• 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!

The Espionage Act And WikiLeaks - Would it End Journalism As We Know It?

Kal'Stang said:
Considering that it was Manning that did the leaking and not wikileaks I don't see a difference when we are talking solely about wikileaks. If it had been FOX or MSNBC or CNN or any other official well known news agency the outcry for "treason" and all that crap wouldn't have been near as bad. If it was even mentioned at all.
Click to expand...

Where are the liberals on this site. What about truth to power.

Have any of you heard of the Pentagon Papers. Probably more explosive than this stuff and we all applauded.

It seems that the left is pretty much where the right was 40 years ago.
 
washunut said:
Where are the liberals on this site. What about truth to power.

Have any of you heard of the Pentagon Papers. Probably more explosive than this stuff and we all applauded.

It seems that the left is pretty much where the right was 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

Well, the Pentagon Papers were published to expose wrongdoing. This stuff was just publicized for the hell of it, and the State Department actually comes across looking great IMO. I'm much more sympathetic to those who publish government secrets for the purpose of righting a wrong, than to those who publish government secrets for personal fame or vendettas.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, the Pentagon Papers were published to expose wrongdoing. This stuff was just publicized for the hell of it, and the State Department actually comes across looking great IMO. I'm much more sympathetic to those who publish government secrets for the purpose of righting a wrong, than to those who publish government secrets for personal fame or vendettas.
Click to expand...

Personal motives aside, the fact that "liberals" are in favor of prosecuting someone to passing along embassing things with a dem administration in power seems to be the height of hypocricy.
 
washunut said:
Personal motives aside, the fact that "liberals" are in favor of prosecuting someone to passing along embassing things with a dem administration in power seems to be the height of hypocricy.
Click to expand...

Well, the files spanned both the Bush Administration AND the Clinton Administration...so I don't see why this is a partisan issue. :confused:

And to the extent that there were embarrassing revelations, it was mostly either A) petty gossip, or B) secrets that the state had a legitimate interest in keeping secret. There was very little in the way of actual wrongdoing exposed.

I don't see what's so hypocritical about that. Leaking documents to expose wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing is A-OK with me, but leaking documents to expose legitimate state secrets just for the hell of it is a major problem.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, the files spanned both the Bush Administration AND the Clinton Administration...so I don't see why this is a partisan issue. :confused:

And to the extent that there were embarrassing revelations, it was mostly either A) petty gossip, or B) secrets that the state had a legitimate interest in keeping secret. There was very little in the way of actual wrongdoing exposed.

I don't see what's so hypocritical about that. Leaking documents to expose wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing is A-OK with me, but leaking documents to expose legitimate state secrets just for the hell of it is a major problem.
Click to expand...

First of all people should be able to discerb between the linker and the publisher of the leak. Wikileak is the latter. I am not sure that there is much or anything that could be called a state secret that someone should go to jail about.

One thing this stuff exposes is how much is stamped secret when it really is not that sensitive.
It seems that people are taking in what the government tells them like sheep. I expect that of conservatives. I am embarrassed to see so many so called liberals join in.

With this type of thinking the New York Times would have been shut down 40 years ago.
 
No, not even close.

main-hyperbole.jpg
 
washunut said:
First of all people should be able to discerb between the linker and the publisher of the leak. Wikileak is the latter. I am not sure that there is much or anything that could be called a state secret that someone should go to jail about.

One thing this stuff exposes is how much is stamped secret when it really is not that sensitive.
It seems that people are taking in what the government tells them like sheep. I expect that of conservatives. I am embarrassed to see so many so called liberals join in.

With this type of thinking the New York Times would have been shut down 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

A couple examples of sensitive information that Wikileaks released:
- The details of the US efforts to move enriched uranium out of a specific nuclear plant in Pakistan, with the consent of the government. This will almost certainly be scuttled now, and nuclear proliferation will be more likely.
- The President of Yemen admitting to allowing the US to bomb terrorists within his country, then telling the public that it was him. This will make it harder to get Yemen's cooperation with American anti-terrorism efforts.
 
I know the U.S. will try, but it's a stretch to charge Assange when he wasn't the one who stole the information. It was given to him by the people who did. Charge people from your own country with espionage if you must, but the press and its cohorts have nothing to do with that law.

People who are blinded by anger due to Wikileaks are not seeing what this means for freedom of the press as a whole. Your government has no business charging info brokers in this manner. Besides, charging Assange would not bring closure to Wikileaks, it would only escalate its activities.

Assange has already said and demonstrated that the more the governments of the world come down on him, the more intense the releases are going to be. I for one believe him. It makes much more sense to strengthen internal security to prevent info. from being released, than it is to attack every agency who uses the leaked information. The latter approach only erodes freedom of information and the press.
 
Kandahar said:
A couple examples of sensitive information that Wikileaks released:
- The details of the US efforts to move enriched uranium out of a specific nuclear plant in Pakistan, with the consent of the government. This will almost certainly be scuttled now, and nuclear proliferation will be more likely.
Click to expand...

Why would it be scuttled? (assuming of course that it hadn't already happened..which is possible..how old is that tid bit?) Afraid someone might try to hijack it? Simple enough to fix. Put more armed men on the transportation detail. I'd imagine that 100-200 men should be sufficient.

Kandahar said:
- The President of Yemen admitting to allowing the US to bomb terrorists within his country, then telling the public that it was him. This will make it harder to get Yemen's cooperation with American anti-terrorism efforts.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly it will make it harder. But its not impossible.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why would it be scuttled? (assuming of course that it hadn't already happened..which is possible..how old is that tid bit?) Afraid someone might try to hijack it? Simple enough to fix. Put more armed men on the transportation detail. I'd imagine that 100-200 men should be sufficient.

Quite possibly it will make it harder. But its not impossible.
Click to expand...

In both Pakistan and Yemen, the government cannot be seen to be cooperating too closely with the United States for the sake of their own political survival. Yet they are both fully aware of the security problems present within their nations, and have been trying to discreetly cooperate when possible. By drawing attention to it, they are likely to draw ire from their political opponents and be less likely to help.
 
Kandahar said:
In both Pakistan and Yemen, the government cannot be seen to be cooperating too closely with the United States for the sake of their own political survival. Yet they are both fully aware of the security problems present within their nations, and have been trying to discreetly cooperate when possible. By drawing attention to it, they are likely to draw ire from their political opponents and be less likely to help.
Click to expand...

That doesn't count. Unless it makes it actually IMPOSSIBLE, then nothing wikileaks does is ever bad.
 
RightinNYC said:
That doesn't count. Unless it makes it actually IMPOSSIBLE, then nothing wikileaks does is ever bad.
Click to expand...

Almost. As long as it's seen as damaging to the United States, impossibility isn't a detriment. It's just never bad.
 
RightinNYC said:
That doesn't count. Unless it makes it actually IMPOSSIBLE, then nothing wikileaks does is ever bad.
Click to expand...

Now I've never said this now have I? They are just like any other news agency in that what they do can hurt us. Is that bad? Yes it is. Does it make them bad? From a certain point of view yes. Does that make them bad enough for us to break with our 1st amendment standing? No it isn't. I will always stand up for their 1st amendment rights. But don't mistake standing up for their legal rights as standing up for their moral charactor. I can seperate the two quite easily and do so on many different subjects. Yes being able to do so is often contradictory to my own personal beliefs and moral standings. But objectivity is what is needed in this world. Not emotionality.
 
Harshaw said:
Almost. As long as it's seen as damaging to the United States, impossibility isn't a detriment. It's just never bad.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that I, as an American, likes the US getting hurt? Anyone with even the slightest bit of patriotism would call BS to your statement.


BS!
 
RightinNYC said:
That doesn't count. Unless it makes it actually IMPOSSIBLE, then nothing wikileaks does is ever bad.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much white washing over every critically constructed response that others have made in this thread.

It's always nice to know that I've wasted my time.
 
Orion said:
That's pretty much white washing over every critically constructed response that others have made in this thread.

It's always nice to know that I've wasted my time.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I didn't take the time to point out why I thought your response missed the point and made inaccurate arguments. Would you feel better if I did?
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm sorry that I didn't take the time to point out why I thought your response missed the point and made inaccurate arguments. Would you feel better if I did?
Click to expand...

That would be preferable to you making a vague, partisan statement that puts words in the mouths of everyone you disagree with, regardless of how their points may differ from one another.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Now I've never said this now have I? They are just like any other news agency in that what they do can hurt us. Is that bad? Yes it is. Does it make them bad? From a certain point of view yes. Does that make them bad enough for us to break with our 1st amendment standing? No it isn't. I will always stand up for their 1st amendment rights. But don't mistake standing up for their legal rights as standing up for their moral charactor. I can seperate the two quite easily and do so on many different subjects. Yes being able to do so is often contradictory to my own personal beliefs and moral standings. But objectivity is what is needed in this world. Not emotionality.
Click to expand...

The fact that you keep on referring to the first amendment indicates that you're not really seeing why people are objecting to the things that wikileaks does.

Conspiring to commit felonies or aiding and abetting the felony of espionage is not an act that invokes the protections of the first amendment.
 
That would be preferable to you making a vague, partisan statement that puts words in the mouths of everyone you disagree with, regardless of how their points may differ from one another.
Click to expand...

But that's much snappier.

Orion said:
I know the U.S. will try, but it's a stretch to charge Assange when he wasn't the one who stole the information. It was given to him by the people who did. Charge people from your own country with espionage if you must, but the press and its cohorts have nothing to do with that law.
Click to expand...

This isn't how the law works. If you conspire with someone to commit a crime or otherwise aid in the commission of a crime, you are also culpable.

People who are blinded by anger due to Wikileaks are not seeing what this means for freedom of the press as a whole.
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean a damn thing for the freedom of the press, your attempts to conflate the two notwithstanding. "Freedom of the press" does not include the freedom to conspire to commit felonies by leaking classified information.

Your government has no business charging info brokers in this manner.
Click to expand...

And you have no business misinterpreting our laws and telling us what to do.

Besides, charging Assange would not bring closure to Wikileaks, it would only escalate its activities.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one theory.

Assange has already said and demonstrated that the more the governments of the world come down on him, the more intense the releases are going to be. I for one believe him.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's certainly demonstrated that he's an honest and believable individual without any agenda. Your blind faith seems well placed.

It makes much more sense to strengthen internal security to prevent info. from being released, than it is to attack every agency who uses the leaked information.
Click to expand...

It makes much more sense to do whatever will improve security, rather than taking an "either/or" approach as you appear to be arguing for.

The latter approach only erodes freedom of information and the press.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
The fact that you keep on referring to the first amendment indicates that you're not really seeing why people are objecting to the things that wikileaks does.

Conspiring to commit felonies or aiding and abetting the felony of espionage is not an act that invokes the protections of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:
This isn't how the law works. If you conspire with someone to commit a crime or otherwise aid in the commission of a crime, you are also culpable.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that your first post that I quoted is directly linked to the next part of your post that I quoted above.

Wikileaks has not conspired with anyone. Their about page explicitly states that they do not endorse breaking the law. Anyone that gives them any info knows this. Sorry but they are covered this way. Also wikileaks did not in any way help Manning steal those documents.

As far as "aiding and abetting", again, they did nothing to help Manning steal those documents.

RightinNYC said:
And you have no business misinterpreting our laws and telling us what to do.
Click to expand...

No more than you do. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm assuming that your first post that I quoted is directly linked to the next part of your post that I quoted above.

Wikileaks has not conspired with anyone. Their about page explicitly states that they do not endorse breaking the law. Anyone that gives them any info knows this. Sorry but they are covered this way.
Click to expand...

Ah, so if an organization's website claims that it doesn't break the law, that means that neither the organization nor any of its members will ever actually break the law?

Interesting.

Also wikileaks did not in any way help Manning steal those documents.

As far as "aiding and abetting", again, they did nothing to help Manning steal those documents.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt you have any evidence to support that claim, and think that it's certainly something that the government is investigating. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to find out that they already have evidence to the contrary.

Either way, you're still missing my point - if wikileaks or Assange did either of those things, their prosecution would have nothing to do with the first amendment.
 
RightinNYC said:
Ah, so if an organization's website claims that it doesn't break the law, that means that neither the organization nor any of its members will ever actually break the law?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

The claim was that they don't "endorse" it. If they or someone in the organization breaks the law then you have to prove it. Even then if one single individual breaks a law it doesn't mean that the whole organization is culpable. That's what it means.

RightinNYC said:
I very much doubt you have any evidence to support that claim, and think that it's certainly something that the government is investigating. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to find out that they already have evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Alleged leaker Bradley Manning's steps retraced

Granted that doesn't disprove that wiki didn't help them. But the fact that you claim something that you have no proof for either...well my link seems to be more "proof" than your claim. From the sounds of that article Manning had no help. Particularly because of this part....

In his chats with Adrian Lamo, Manning referenced a "test" document that he leaked to Assange (presumably to verify Assange's identity), a classified diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik, sent Jan. 13, 2010. WikiLeaks posted the document on Feb. 18, 2010.
Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:
Either way, you're still missing my point - if wikileaks or Assange did either of those things, their prosecution would have nothing to do with the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually I could gauruntee you that the 1st amendment would be among the first lines of defense of Assaunges lawyers....unless of course they are totally incompentant. Though I am quite positive that the prosecution would try thier best to keep the 1st amendment out of the proceedings. They would fail though.
 
Kandahar said:
No reason we can't do both. Assange is different from both the New York Times or a shady go-between who receives leaked documents. For (what I think is) the first time in history, this is a guy who has created a popular method of transmitting state secrets with a promise to publish them. So it's not just the CURRENT leak that's the problem, it's the fact that this kind of thing will CONTINUE to happen as long as Wikileaks is allowed to operate. Assange has neither the anonymity of a shady character who receives government secrets in a dimly lit parking garage, nor the responsibility of mainstream media outlets like the New York Times.

Obviously the US is going to need to revise its secrecy classifications in light of this breach of security. But it also should not allow a popular website to publicly encourage and facilitate the publication of state secrets.
Click to expand...

What if a site starts up in a nation that the US doesn't have an extradition treaty with, do we invade the country?

Sweden doesn't even have an extradition treaty with the US for espionage.

Could you imagine the absolute s***storm that would result if an American citizen published cables harming the national security of... China, and the Chinese wanted to send in forces to assassinate/kidnap him? We would probably start a damn nuclear war lol.

But again, we have the military. Half of the world's. This is the defining feature between the US and other nations. Because of it we can do stupid s*** without consequences.

All kinds of other news media released the cables. If you didn't want them released them go and bitch to the government official who leaked them, not the media organizations like Wikileaks, MSNBC, Fox, etc, etc who published them.

Lets just say... hypothetically, that Wikileaks didn't leak this material when they got it, straight up on their website. Lets say that they handed it to another source, just one, then this source leaked it to two sources, then these two sources each leaked it to three sources, and so on. At which point exactly does it become morally and legally okay to leak it to another source? After 2 iterations? 3? 50? 150? How do you justify this absurdly arbitrary number?

Thanks.
 
SirPwn4lot said:
What if a site starts up in a nation that the US doesn't have an extradition treaty with, do we invade the country?
Click to expand...

The same way we react whenever other kinds of illegal websites start up on servers outside the American government control.

SirPwn4lot said:
Sweden doesn't even have an extradition treaty with the US for espionage.
Click to expand...

An extradition treaty merely COMPELS a nation to extradite a suspect. It doesn't mean that they CAN'T extradite him without a treaty.

SirPwn4lot said:
Could you imagine the absolute s***storm that would result if an American citizen published cables harming the national security of... China, and the Chinese wanted to send in forces to assassinate/kidnap him? We would probably start a damn nuclear war lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah we'd probably be pretty pissed. But I think it would be easy to understand why China assassinated him.

SirPwn4lot said:
But again, we have the military. Half of the world's. This is the defining feature between the US and other nations. Because of it we can do stupid s*** without consequences.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the key difference. And it's not to be trivialized or glossed over. The US should act in its best interests because it can. China perhaps should not, under identical circumstances, because it can't...at least not without pissing off a lot of people.

SirPwn4lot said:
All kinds of other news media released the cables. If you didn't want them released them go and bitch to the government official who leaked them, not the media organizations like Wikileaks, MSNBC, Fox, etc, etc who published them.
Click to expand...

I haven't bitched about any of those other news organizations; they just published what was already in the public domain at that point. Only Wikileaks and the leaker should be held accountable, not all those other news organizations.

SirPwn4lot said:
Lets just say... hypothetically, that Wikileaks didn't leak this material when they got it, straight up on their website. Lets say that they handed it to another source, just one, then this source leaked it to two sources, then these two sources each leaked it to three sources, and so on. At which point exactly does it become morally and legally okay to leak it to another source? After 2 iterations? 3? 50? 150?
Click to expand...

When it enters the public domain, then a news source is no longer doing anything wrong by publicizing what has already been released. In your contrived and unrealistic scenario, it would be up to a judge to determine how many iterations of leaks it took before the information was essentially public knowledge.

SirPwn4lot said:
How do you justify this absurdly arbitrary number?
Click to expand...

That's why we have judges. And arbitrariness is not a bad thing; it's one of the defining characteristics of common law.
 
Kandahar said:
When it enters the public domain, then a news source is no longer doing anything wrong by publicizing what has already been released. In your contrived and unrealistic scenario, it would be up to a judge to determine how many iterations of leaks it took before the information was essentially public knowledge.
Click to expand...

But this is exactly what happened with wikileaks. It entered the public domain the moment Manning took it and gave it out. By your own logic wikileaks is not in the wrong. Manning as a member of the military with security clearance gave it to a publicly known site that was known to publish anything that it came across.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom