• 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!

Congressman wants WikiLeaks listed as terrorist group

jamesrage said:
Free press does not mean they can aid in releasing classified info.
Click to expand...

Free press means that they can print anything that comes their way and if they feel like printing it. Our FF's wanted a free press for a reason. That reason was to keep the people informed. And obviously they didn't want the government to be able to stop the press from printing things it didn't like or they wouldn't have had the right to free press put into the 1st amendment. Here are a few words from our founding fathers.

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. Thomas Jefferson

Whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government. Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...



jamesrage said:
Releasing classified info, airing it or giving it directly to the enemy is an accessory.
Click to expand...

The press does not give it directly to the enemy. For that to happen they would have to literally put it in their hands. But they don't. They air it or send it out to news stands with which ANYONE can get ahold of it. The enemy getting ahold of it is a side effect yes. But you would have to prove that the Press intentionally printed out the info in order to purposely give it to the enemy. If you cannot then you are doing nothing but trying to keep them from doing their job. Which is to keep the American people informed.

jamesrage said:
There is no double standard. Freedom of press and freedom of speech does not mean you can leak classified info. I am against virtual strip searches because they violate the 4th amendment. Me not getting stripped searched does not aid in a crime. A constitutional right does not mean you can get away with a crime. For example my right to keep and bear arms does not mean I can legally murder people or randomly shoot at people for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

And demanding that the press not print news worthy info on pain of death (the sentence for treason) violates the 1st amendment. Especially when the FF's specifically wanted the press to be able to print/air anything...even things that was bad for the government. Where is your outrage for this? Is your right to privacy worth more than the press's right to print the news that they get?

Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with trying the people that leaked the info originally to the press in a court of law on charges of treason or espionage. But saying that the press deserves the same treatment for doing thier jobs is too extreme for me. The government does not have a free pass when it comes to what the press reports. Nor should they.
 
pbrauer said:
Haven't you ever heard of the First Amendment of our Constitution? It gives them the right to print any information that comes their way.
For the person that stole the information, that's a completely different story.
Click to expand...

It takes two to tango. The press aired this info knowing that our enemies could get a hold of it. Just like 2nd amendment rights does not give anyone the right to go on a shooting rampage the 1st amendment does not give you the right to divulge classified info to our enemies and anyone else. Because by your logic the traitors have a right to free speech and therefore should get off scott free because they were exercising their first amendment rights to speech.
 
jamesrage said:
It takes two to tango. The press aired this info knowing that our enemies could get a hold of it. Just like 2nd amendment rights does not give anyone the right to go on a shooting rampage the 1st amendment does not give you the right to divulge classified info to our enemies and anyone else. Because by your logic the traitors have a right to free speech and therefore should get off scott free because they were exercising their first amendment rights to speech.
Click to expand...

Have there been any resultant deaths due to wikileaks? Pray tell... who else in our country deserves to be executed for treason? :ssst:
 
jamesrage said:
It takes two to tango. The press aired this info knowing that our enemies could get a hold of it. Just like 2nd amendment rights does not give anyone the right to go on a shooting rampage the 1st amendment does not give you the right to divulge classified info to our enemies and anyone else. Because by your logic the traitors have a right to free speech and therefore should get off scott free because they were exercising their first amendment rights to speech.
Click to expand...
Did you feel the same way when conservative columnist Robert Novak published the identity of CIA NOC Valerie Plame? A little birdie tells me you didn't.
 
pbrauer said:
Did you feel the same way when conservative columnist Robert Novak published the identity of CIA NOC Valerie Plame? A little birdie tells me you didn't.
Click to expand...


Plame's name being published was not a crime. Further, it was a leftie that was the first to drop her name in the first place. And to the thread, the people that are trying to classify WikiLeaks as some sort of News outlet are making me laugh.

j-mac
 
Demon of Light said:
Source: CNET

Hopefully Obama will ignore such a psychotic suggestion.
Click to expand...

I'd like to get Congress officially designated as a terrorist organization.

hehehe

But I hope this dude doesn't get his way. I don't think wikileaks comes close to satisfying the definition of "terrorist".
 
Ikari said:
I'd like to get Congress officially designated as a terrorist organization.

hehehe
Click to expand...


Sweet! LOL


But I hope this dude doesn't get his way. I don't think wikileaks comes close to satisfying the definition of "terrorist".
Click to expand...

Well, if he is aiding them knowingly. And if his stance is that he just doesn't care if it does, it is at least negligence.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, if he is aiding them knowingly. And if his stance is that he just doesn't care if it does, it is at least negligence.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Maybe that. I mean, one could certainly make the argument for some form of wrong doing here. It's just not terrorism. Terror is not being used to manipulate people and force them into conceding some amount of political gain. It's information and nothing more. And that's hardly terrifying. Well I guess unless you're the US government. Then you're apparently ****ting yourself. I wonder why they're so freaked out? Kinda makes me wish we knew the whole story.
 
Terrorism- the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

just so were all clear... clearly Wikileaks does not fall into this category. Weather or not someone uses the information for illegal/harmful purposes is not the fault of wikileaks. If a newspaper reports on a political rally that is going to take place, and then on the day of the rally there were a terrorist attack, that is not the fault of the newspaper, even if the terrorists got the information of where/when the rally was going to be, from the newspaper.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.- Benjamin Franklin

it may be a difference of opinion, but i would rather know everything i can with the knowledge that there may be others out there who would use that information to harm me, then know nothing and trust our highly fallible government to follow its own moral compass.
 
Ikari said:
Maybe that. I mean, one could certainly make the argument for some form of wrong doing here. It's just not terrorism. Terror is not being used to manipulate people and force them into conceding some amount of political gain. It's information and nothing more. And that's hardly terrifying. Well I guess unless you're the US government. Then you're apparently ****ting yourself. I wonder why they're so freaked out? Kinda makes me wish we knew the whole story.
Click to expand...

No I don't think it is terrorism in the classic sense. But rather a softer terrorism directed at the governments involved in the world that this man disagrees with ideologically. He is using these dumps as attention grabbing events, and probably enjoying his rescue from obscurity in the headlines.

Assange plays a dangerous game where if he pisses off the wrong people, he could be capped by morning.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No I don't think it is terrorism in the classic sense. But rather a softer terrorism directed at the governments involved in the world that this man disagrees with ideologically. He is using these dumps as attention grabbing events, and probably enjoying his rescue from obscurity in the headlines.

Assange plays a dangerous game where if he pisses off the wrong people, he could be capped by morning.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well then it's not so much terrorism as it is political protest. As I said, there's no movement to instill terror anywhere. He's not using fear as a prime motivator. Maybe he wants some time in the sun, maybe he just wants people to know. Whatever the reason, what's been presented to us is data, and that's it. Perhaps he plays a dangerous game and could be capped. But that would only raise further questions. As to what he found out and why the government would be so scared of it that they'd have to cap him.
 
Ikari said:
Well then it's not so much terrorism as it is political protest. As I said, there's no movement to instill terror anywhere. He's not using fear as a prime motivator. Maybe he wants some time in the sun, maybe he just wants people to know. Whatever the reason, what's been presented to us is data, and that's it. Perhaps he plays a dangerous game and could be capped. But that would only raise further questions. As to what he found out and why the government would be so scared of it that they'd have to cap him.
Click to expand...


Well, we aren't to far apart on the first part of your response here, however, as to the questions it would raise would only be in the minds of those who see some utopia of total open and honest government, that sir is a pipe dream as long as self interest is involved.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, we aren't to far apart on the first part of your response here, however, as to the questions it would raise would only be in the minds of those who see some utopia of total open and honest government, that sir is a pipe dream as long as self interest is involved.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for total open and honest government. In fact, you can never have honest government, they're contradictory. However, what I do want is accountability and restriction. And to gain those, I need to have the proper information. Which is why I wouldn't run off to say this guy should be capped. I think if he where, there are a lot of questions then raised. Like why was he such a threat he had to be killed? What did he know? What did the government do? Because if the government is going to behave so fearfully that this particular information is out, there is probably a reason for it. And that reason, given that it is government, is most likely because of some misuse of power.

In order to hold accountability and restriction to government in order to properly keep the chains of constraint upon the government, we have to know things.
 
What I am worried about is that even if they do not go the step of designating them terrorists it may lead to a law that provides for the same measures using a different term.
 
Some government leaders better fit this description of terrorists. If they are this concerned about these inconsequential "secrets", makes me wonder what else they're hiding from us. As the public of the United States, all of this information should be open to us anyways.
 
j-mac said:
Plame's name being published was not a crime. Further, it was a leftie that was the first to drop her name in the first place. And to the thread, the people that are trying to classify WikiLeaks as some sort of News outlet are making me laugh.

j-mac
Click to expand...
You are correct publishing the identity of Plame's identity was not a crime as Novak was protected by the 1st Amendment as is the publisher of the WikiLeaks.

It was never Patrick Fitzgerald's job to find who was the first leak Plame's identity nor was it his job to prosecute anyone. His job was to find who and why, he made this clear when Libby was indicted.
 
pbrauer said:
You are correct publishing the identity of Plame's identity was not a crime as Novak was protected by the 1st Amendment as is the publisher of the WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...


On this you would be incorrect. Sorry

It was never Patrick Fitzgerald's job to find who was the first leak Plame's identity nor was it his job to prosecute anyone. His job was to find who and why, he made this clear when Libby was indicted.
Click to expand...

If this is true, then he knew that early on and could have closed the investigation within weeks as the actual person that leaked her name to Novak wasn't Libby, but rather Armatage. Fitz knew that and continued until all he could do was hang someone for a process crime....pathetic.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
On this you would be incorrect. Sorry



If this is true, then he knew that early on and could have closed the investigation within weeks as the actual person that leaked her name to Novak wasn't Libby, but rather Armatage. Fitz knew that and continued until all he could do was hang someone for a process crime....pathetic.

j-mac
Click to expand...
Fitzgerald knew about Armitage and was satisfied with his alibi, but he wanted to know what the motivation was of other people who talking to the press which included Libby and Rove.
 
apdst said:
Call'em what you want, they're outlaws, and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

They are not outlaws. They are letting people see the truth with their own eyes and that I have no problem with.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
They are not outlaws. They are letting people see the truth with their own eyes and that I have no problem with.
Click to expand...

They are stealing and putting lives at risk. They are outlaws and should be arrested.
 
I can't help but think that that if this Wikileaks were just a tad bit more careful (perhaps censoring identities and info that could lead to identifying people) with the info they release, there would be less of a reason to be upset here...

That’s my main sticking point here – the possibility that people may get killed and/or damaged (or have their lives ripped apart, while not deserving it) by one of these leaks…

Of nearly equal importance, IMO, is the potential damage these leaks could do to the US and (in the more recent case) many other countries.

Not that I’m particularly worried about damage to political figures/people in power (since I cynically think them mostly corrupt or something similar), but rather that the damage too said persons is highly likely to splash onto people who do not deserve it.

I’m WAG’ing that these Wikileak people are simply too lazy to go through all the documents and redact the info I mentioned above – or they don’t want too…

Either way, I dislike it.
 
Last edited:
Terrorism is the word that anyone can now utilize when they find a group that they don't like. Who cares if it doesn't fit the actual definition? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom