• 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

Catz Part Deux said:
How is investigative journalism different than what Assange has done? How is what wikileaks is doing untirely unlike what the NY Times did in publishing the Pentagon Papers?

Please feel free to be explicit.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Here's something for Redress and Hellhound...

Outside a gated subdivision of mansions in McLean, a line of cars idles every weekday morning as a new day in Top Secret America gets underway. The drivers wait patiently to turn left, then crawl up a hill and around a bend to a destination that is not on any public map and not announced by any street sign.

Liberty Crossing tries hard to hide from view. But in the winter, leafless trees can't conceal a mountain of cement and windows the size of five Wal-Mart stores stacked on top of one another rising behind a grassy berm. One step too close without the right badge, and men in black jump out of nowhere, guns at the ready.

Past the armed guards and the hydraulic steel barriers, at least 1,700 federal employees and 1,200 private contractors work at Liberty Crossing, the nickname for the two headquarters of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its National Counterterrorism Center. The two share a police force, a canine unit and thousands of parking spaces.

Liberty Crossing is at the center of the collection of U.S. government agencies and corporate contractors that mushroomed after the 2001 attacks. But it is not nearly the biggest, the most costly or even the most secretive part of the 9/11 enterprise.
Click to expand...

Just publishing this description of the location of these two centers puts the employees in these centers (and their work) at risk.

Should the Washington Post be prosecuted for espionage?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Here's something for Redress and Hellhound...



Just publishing this description of the location of these two centers puts the employees in these centers (and their work) at risk.

Should the Washington Post be prosecuted for espionage?
Click to expand...

Zyphlin has already answered that question. By the way, could you please post a link for that excerpt?
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one. I would prefer to see us draw the lines widely, rather than narrowly, because I believe that greater freedom of speech and openness, as counterintuitive as that might seem, are our allies, not our enemies.

This gets at who we are, as a country.

I love this quote from Robert Gates, who I believe responded absolutely appropriately:

Let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases.

And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel." …
Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.
Click to expand...

I love the quote from John Adams, because it shows that our history of openness goes way back to the origins of this country, and that other nations found it unbelievable. But it is part of who we are.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Nor does the espionage act and/or the issue of being a traitor, but that hasn't stopped you, has it? ;)
Click to expand...




I said my bad alread on the traitor thing, but espionage? how would he be exempt?


And nothing stops the Greatness that is the Good Reverend. The line is drawn, wherever I am. :pimpdaddy:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com'

I'd encourage you to read this article. It may change your opinions on the subject.
Click to expand...

From the article:

The Post's investigation is based on government documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking Web sites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials. Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns.
Click to expand...

See, that is investigative journalism. It is entirely different from what Wikileaks does.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I agree with you on this one. I would prefer to see us draw the lines widely, rather than narrowly, because I believe that greater freedom of speech and openness, as counterintuitive as that might seem, are our allies, not our enemies.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but at the moment its not clear cut. And as such, it warrants to be looked at. Its ambiguous, so making a clear statement of it being illegal or legal is trying to make a claim of what the baseball game's conclussion is going to be based on what the score is in the 3rd inning. You may luck into the right answer, but ultimately you have to let the game play out. And right now there is a significant difference between the status of "The Press" for Wikileaks comparitive to something like WaPo or NYT. As such, I think action should be persued, because the government shouldn't just shuffle pass this issue due to ambiguity that needs to be clarified in the long run.

I love the quote from John Adams, because it shows that our history of openness goes way back to the origins of this country, and that other nations found it unbelievable. But it is part of who we are.
Click to expand...

But...John Adams' wasn't another nation, he was our own nation. It shows me that not only has openness been something that's long been in our countries history, but contention amongst our own country on how open is too open is also part of who we are.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Nor does the espionage act and/or the issue of being a traitor, but that hasn't stopped you, has it? ;)
Click to expand...

Not to mention Assange did his "dirty deed" outside the US ... so no US law applies to him or his acts...

Or the fact that even if he DID do it in the US.. the 1.st amendment would apply to him, just as it applies to everyone else.. ups...
 
Redress said:
From the article:

See, that is investigative journalism. It is entirely different from what Wikileaks does.
Click to expand...

Gotta kind of agree with Redress here, and its part of the grey area in regards to Wikileaks being "The Press".

Research a large variety of matters, meticulously double and triple checking things with various sources, and relaying information in a narritive fashion of a news report is significantly different then directly reprinting classified information in essentially its original format.

Would you consider someone that just grabs a domain name, scans a bunch of government files into a computer, and then throws them up on the website a "journalist"?
 
I think that it becomes more complicated when you add in the fact that Assange and other Wikileaks researchers have collaborated, to a meticulous degree, with journalistic organizations who've synthesized some of the data that has been posted on Wikileaks, resulting in reports, such as the one that won Assange an award from Amnesty International in 2009, on governmental and law enforcment entities in Kenya who'd killed several hundred young men.

Also...the cables are a great read.

Here's a brief look...

Who's Who in WikiLeaks - By Max Strasser | Foreign Policy
 
Redress said:
There are ways to change the system. Randomly releasing classified material is not one of them.
Click to expand...

There is nothing random about it. Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker, saw material that he felt revealed abuses that demanded exposure. He sent these documents in their entirety to Wikileaks, a site committed to exposure of information concerning abuses. Wikileaks has worked with the press, and even offered to work with people from the government, in order to decide what should or should not be published.

Redress said:
Correct, there is a fine line. Assange is not some one I trust, nor are other random people to make the determination.
Click to expand...

So who do you think should be trusted? The freedom fairies?

ReverendHellh0und said:
wait, so manning deserves a medal?
Click to expand...

Well, I think he deserves one more than many soldiers who get them.

Zyphlin said:
I think the issue is that the basis for the NYT's not being found guilty of espionage (because there was a court case) was due to their rights under the Freedom of the Press.

The issue that comes in here is whether or not something like "Wikileaks" legitimately can be considered "The Press" or if its not. If its not, then it becomes far more up in the air than the NYT's case. If it can be considered "The Press", then there is a much more reasonably sound constitutional argumement that they wouldn't fall under the legal issues.
Click to expand...

I would say they do constitute a press organization. The video of the helo attack in Iraq earlier this year was an example of press-type activity. Their actions with the most recent logs are very much in the nature of a press organization as they are disseminating information to members of the process and coordinating the reporting of information with them.

Zyphlin said:
Is Wikipedia the press?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Wikinews is the press organization.
 
Demon of Light said:
There is nothing random about it. Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker, saw material that he felt revealed abuses that demanded exposure. He sent these documents in their entirety to Wikileaks, a site committed to exposure of information concerning abuses. Wikileaks has worked with the press, and even offered to work with people from the government, in order to decide what should or should not be published.
Click to expand...


I heard he was a gay activist who did it because he was pissed about DADT.


Well, I think he deserves one more than many soldiers who get them.
Click to expand...


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:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
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:
Click to expand...

Oh. Okay. So, the military is no longer answerable to the citizens?

That's a ****ing lame comment. You served. I respect that about you, greatly. But, I'm sorry. The military is answerable to the citizens, not vice versa. You seem confused on that issue.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh. Okay. So, the military is no longer answerable to the citizens?

That's a ****ing lame comment. You served. I respect that about you, greatly. But, I'm sorry. The military is answerable to the citizens, not vice versa. You seem confused on that issue.
Click to expand...




Uhm, my comment was a retort to the notion that one who betrayed his oath and his fellow soldiers is more deserving of a medal than others who have received them. :shrug:

It has nothing to do with being answerable to civilians.

I stand by my statement.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but at the moment its not clear cut. And as such, it warrants to be looked at. Its ambiguous, so making a clear statement of it being illegal or legal is trying to make a claim of what the baseball game's conclussion is going to be based on what the score is in the 3rd inning. You may luck into the right answer, but ultimately you have to let the game play out.
Click to expand...

This is the best game I've seen in a while, tbh. ;) I'm loving it on some dark level inside my soul.

And right now there is a significant difference between the status of "The Press" for Wikileaks comparitive to something like WaPo or NYT. As such, I think action should be persued, because the government shouldn't just shuffle pass this issue due to ambiguity that needs to be clarified in the long run.
Click to expand...

Good point. I do believe that there needs to be greater exploration of the role of new media, and what that means in a first amendment context.

But...John Adams' wasn't another nation, he was our own nation. It shows me that not only has openness been something that's long been in our countries history, but contention amongst our own country on how open is too open is also part of who we are.
Click to expand...

This is where my deeply closeted libertarianism shows, to some degree. I am distrusting of government on many levels. A thorough airing of their closets occasionally is something I welcome, even if we end up seeing dirty underwear on the floor.
 
Erod said:
Predicition: Liberals will be wearing "Che"-like shirts one day in honor of Julian Assange.

He is EXACTLY like today's American lefties. If Obama was still a community organizer in Rev. Wright's church, he would fully support Assange. They're cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...

How did this get turned into a "Liberal" -vs- "Conservative" issue when the thread topic had absolutely NOTHING to do with politics, American or otherwise? Some people will inject partisan politics (or in some cases race) into any situation just to get their rocks off. (Pun intended!)
 
Objective Voice said:
How did this get turned into a "Liberal" -vs- "Conservative" issue when the thread topic had absolutely NOTHING to do with politics, American or otherwise? Some people will inject partisan politics (or in some cases race) into any situation just to get their rocks off. (Pun intended!)
Click to expand...

That's all they have, OV.
 
Redress said:
From the article:



See, that is investigative journalism. It is entirely different from what Wikileaks does.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom