know this, but I can’t help but be surprised. There is an SOP for these situations because they recur so regularly. Have you ever complained about the legitimacy of the Pentagon working with journalists who have received leaked information in the many, many previous cases when traditional news organizations asked the Pentagon for advice on redaction and the Pentagon obliged? I don’t know your life history, but I’m going to guess: No. No, you did not blame any news organization before this. Why? Because the Pentagon decided in previous cases that it was in its best interests to redact, for the purpose of protecting the most sensitive information, even if they disagreed with the journalists’ decision to publish.
In this case, the Pentagon got all huffy and didn’t look at the info at all, as if this was out of the ordinary. And suddenly they get a bunch of defenders who are, apparently, unaware of the normal procedure when this happens, as if WikiLeaks is receiving some special unmeasurable, untangible “benefits” that can be thought up in a few idle seconds. A news organization getting hold of potentially sensitive information, and then contacting the military about their intention to publish, is hardly unprecedented. It is par for the course. This happens regularly. The difference in this case is that WikiLeaks is a non-traditional news outfit. They’re not a newspaper, but a mere electronic web-presence. And for some reason, the Pentagon treated them differently, and didn’t even bother to go through the documents as they would have any other traditional news source.
Then, of course, the Pentagon got upset about the release of information that they themselves could have redacted.
The symbol “?” is called a question mark. Though it can be used rhetorically, its normal use is not to “assert” anything. Its use is to ask a question. I have already stated in this thread:
“I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know about any crimes of non-US nationals releasing US information. But even if that’s the case, then redact the sensitive parts now, and prosecute him later when you get a chance.”
I specifically admitted the possible legality of charges, and offered an alternative to the Pentagon’s decision not to redact, an alternative that left open the possibility of prosecuting WikiLeaks for any criminal violations they might have committed. I didn’t “seem to be asserting” anything at all with respect to WikiLeaks’ innocence. I explicitly left open the possibility that they had broken the law. I have taken some care to try to clear on the facts of this case. Yet there is something about this topic that bothers people, and for my trouble, I get snarky comments about how “smart” I am from people who have demonstrated that they haven’t bothered to read what I’ve actually written.
I rely on what people actually do, not on people’s empty impressions. If we want to go through what people have actually done, the story is clear:
-
WikiLeaks did, in fact, request that the Pentagon look through the material. The journalist himself admits that. Having the government look over potentially sensitive material is SOP for classified disclosures.
-
The Pentagon declined.
The journalist you cite made up his own opinion about WikiLeaks’ true motives, based on nothing but his own impressions, and decided that the very fact that they did do what the Pentagon denied that they did is not sufficient evidence that they were “serious”. So what is “serious”, anyway? Why should we trust his subjective impression over WikiLeaks’ actual actions?
I don’t have perfect knowledge, but yes, I do trust the actual fact that WikiLeaks tried to initiate contact over everyone else’s evidenceless attacks on Assange’s character. The lack of “seriousness” charge is telling. It’s the common refrain from old model newspaper journalists when they’re confronted with new internet competition. (WikiLeaks is a strange beast, but they do claim to be engaging in journalism.) I don’t know how much more “serious” a person has to be, above and beyond actually going out and trying to get the Pentagon to look at what they have. While it’s possible that Assange is a puppy-drowning, kitten-crushing monster, he wasn’t lying about trying to get in touch with the military. And yet when we look to the other party, we have clear evidence that the Pentagon itself tried to twist the story and imply that that Assange never contacted them “directly”.
Maybe Assange was dicking around when he offered the Pentagon a chance to redact, but boy howdy, it seems awfully unfair to impugn the character of someone when the available evidence indicates that they did try to play ball by the normal rules.
And to repeat it again, because repetition could hardly hurt in this thread: none of this absolves WikiLeaks. They did the right thing in trying to get the government to look over their information for possible redaction, just like a traditional news outlet, but that was not enough. If the Pentagon’s warnings about the dangers of the information are true, WikiLeaks definitely should’ve taken more stringent measures. And of course, if the Pentagon’s warnings about the dangers of the information are true, then the Pentagon definitely should’ve taken more stringent measures.
No Nobel Prize for them. But they also don’t deserve to be singled out for criticism on a case where blame should be spread much wider.
It disturbs me to disagree with Fox News on anything other than the color of the sky, but calling that motherfucker an information terrorist was right on the money.
Redaction or no, it doesn’t seem to me there was anything of significance that the American public needed to know in the papers.
Was there?
I personally am not very concerned with the state of Afghani peasants in Iraq. 
I suspect Hellestal’s objection was that Mr. Assange could not have violated American laws, since he was not under American jurisdiction. If the United States is claiming unlimited extraterritoriality these days, that’s probably a big news story. YMMV and all that, of course.
You have a (5) and (6), but they are not relevant to me.
I guess my question is, why is it ok to go ahead and publish? Let’s say, the Pentagon, not wanting any of the info in the public (hence the classified status), just redacts the entire document and tells Wikileaks it can now publish it. Is that procedure now ok with you? What’s the difference between saying don’t release it (classifying it) and redacting the entire document. To me, there is no difference.
I think Wikileaks can do as they please (just as the Executive can classify as they please), but not knowing what is “truly” sensitive information and what is not, it’s ultimately on Wikileaks to decide if they should still go ahead and publish it. They don’t have to publish. You make it seem as if there hands are tied and they had no choice but to publish after the Pentagon told them to fuck off.
They’re amateurs, and they will not be held accountable because they asked the Pentagon to redact and the Pentagon ignored them. If this was truly groundbreaking info, then it might be worth it to let the world know. It’s up to Wikileaks. Unfortunately, the probably just needed some donations and made a big deal about leaking what is in effect likely 99% junk. Quantity over quality.
Hellestal, we can have a more productive discussion if you don’t assume my bad faith. There’s no need for your sarcasm and accusations of laziness. My comment about your seeming smart was sincere, and I genuinely thought you would see the myriad possible reasons why cooperating with wikileaks could be a problem. If you’ll try reading my text with a little more intellectual charity, I’ll make sure I’ve read your other posts before coming to a conclusion about your position (as I had clearly overlooked your other posts regarding criminal jurisdiction).
Why should the Pentagon treat Wikileaks like it would treat CNN or the New York Times? Unlike CBS News, say, Wikileaks has no vested interest in the good will of the US government. It would seem better policy for the US government to assume that when some foreign citizen threatens to reveal military secrets, that entity might not be on-the-level when it comes to redactions and cooperation.
Now, maybe the risk of them releasing just the redactions instead of the 9000 page document dump does not outweigh the possible benefit of them releasing a redacted version. But that seems to me to be a pretty specific policy judgment, about which reasonable people might disagree.
There’s a difference between extraterritoriality when it comes to criminal conspiracies to disclose US military secrets and “unlimited extraterritoriality.” More importantly, in this case, it would seem that at least one member of the conspiracy was operating in areas of US sovereignty.
But look, the alternative is that it is a military matter and not a criminal matter. I don’t think that would be much comfort to Wikileaks.
The journalist I cite — actually, let’s stop calling him that. That makes him sound like just another reporter. Shall we say, the man who was appointed by Assange as a credible go-between (MWWABAAACG-B for short) is in the best possible position – other than Assange himself – to evaluate whether the offer was in good faith or not. His opinion may be subjective – as is everyone’s opinion, for the matter – but he is more fully informed on the matter than you.
You want to make the issue a simple binary equation of whether Wikileaks contacted the government: 1 they did, 0 they didn’t; assign credit on that basis. But is is clear from Assange’s hand-picked go-between found the offer to be in bad faith. You wish to give Wikileaks credit for reaching out to the US government, but ultimately, it was not a real offer, according to the go-between himself. However, due to this first-hand testimony of what actually transpired, Wikileaks comes off as a group no more trustworthy than a 419 scammer, Kim Jong Il, or a desperate kidnapper. And let’s not kid ourselves that Assange has not already built himself a reputation for bending events to his own fame: witness the selectively edited, and provocatively titled, “Collateral Murder.”
And if you want to claim that Wikileaks held itself to the standard that any respectable journalist exercises, was the contact not made directly? Why have a reporter pass an email to the White House when the phone number to DOD’s Public Affairs Office can be googled inside of .2 seconds?
In short, DOD was wrong to give a security clearance to an unstable young man. All the wrongs from that point forward rest on the shoulders of that soldier and Wikileaks. On the wrong-o-meter scale, it’s Pentagon 10, Wikileaks 90.
The ones who are collaborating with a foreign occupier? If this Wikileaks guy is such a monster for exposing American secrets, then why aren’t those peasants monsters for digging up intelligence against their country?
If this is your question, then I can turn it around to a much more basic principle: Why do we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech at all? Why are such rights enshrined in the constitution?
Necessary prolepsis: I am, again, not saying freedom of the press removes possibility of criminal charge.
I am saying, instead, that our system is specifically, intentionally designed for the press to have a protected station where it can comment freely upon what the government is doing–said “protections”, again, not necessarily being total and complete. But many times in the past, traditional news organizations have gained access to materials that the government would rather they didn’t have. They’ve had to reach a compromise. The uneasy agreement in the past has always been that the press has some sort of right here to divulge information, even if the exact legal line is hazy. The reality here is that it is not, always, ultimately up to the government to choose what is released and what isn’t. Sometimes the press itself has had the final power.
For good or bad, that’s the very option that WikiLeaks exercised.
I have never claimed that they were right to do so. But this situation isn’t new and unprecedented. There is an uneasy balance that has developed over the years to create a procedure where both sides enter a dialogue. This balance has ultimately left the press free, on many occasions, to publish what they have. But the “agreement” both sides have reached has traditionally given the government one last chance to strike out anything truly dangerous. But the government must make a persuasive case. Freedom of the press sometimes means that the government is the petitioner for secrecy. Sometimes the government has to persuade, instead of dictate. Even in matters of national security. The press has real power, and they were given that power specifically to act as a check on the government.
WikiLeaks might’ve fucked up. But the government didn’t even attempt to enter a dialogue in this case. Didn’t try. Sometimes it simply isn’t up to them anymore to choose to redact the whole thing. It happens. They have to deal with it. So if they’re going to have a cow about the release, then they absolutely should have taken advantage of the normal procedure before they had said cow.
No, not quite.
I’m saying that the Pentagon has to accept the situation for what it is. Regardless of the Pentagon’s impression of WikiLeaks, they have to accept the fact that WikiLeaks has somehow managed to obtain potentially sensitive information. That’s the situation they need to deal with, a situation that is familiar to them when they’re dealing with traditional news sources. WikiLeaks wasn’t asking ransom money. They were asking for the same normal procedure. If the military wants to do their job of protecting that information, it means opening a dialogue at minimum. Maybe they are hopeless amateurs, but refusing to negotiate at all means the fault for any dangerous releases doesn’t lie exclusively with WikiLeaks.
I’m finding fault with the Pentagon here, but as I’ve said again and again and again, that doesn’t mean I’m not finding find with WikiLeaks.
I wouldn’t characterize someone who relies on the Pentagon’s goodwill for information as being in the best possible position to judge a competitor that the Pentagon is mad at. But this, of course, still does not reflect well at all on WikiLeaks’ competence for choosing him.
But his opinion of their motives is still, ultimately, irrelevant. He doubts their “seriousness” at the exact same time that he confirms WikiLeaks’ account. If he had actual evidence of a lack of faith, that would be something. But he says, straight up, that WikiLeaks attempted to open a dialogue, just as traditional news sources are supposed to do when they have sensitive intel, and the Pentagon didn’t play ball. Maybe Assange was dicking around, but you’re not going to make a case of it relying on the personal opinions of the MWWABAAACG-B. If the Pentagon refuses to deal at all with WikiLeaks, then which side is truly lacking in “seriousness”?
By the the Pentagon’s own admission, the information was sensitive, possibly putting the lives of government assistants in Afghanistan in danger.
They should take the attempt to redact sensitive information because it is their job to try to protect sensitive information. They should try to do their job.
WikiLeaks is the new kid. That doesn’t make them five-year-olds. That also doesn’t justify an a priori presumption that they’re malicious and unworthy of negotiations. It simply makes them inexperienced. Inexperience means that they can fuck up. They almost certainly did fuck up. But being new and foreign-based does not mean they are evil and out to destroy America. Information about wars that America starts elsewhere actually do have importance, you know, elsewhere. It is not a huge surprise that foreign news services, or new internet disclosure regimes, would want information on America’s foreign wars. That’s something that the Pentagon should deal with.
WikiLeaks has acted like amateurs, because they are. But the Pentagon has also acted like amateurs, when they’re not. They’re supposed to be experienced with making the right choice in matters of life and death.
Unfortunately, it’s already clear how this is going to play out.
If the first confirmation comes out that someone named in the leak has two bullets in his skull, there’s going to be another wave of blame for WikiLeaks. Assange will be called a murderer, and people will call for him to be hanged, tortured, and the like. The ire will be justified, although the hyperbole will not be. But something else is going to happen. The Pentagon is going to be among the first one casting stones, and that won’t be justified. And when people point out that the Pentagon also slipped up by refusing to exercise their normal role as a final failsafe for sensitive information, precisely because it’s their actual real job to try to save the lives of their informants, those people are going to get attacked for defending WikiLeaks, regardless of whether they’re actually defending WikiLeaks.
This script is already written.
When you classify a file you classify a FILE not certain words in the file or specific names in the file, the whole goddam file.
You think Afghanistan is Iraq? We aren’t in Afghanistan because the Taliban tried to assassinate Bush Jr’s daddy, we are in Afghanistan because everyconnection the Bush administration tried to make between Saadam hussein and Osama bin Laden actually exists between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
What complexity are we missing. Other than the fact that you can make an argument that other people had an opportunity to mitigate the damage that wikileaks was going to cause but chose not to play ball with them, what complicating factors are you talking about?
Well his treason is against Australia but I think the charge here in the USA should be spying.
Because they’re digging up intelligence against the Taliban. Are you trying to create a moral equivalency between the USA and the Taliban?
Outside our borders - which is where Afghanistan is - we are as bad or worse as the Taliban, the Soviet Union, and every other gaggle of thugs out there over whom we pretend to have moral superiority. Being raped, tortured or murdered by Americans or their puppets is just as brutal and fatal as being raped, tortured or murdered by our opponents.
Fully understanding that this is not a fact, but just your own political view speaking, I present a handful of actual facts about how Afghans view their the US in relation to the Taliban. Polling done by the BBC.
-
70% of Afghans believe their life has improved after the fall of the Taliban, 10% believe it has gotten worse.
-
38% have a favorable view of the US being in Afghanistan, 33% rate it as being “fair,” and 25% have a “poor” view.
-
90% would rather have the current government ruling Afghanistan, 6% would rather have the Taliban.
-
69% view the Taliban as the greatest threat to their country, 6% view the US as the greatest threat.
-
83% believe it was a good thing that the US ousted the Taliban government, 9% think it was mostly bad, 6% think it was very bad.
-
68% support the presence of US troops (compare to 62% supporting the presence of NATO troops), 31% oppose the presence of US troops (compare to 37% opposing the presence of NATO troops).
-
10% support the presence of Taliban fighters, and 89% oppose them. Also, 17% support the presence of foreign Jihadi fighters, and 81% oppose them. (Note that the home-grown Taliban are less popular than foreign fighters!)
-
As for who is most to blame for the violence in the country, Afghans first blame the Taliban (42%), Al Qaeda and foreign fighters (24%), and then the US (4%).
I could go on, but suffice it to say that the facts are not on your side. I do not expect any of this evidence to alter your worldview in the slightest, of course.
Are you under the impression that freedom of the press is an absolute right? In matters of national security, I don’t know that it is.
From the wiki for Pentagon papers:
" the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people’s understanding of their government’s policy."
What publicly useful information was disseminated that the fitrst amendment would be vioalted by preventing the diseemination of classified documents that put lives in danger?
I thought non-US citizens and residents do not have constitutional rights.
Can you explain why you think this is “normal procedure”? How often does the press get their hands on this sort of stuff?
There is no dispute about the facts. Why should things play out any other way?
I don’t see why we would want it to play out any other way.
So you don’t think the US is as bad as the Taliban, you think we are WORSE than the Taliban!!!