• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked

I agree. Fortunately, none of the information is "top secret." Nonetheless, given the description of the inventory of facilities as being "vital" to U.S. security, Mr. Assange's motives are fully transparent. In releasing information that the U.S. considered "vital," it is clear that his intent is not some high-minded effort to bring transparency to the public, but a narrow pursuit aimed at damaging U.S. interests. No sovereign state can or should allow such willful effort to damage its interests to proceed with impunity.

It's our data, and we have a right to stop the leaks internally. I'm not sure we have the power, internationally, to stop the data that has already been leaked from being published. I actually think that doing so would damage us more than the leaked data ever would.
 
Then there is a leak that needs to be stopped. The person giving out this information is breaking the law

Ya think? :roll:

Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pfc. Bradley E. Manning
Born 1987
Crescent, Oklahoma
Nationality American
Occupation Soldier in the United States Army
Known for United States diplomatic cables leak
Wikinews has related news:
US intelligence analyst arrested over Wikileaks video


Private First Class Bradley E. Manning (born 1987) is a United States Army soldier who has been arrested and charged with the unauthorized use and disclosure of U.S. classified information.Manning was an intelligence analyst assigned to a support battalion with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq. Agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command arrested Manning based on information received from federal authorities provided by an American informant, Adrian Lamo, in whom Manning had previously confided.[1][2][3] Lamo said that Manning claimed, via instant messaging, to be the person who had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video of a helicopter airstrike on July 12, 2007, in Baghdad. Additionally, a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables were released to the whistleblower website Wikileaks.[4][5][6]

Manning was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134, for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source".[2][7] Manning is currently awaiting an Article 32 hearing.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-army-manning-wont.html

Is it too much to ask that you research subjects before posting?
 
Last edited:
It's our data, and we have a right to stop the leaks internally. I'm not sure we have the power, internationally, to stop the data that has already been leaked from being published. I actually think that doing so would damage us more than the leaked data ever would.

I think it is important to do everything we can to stop it, within the law, to show that we will not allow assholes with a beef against us to attack us and harm us. He is actively working to harm the US and US interests, and we do have to respond as best we can within the framework of the law.
 
From the BBC:



BBC News - List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked

This latest leak makes abundantly clear that Mr. Assange is less interested in transparency than in publicizing U.S. vulnerabilities and practices. One is no longer dealing with embarrassing diplomatic cables. Instead, a strategic inventory of sites has been disclosed. This latest leak is of potentially significant value to U.S. enemies, as they have in their possession a list of critical facilities that they could target.

IMO, no nation can or should allow its critical or vital interests to be threatened with impunity. The U.S. should act either through appropriate legal channels to bring Mr. Assange to justice or, if such options are not available, through covert means so that he can be prosecuted. It should not allow its national security to be undermined without acting to bring an end to that situation.

I thought the us was supposed to be safer with a democratic administration. Just why are all those "secrets" floating all around the world then? Where are all those european "allies?" Can't they help, or is this just another case of anti-americanism? I'm just not feelin' all the love and respect we were supposed to have after electing mr obama and all.
 
I thought the us was supposed to be safer with a democratic administration. Just why are all those "secrets" floating all around the world then? Where are all those european "allies?" Can't they help, or is this just another case of anti-americanism? I'm just not feelin' all the love and respect we were supposed to have after electing mr obama and all.

So you're blaming him for this is what you're saying?
 
I thought the us was supposed to be safer with a democratic administration.

Strawman. This has NOTHING to do with the Obama administration, it could just as easily have happened under Bush, it's an exploitation of an existing situation in which many hundreds of thousands of people had access to information that they did not need access to.

Just why are all those "secrets" floating all around the world then?

Have you considered reading the newspaper to get up to speed?

Where are all those european "allies?" Can't they help, or is this just another case of anti-americanism? I'm just not feelin' all the love and respect we were supposed to have after electing mr obama and all.

So. You have zero facts and this is just a thinly veiled attack on a president you don't like in lieu of contributing substantive thought to this thread.

Duly noted.

Just what we needed on this thread, more mindless partisan shilling.
 
Last edited:
I think it is important to do everything we can to stop it, within the law, to show that we will not allow assholes with a beef against us to attack us and harm us. He is actively working to harm the US and US interests, and we do have to respond as best we can within the framework of the law.

He's publishing information that he did not steal. Exactly what rights do you think we have, legally speaking?
 
He's publishing information that he did not steal. Exactly what rights do you think we have, legally speaking?

Depends on details we do not know as of yet. Did he in any way encourage the stealing or passing on to him of the documents? We he one of the people to help Manning with technical information(remember, Assange's history is as a hacker)? I used the phrase "withing the framework of the law" for a reason. It's not a complicated phrase.
 
He's publishing information that he did not steal. Exactly what rights do you think we have, legally speaking?

Posted by Kandahar, on this thread, matter of fact:

He's pretty clearly in violation of the Espionage Act, sections 793(b) and 793(c).

18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or
 
Posted by Kandahar, on this thread, matter of fact:

Problem is.. this aint defence material, but State Department material.. Unless you are saying the State Department is now part of the Defence Department...
 
Any serious terrorist group or world government would already know all of the locations on that list. It's redundant information.

Am I the only person in this world that thinks that while state security is important, that maybe if countries and officials conducted themselves and their affairs with honesty, integrity, and transparency, that maybe people like Assange wouldn't be able to garner any kind of attention at all?

Example: My colleagues and I correspond on a continuous basis by email. If our email servers were hacked, and our emails published, I can guarantee you that none of our clients would be overly distressed or surprised. And that includes several that have some fairly bad words in them.

So, if the company that I work for can keep our chatter and planning civil, how is it that entire branches of government - who are accountable to multiple layers of supervision and oversight - can't even seem to make a simple communique fit to be read by the community at large?

People have no right to be angry at Assange. He is a media agent. If you value free speech then you shouldn't care. The problem is the sources that are leaking the info within your own country. Take responsibility for your own actions. Hypocrites.

Yes, indeed, why can't everyone be like you and your friends. Life would be so much better. We wouldn't even need police, much less the court system.

Meanwhile, back in the real world,...
 
Problem is.. this aint defence material, but State Department material.. Unless you are saying the State Department is now part of the Defence Department...

You don't think the two have anythng in common, that they don't share intelligence?


Incredible!
 
Of course he stole them.

Do you think he took them with permission??

No he didn't steal anything. Manning stole that information and then gave it to Asaunge. That is not stealing no matter what anyone else says or thinks. It might be recieving stolen material but it is not stealing. There is a difference.
 
No he didn't steal anything. Manning stole that information and then gave it to Asaunge. That is not stealing no matter what anyone else says or thinks. It might be recieving stolen material but it is not stealing. There is a difference.

Ownership of that information did not pass to Mr. Assange. He had no more legal right to release it than if an individual received a car he knew had been stolen and then sold that car to another person. While broad protections exist with regard to media organizations, Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization. Moreover, Mr. Assange's releasing an inventory of strategic installations/facilities and engaging in blackmail threats makes clear that his pursuit has little to do with media freedom/transparency--even if that is the packaging he uses--but is instead aimed at damaging U.S. interests. Like any other sovereign state, the U.S. should not let Mr. Assange assail the nation's interests with impunity and, I believe, it won't.

In the end, should Mr. Assange will bear complete accountability for his fate (any prosecution, any conviction, any restitution/forfeiture of assets, etc., that could be imposed). He is no "innocent victim" of persecution. His decisions/choices subjected him to multiple legal risks that he chose to assume in his zealous bid to undermine U.S. interests. On that front, it should be noted that the pending sex-related charges are just the beginning of his legal battles. That he opened at least one financial account with fraudulent information in which he claimed a Swiss residence creates an additional point of prosecution. Moreover, as each of his transactions is examined, there very likely will be others from which legal issues arise. The cumulative impact of those legal matters could be substantial.
 
Problem is.. this aint defence material, but State Department material.. Unless you are saying the State Department is now part of the Defence Department...

Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.

Smith is a former CIA General Counsel. Perhaps the "relating to national defense" which this material certainly does, makes the difference. It does seem to be a grey area, though.

Would seem to me that "in possession of stolen property" ought to be a slam dunk, if they want to bother.
WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act
 
Ownership of that information did not pass to Mr. Assange. He had no more legal right to release it than if an individual received a car he knew had been stolen and then sold that car to another person. While broad protections exist with regard to media organizations, Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization.

What are the differences between a journalistic organization and wikileaks? This is kind of like the claim that wateboarding isn't torture.

Do we have a commitment to a free press or not? Do we have a commitment to having a government that is accountable to the people, or not?

This information wasn't particularly dangerous. It was not classified as top secret. And no, I don't believe that Mr. Assange is going to be charged with violating the Espionage Act.
 
Ownership of that information did not pass to Mr. Assange. He had no more legal right to release it than if an individual received a car he knew had been stolen and then sold that car to another person. While broad protections exist with regard to media organizations, Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization. Moreover, Mr. Assange's releasing an inventory of strategic installations/facilities and engaging in blackmail threats makes clear that his pursuit has little to do with media freedom/transparency--even if that is the packaging he uses--but is instead aimed at damaging U.S. interests. Like any other sovereign state, the U.S. should not let Mr. Assange assail the nation's interests with impunity and, I believe, it won't.

In the end, should Mr. Assange will bear complete accountability for his fate (any prosecution, any conviction, any restitution/forfeiture of assets, etc., that could be imposed). He is no "innocent victim" of persecution. His decisions/choices subjected him to multiple legal risks that he chose to assume in his zealous bid to undermine U.S. interests. On that front, it should be noted that the pending sex-related charges are just the beginning of his legal battles. That he opened at least one financial account with fraudulent information in which he claimed a Swiss residence creates an additional point of prosecution. Moreover, as each of his transactions is examined, there very likely will be others from which legal issues arise. The cumulative impact of those legal matters could be substantial.

Your example of the car is not the same as what is going on. See in our country there's this little thing called "free press". They have a constitutional right to publish anything that is put into their hands regardless of what the government says. They also have a right to post anything that they want regardless of what their intentions are. So even if Asaunge is doing all this out of some kind of hatred towards the US it matters not one iota.

The FF's of this country expected and wanted the free press. One of them (sorry can't remember which one atm) even equated the press as a watchdog on the government.
 
What are the differences between a journalistic organization and wikileaks? This is kind of like the claim that wateboarding isn't torture.

The difference is that wikileaks is actually doing it's job of being a watchdog on governments.

I actually find it kind of ironic that it takes an outside news type organization to be the watchdog against our government when our own news media does not do so...even though our FF's expected it of them. I guess that shows that all our news media really cares about is the $$'s and not the truth.
 
Would seem to me that "in possession of stolen property" ought to be a slam dunk, if they want to bother.
WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

Actually in order to charge him with "in possession of stolen property" they would also have to charge every other news media that has re-published what wikileaks has published. They would also have to charge every person that has downloaded what wikileaks has published. If they want any real standing that is.

It's that whole "law applying to everyone equally" bit that we have going for us. ;)
 
So you're blaming him for this is what you're saying?

Sorry, did i miss something this last couple of years. Did we or did we not elect mr obama? Did the democratic party members tell us our position in the world would improve with said election? Are we now lurching from one increadible "diplomatic disaster" to another?
 
Last edited:
The difference is that wikileaks is actually doing it's job of being a watchdog on governments.

Being a watchdog involves bringing to light abuses of power, corruption, other illegal practices, etc. It does not and never has involved publishing strategic inventories that have no connection whatsoever to unlawful or abusive practices. Being a watchdog also does not entail issuing blackmail threats aimed at interfering with the judicial/legal process.
 
It does not and never has involved publishing strategic inventories that have no connection whatsoever to unlawful or abusive practices

How are you able to make the call that publishing these strategic inventories isn't related to abusive or unlawful practices? Are you actually going to claim that the U.S. wouldn't/hasn't done unethical and/or abusive things to protect those strategic assets?
 
Back
Top Bottom