• 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

What do you think of Wikileaks and Julian Assange?

  • Total voters
    44
RightinNYC said:
First Amendment jurisprudence is a bit more nuanced than this.

If a reporter for the WSJ committed a crime in reporting on a story, the fact that he's a journalist doesn't mean that he gets a free pass.
Click to expand...
But Wikileaks has committed no crime. They are not US citizens.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Agreed. If he committed a crime. Such a crime in this case would have to be in the form of conspiring with someone directly to get classified information. There is no evidence that wikileaks did this. Lots of supposition on the part of those that dislike wikileaks though.
Click to expand...

The government is currently investigating this, and like I said before, the facts that are publicly available lead me to believe that wikileaks had a much greater role than it pretends. We'll see.

In anycase such a thing would be holding the person responsible. Not the organization itself. In other words while assaunge might be able to be prosecuted and even jailed there is nothing that could be done to legally stop wikileaks from continuing on with its objectives.
Click to expand...

The nature of conspiracy means that anyone who conspires to break the law is culpable. I doubt that Assange was the only one who was involved.
 
vauge said:
But Wikileaks has committed no crime. They are not US citizens.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a US citizen to violate a US law. If I were to commit mail fraud in Russia without ever leaving my apt in NY, I could still be prosecuted under Russian law.
 
RightinNYC said:
You don't have to be a US citizen to violate a US law. If I were to commit mail fraud in Russia without ever leaving my apt in NY, I could still be prosecuted under Russian law.
Click to expand...
What part of freedom of speech are you ignoring? The part that everyone is assured or the part that it is irrelevant to you because you feel like it in this case?
 
vauge said:
What part of freedom of speech are you ignoring? The part that everyone is assured or the part that it is irrelevant to you because you feel like it in this case?
Click to expand...

There are limits to freedom of speech. I spent 6 years in the military, and from that, there are things I am not free to speak about due to it being classified(and boring...trust me, you ain't missing much not knowing about the classified stuff I know).
 
vauge said:
What part of freedom of speech are you ignoring? The part that everyone is assured or the part that it is irrelevant to you because you feel like it in this case?
Click to expand...

The part that permits you to break the law and get a free pass.
 
RightinNYC said:
The government is currently investigating this, and like I said before, the facts that are publicly available lead me to believe that wikileaks had a much greater role than it pretends. We'll see.
Click to expand...

What facts are those? I am unaware of any.

RightinNYC said:
The nature of conspiracy means that anyone who conspires to break the law is culpable. I doubt that Assange was the only one who was involved.
Click to expand...

The way wikileaks is setup in order to close down wikileaks you would have to prove that everyone in wikileaks was in on it directly. What are the chances of that?
 
Redress said:
There are limits to freedom of speech. I spent 6 years in the military, and from that, there are things I am not free to speak about due to it being classified(and boring...trust me, you ain't missing much not knowing about the classified stuff I know).
Click to expand...

You voluntarily limited your free speech. There is a difference between that and publishing classified information with which you never agreed to keep secret.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You voluntarily limited your free speech. There is a difference between that and publishing classified information with which you never agreed to keep secret.
Click to expand...

The laws of this country say that it is illegal to reveal classified information except under certain circumstances. Assange does not seem to agree, but laws are an important thing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What facts are those? I am unaware of any.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks had systems in place to facilitate the secure transfer of this information. I don't think he just emailed it to them from his yahoo account.

Then, of course, there's this

In his exchanges with Lamo, Manning said he had sent files to a "white haired aussie," whom he later identified as Julian Assange, the peripatetic founder of Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

Messages from alleged leaker Bradley Manning portray him as despondent soldier

The way wikileaks is setup in order to close down wikileaks you would have to prove that everyone in wikileaks was in on it directly. What are the chances of that?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that everyone at wikileaks will go to jail because of that one leak. I'm saying that if everyone at wikileaks who got involved in this ends up going to jail, there won't be many people who will be eager to continue breaking the law.
 
Redress said:
The laws of this country say that it is illegal to reveal classified information except under certain circumstances. Assange does not seem to agree, but laws are an important thing.
Click to expand...

Yes it is illegal for people to reveal classified information. That law however applies to people like manning. Who was the one that revealed the information originally. Not Assaunge or Wikileaks.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes it is illegal for people to reveal classified information. That law however applies to people like manning. Who was the one that revealed the information originally. Not Assaunge or Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

That would depend on whether Assange is considered part of the press. And we have now come back full circle.
 
rofl, Lamo is Adrian Lamo - the hacker that turned Manning in. The hacker does not and never has worked for WIkileaks.

Wired.com: Lamo/Manning Wikileaks chat logs contain no unpublished references to Assange or private servers (Updated) - Boing Boing

The logs of messages between Manning and Adrian Lamo, provided to The Washington Post by Lamo, reveal a young man who was at once privy to government material of the highest sensitivity and confronting a personal crisis of the highest order. While stationed in Iraq, he decided to turn to Lamo, a former hacker whom he did not know but who would ultimately report him to authorities out of concern that lives could be at risk.

"I'm an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for 'adjustment disorder,' " Manning said by way of introducing himself to Lamo, who had recently been profiled on the Web site of Wired magazine.
Click to expand...
There *IS* evidence of a deep throat encounter where he physically handed stuff to a guy described as Assange.

Right, your argument is flawed. No one from Wikileaks will go to jail with anything having to do with Manning.
 
vauge said:
rofl, Lamo is Adrian Lamo - the hacker that turned Manning in. The hacker does not and never has worked for WIkileaks.

Wired.com: Lamo/Manning Wikileaks chat logs contain no unpublished references to Assange or private servers (Updated) - Boing Boing


There *IS* evidence of a deep throat encounter where he physically handed stuff to a guy described as Assange.

Right, your argument is flawed. No one from Wikileaks will go to jail with anything having to do with Manning.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Lamo worked for Wikileaks. I'm saying that courtesy of the Lamo conversations, we know that Manning and Assange had contacts. As I said, I would wager that the contacts went beyond simply handing something over, which could lead to criminal charges.
 
RightinNYC said:
Wikileaks had systems in place to facilitate the secure transfer of this information. I don't think he just emailed it to them from his yahoo account.
Click to expand...

The secure setup is in place to protect thier informants. Something which the courts have stated the news media is allowed to do. Protect thier sources.

RightinNYC said:
Then, of course, there's this

Messages from alleged leaker Bradley Manning portray him as despondent soldier
Click to expand...

This I will look into but from what I gather Manning never even met Assaunge personally or knew who Assaunge was when Manning first started leaking information. Manning had to look through other files in order to find out who Assaunge was. I'll look it up later. Just too tired to do so now.

RightinNYC said:
I'm not saying that everyone at wikileaks will go to jail because of that one leak. I'm saying that if everyone at wikileaks who got involved in this ends up going to jail, there won't be many people who will be eager to continue breaking the law.
Click to expand...

It will just teach them to not conspire directly. Assuming others even did in the first place. Nothing will really change.

Edit note to clairify: Manning had never met Assaunge physically. Only talked to him via chat channels. (as far as I am aware) but even if he had this does not mean that they talked about how to commit a crime.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That would depend on whether Assange is considered part of the press. And we have now come back full circle.
Click to expand...

With which you never responded to one of my questions. In case you missed it i'll ask again.

How is a pamphlet any different from a webpage beyond that of one being electronical and one being on paper.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm not saying that Lamo worked for Wikileaks. I'm saying that courtesy of the Lamo conversations, we know that Manning and Assange had contacts. As I said, I would wager that the contacts went beyond simply handing something over, which could lead to criminal charges.
Click to expand...

Just found this while trying to solidify my argument.
"Manning reportedly told ex-hacker Adrian Lamo that he had developed a relationship with Assange over many months, according to transcripts posted by BoingBoing and Wired.com over the summer. Lamo told CNET that the transcripts were accurate, but that he doesn't have the computer equipment on which it was saved because the FBI had taken it."
Assange Legal Case Could Hang on Contradiction - World Watch - CBS News

You are right, if the above is true - that would be conspiracy and my argument would be flawed. But, it is currently hearsay and conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
With which you never responded to one of my questions. In case you missed it i'll ask again.

How is a pamphlet any different from a webpage beyond that of one being electronical and one being on paper.
Click to expand...

I can create web content for no cost out of pocket. I cannot create a pamphlet for no cost.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The secure setup is in place to protect thier informants. Something which the courts have stated the news media is allowed to do. Protect thier sources.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between protecting sources and conspiring to commit crimes.

This I will look into but from what I gather Manning never even met Assaunge personally or knew who Assaunge was when Manning first started leaking information. Manning had to look through other files in order to find out who Assaunge was. I'll look it up later. Just too tired to do so now.

Edit note to clairify: Manning had never met Assaunge physically. Only talked to him via chat channels. (as far as I am aware) but even if he had this does not mean that they talked about how to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

And like I said, it seems plausible or even probable that their discussions involved things that constitute crimes.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
And like I said, it seems plausible or even probably that their discussions involved things that constitute crimes.
Click to expand...

This is the other big question. This is what the government is investigating right now. Not you, not I, not Kal'stang, not even Vauge know what the substance of those chats are. Any one saying yes he committed crimes or no he did not are being very premature.
 
Although I like what they are doing I DESPISE that they leaked sensitive government data!!!! For that they should go to jail.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Although I like what they are doing I DESPISE that they leaked sensitive government data!!!! For that they should go to jail.
Click to expand...

Wait what? You like what they are doing but despise what they are doing?
 
Redress said:
I can create web content for no cost out of pocket. I cannot create a pamphlet for no cost.
Click to expand...

It has already been shown that wikileaks pays for the server space to host thier site. Along with other charges. That was the reason that Assuange agreed to a book deal. To pay for the expenses that wikileaks has incurred. So the no cost claim is invalidated. Besides..free press is just another expansion of free speech. It doesn't cost anything to talk. IE rights do not have costs requirements to have said rights.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
There's a difference between protecting sources and conspiring to commit crimes.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So between your points and my points why is it that you tried to bring in wikileaks security protocols into this?

RightinNYC said:
And like I said, it seems plausible or even probable that their discussions involved things that constitute crimes.
Click to expand...

Plausible and probable do not constitute facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom