• 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!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

What's he released that's put troops at risk?

Good question...

Most folks look for intelligence information, such as troop strength, troop movements, military strategies, weaponry, that sort of thing to justify the "risk". I haven't read the WikiLeak articles, so I can't say for sure if any of this type of information is among the leaked documents. What I can say is alot of information concerning diplomatic relations have been released. In and of itself, it's no big deal. Representatives from various governments will always hold diplomatic dialog (or so we hope). But here's the rub...

Our nation is in the midst of drawing down one war in Iraq and heavily engaged in trying to twarth terrorism in Afghanistan, and in doing so we've forged diplomatic relationships across several nations. At the core of these WikiLeak documents (according to press releases) are the strength of our foreign relationtions which the U.S. depend on in our fight against terrorism. If these relationships are torn about due to what amounts to be "gossip", it may ultimately mean we fight terrorism largely across the Middle-East alone. I mean, what nation can tolerate knowing that their government partnered w/the U.S. in underhanded dealings? The government of Yemen, for example, may not like that their country has become a harbenger for terrorist activity. But if their people upon learning the truth as to the depths towhich their government has been willing to go in order to rid their country of terrorist, some of which may be their own countrymen, maybe they're not so willing to support their government any longer. This is just an example based on what's been reported through the media, but being prior military and thinking from that frame of mind, I can certainly see where these leaks can have serious consequences. And the political ripple effect cannot be good for us. To that, Sect. Clinton was smart to jump on the phones all night to smooth this situation over fast!
 
And investigative reporters never have anything handed to them? Which is the only real difference here. One goes out and "investigates" the other accepts it's material from other sources. Wait...doesn't normal investigative reporters accept their material from other sources also?...hmm what a quandary...

There is no quandary if you think it out. Accepting and publishing something is not investigating. Investigating something, checking with multiple sources, getting confirmation, and so on, that is investigative journalism.
 
That's all they have, OV.

That's sad! If I were a mod I'd stop alot of this non-sense in its tracks!! (Not suggesting the mods aren't doing their jobs; just saying what I would do if I were one. Still...for the posters...)

Either stay on point or remove yourself from the discussion.

(Sorry if I stepped on any toes here...it just tic's me off when people purposely attempt to divert from the thread topic for political gains.)
 
Last edited:
The NY Times is an established entity that is universally recognized as being part of "The Press".

A random website operating in a user submission type of style that is primarily a repository for leaked documents rather than investigation journalism that is actually crafting a report or story detailing said leaks is not as cut and dry as a form of "The Press". Is Wikipedia the press? Is 4chan "The Press" if someone posted up classified documents there? The difference between the two is one is unquestionably part of "The Press" and the other is a bit more ambiguous, and that in and of itself may warrant the need for SCOTUS action in determining it.

Indeed, I personally find this entire thing fascinating becuase its a case of the modern era needing to be define within the scope of the constitution. The "new media" and the frontier of the internet, blogs, community-based internet news sites, and other type of things are essentially untested and unproven ground and this may be the type of thing that helps solidify their definition as we move deeper into this new century.

I agree, those that are opposed to what wikileaks is doing are calling it a blog while those that support them are calling it a news site.

So whats the defination of a news agency?
 
I agree, those that are opposed to what wikileaks is doing are calling it a blog while those that support them are calling it a news site.

So whats the defination of a news agency?

That is probably going to be one of the big questions that comes out of this. To me, to be a "news" site, you need reporters and a set of standards of verification for what you publish. Going back to Woodward and Bernstien, they had a standard that to be publishable, they needed 2 sources for something.

It's going to end up being a very messy effort to arrive at a reasonable definition. Like seemingly everything else in this day and age, the lines are very blurry.
 
There is no quandary if you think it out. Accepting and publishing something is not investigating. Investigating something, checking with multiple sources, getting confirmation, and so on, that is investigative journalism.

So, a newspaper has to engage in investigation in order to be protected under the first amendment? Or, do you just need to publish news?

Do you think that newspapers in 1778 engaged in investigative journalism of the sort that you describe?
 
Last edited:
well, I guess, they are American, 1st amendment, (at least what I read about em), assuage, foreign national, 1st amendment does not apply.

Actually it does apply. Reason being is that the Bill of Rights was intended as a restriction on the government and not on civilians. As recent history has shown our consititutional amendments are applied to those that are not US citizens also. abu garib, illegal aliens are the most obvious ones.
 
So, a newspaper has to engage in investigation in order to be protected under the first amendment? Or, do you just need to publish news?

Do you think that newspapers in 1778 engaged in investigative journalism of the sort that you describe?

Do you think building these straw men aids your argument? Or do you just find it fun?
 
There is no quandary if you think it out. Accepting and publishing something is not investigating. Investigating something, checking with multiple sources, getting confirmation, and so on, that is investigative journalism.

From wikileaks about page...

When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves.

Same about page, different section...

We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.

www.wikileaks.ch/about.html
 
Do you think building these straw men aids your argument? Or do you just find it fun?

I find it curious that you want to narrow the definition of "press" to something that would never have applied at the time when the first amendment was actually written by the founding fathers.

Why is that, Redress?
 
I heard he was a gay activist who did it because he was pissed about DADT.

Actually, from what I understand part of what motivated him was an incident where he alerted his superiors to the fact that individuals Iraqi police had the U.S. military detain as "insurgents" distributing "insurgent literature" were simply disseminating an article criticizing corruption in Maliki's administration, but was told to shut up and that they should be helping the Iraqis get more detainees.

Well when those of us who served want the opinion of someone who hasn't on who deserves recognition, you'll be the first to know. :roll:

Sorry, I just happen to think someone who exposures war crimes, corruption, and abuses of power is more deserving of recognition than those who simply kill the people their government says are bad.
 
Some clarification is needed.

1. He turned himself in. He was not "arrested" in the classic form of the term with police hunting him down and throwing him in cuffs.

2. The case for sending him to Sweden is very weak. One of the women in question is a known feminist who believes men dominate women and need to be punished.

3. And the rule of law has to be followed. This has nothing (in theory) to do with the Wikileaks situation and even in Sweden the case against him is very weak to say the least. Many are saying it is an overzealous prosecutor that is going after him.

Also dont count on the US getting him at least legally. The US justice department is looking for something to charge him with that does not involve the death penalty (as many on the right want), since no European country would release anyone to the US with the threat of a death sentence.

And then comes in the lack of credibility the US justice system has in many European countries these days, and the clear political motives behind wanting Assange given over to the US. What law exactly has he broken to be brutally honest? Over 3 million people had access to this information on a daily basis before it was leaked.. it was hardly hugely secret stuff.

As for the latest leaks.. pft, the Russians already knew that lol, so freaking what.

Quoted for truth.
 
There's no evidence that they don't either.


Truly the days where just the charge is enough....I bet you believe that one must prove themselves innocent of a particular charge too don't you?


j-mac
 
Do "journalists" hack into credit card company websites to try and shut them down?

Neither journalists, nor Wikileaks are doing that now, or do you not know that?
 
Neither journalists, nor Wikileaks are doing that now, or do you not know that?

This from the person calling our military a band of terrorists. LOL

And if you don't think these cyber attacks are coordinated with wikileaks, then your indoctrination into liberal irrelevance is officially complete.
 
This from the person calling our military a band of terrorists. LOL

And if you don't think these cyber attacks are coordinated with wikileaks, then your indoctrination into liberal irrelevance is officially complete.

Wow, you really like to misconstrue stuff, huh? Good luck with that, I've been around forums way too long to get sucked into it. Nice try though.
 
Erod's grasp of these subjects is limited to bashing Obama and libruhls.

No, Erod pokes around here to see for himself that there are actually mutated humans that align themselves with the likes of Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, and Barack Obama.

You have to actually witness it first hand to believe it.
 
And if you don't think these cyber attacks are coordinated with wikileaks, then your indoctrination into liberal irrelevance is officially complete.

Its-A-Conspiracy.jpg
 
Wow, you really like to misconstrue stuff, huh? Good luck with that, I've been around forums way too long to get sucked into it. Nice try though.

And all that forum-surfing has led you to the point that our military is no different than Muslim terrorists.

Good gawd almighty, maybe I'd better get away from here while I still have my wits about me.
 
No, Erod pokes around here to see for himself that there are actually mutated humans that align themselves with the likes of Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, and Barack Obama.

You have to actually witness it first hand to believe it.
You so funny, Erod. It's like having our very own Glenn Beck windup doll on the forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom