• 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!

Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

They would NOT countenance someone whose specific aim was to obtain and publish state secrets, under the guise of "freedom of the press" or otherwise. That's tubthumping asininity.

They wanted to protect the freedom to criticize the government without punishment. That is in no way the same thing.

Not just to criticize but to also hold the government accountable for wrong doing. (hence the reason that they used the term "watchdog") Do you deny this?
 
Not just to criticize but to also hold the government accountable for wrong doing. (hence the reason that they used the term "watchdog") Do you deny this?

Which is stil not the same thing as being in the specific enterprise of obtaining state secrets for publication. That's espionage. That's the stuff that gets you hanged. .
 
Which is stil not the same thing as being in the specific enterprise of obtaining state secrets for publication. That's espionage. That's the stuff that gets you hanged. .

So is that a "no" you don't deny it?
 
So is that a "no" you don't deny it?

Did you read what I said? It doesn't matter if I deny it or not. It's not the same thing.
 
Why would I deny that the founders wanted the people to hold the government accountable and saw the press as a means to do so? (Though I don't know that any of them actually used the term "watchdog.") I already told you it doesn't matter.

Do you deny that the Founders also agreed that a government could keep legitimate state secrets, especially where matters of diplomacy and war were concerned, and that stealing and exposing said secrets was espionage?
 
Why would I deny that the founders wanted the people to hold the government accountable and saw the press as a means to do so? (Though I don't know that any of them actually used the term "watchdog.") I already told you it doesn't matter.

Oof, can't anyone ever just say "no" anymore?

Anyways yes it does matter.

Do you deny that the Founders also agreed that a government could keep legitimate state secrets, especially where matters of diplomacy and war were concerned, and that stealing and exposing said secrets was espionage?

No, I don't deny it.

For this part you are trying to state (or at the very least "strongly imply") that wikileaks stole information. They did not. Manning did. He stole it and released it into the public the moment he sent it to wikileaks. Or do you think that wikileaks is not a public organization? I would readily agree with you that the FF's would easily have convicted Manning of espionage and for being a traitor. However they would not have done anything to wikileaks because they are a part of the press and did not steal the information themselves.

Which brings us to the other part that I said I would respond to.

They would NOT countenance someone whose specific aim was to obtain and publish state secrets, under the guise of "freedom of the press" or otherwise.

I would disagree. Otherwise wouldn't there be some kind of indication by them that the press should be restrained in this way? As you have noted before, it is kind of a big deal and would be stupid not to address somewhere. Indeed the following quote from Jefferson would indicate that they would allow such a newspaper if it existed in their day...

“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 a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

One could easily argue that where he says "should have a government without newspapers" could be in reference to the state keeping secrets.
 
There is one more question I would like to put before those that state wikileaks and the NY Times etc etc (anyone that publishes state secrets) should be put in prison before I leave for the night...

Has there EVER been a case in the entire US history where a news agency was successfully convicted of a crime when that news agency has published state secrets?
 
No, I said what I said -- that Wikileaks exists to obtain and publish state secrets. I didn't imply in the slightest that they go and do it themselves.

The Founders wouldn't have to qualify such a thing because it would have been well-understood. There's the press, and then there's espionage.


One could easily argue that where he says "should have a government without newspapers" could be in reference to the state keeping secrets.

Not even a little.
 
There is one more question I would like to put before those that state wikileaks and the NY Times etc etc (anyone that publishes state secrets) should be put in prison before I leave for the night...

Has there EVER been a case in the entire US history where a news agency was successfully convicted of a crime when that news agency has published state secrets?

I never said anything about the NYT or any other legitimate press organization.
 
And Michael Moore goes on about how Americans are dumb. :lamo

The Founders would have shot Assange as a spy without a second thought. And the rest of the world would have said "that sounds about right."

What Michael Moore thinks of the American populace at large has nothing to do with whether or not his claim about what the founders would have supported is valid.

There is credible information already in this thread that shows very clearly that some of the original framers of the Constitution had attitudes that were very much aware of a deep need for the people to have access to information about what their government is up to. It is not any stretch to apply those words to Wikileaks. Any person with basic reasoning skills can see that. Enough evidence has been presented that if you want to continue to deny it, then you need to present a reasoned argument to that end or else reveal yourself as unworthy of further attention in this discussion.
 
Do you deny that the Founders also agreed that a government could keep legitimate state secrets, especially where matters of diplomacy and war were concerned, and that stealing and exposing said secrets was espionage?

The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.

Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?
 
The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.

Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?

I don't think ANYONE has ever raised that point before, nice one.
 
Rule 1 of not-getting-into-flame-threads: don't go near anything that involves the founding fathers. I will break this rule just to say that I'm sick of people of either side exploiting the founding fathers ;)

I also like it when people take one person and use them to represent half the population (ie: Michael Moore or Sarah Palin).

Whatever, I'll let you guys get back to arguing ;)
 
The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.

Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?

I'm sorry; you must have mistaken me for someone who's actually making the arguments you're railing against here.
 
What Michael Moore thinks of the American populace at large has nothing to do with whether or not his claim about what the founders would have supported is valid.

There is credible information already in this thread that shows very clearly that some of the original framers of the Constitution had attitudes that were very much aware of a deep need for the people to have access to information about what their government is up to. It is not any stretch to apply those words to Wikileaks. Any person with basic reasoning skills can see that. Enough evidence has been presented that if you want to continue to deny it, then you need to present a reasoned argument to that end or else reveal yourself as unworthy of further attention in this discussion.

All of that was about freedom of the press, not freedom to seek and publish state secrets. These are also the Founders who hanged spies without trial and passed the Sedition Acts.

If you can't handle that rather bold distinction, then I'm not really interested in your opinion of who's "worthy of further attention." :lamo
 
All of that was about freedom of the press, not freedom to seek and publish state secrets. These are also the Founders who hanged spies without trial and passed the Sedition Acts.

If you can't handle that rather bold distinction, then I'm not really interested in your opinion of who's "worthy of further attention." :lamo

Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the Sedition Acts as a violation of the First Ammendment and upon becoming president he pardoned everyone who was procescuted under it and the Congress repaid all fines resulting from it with interest. Clearly they realized it was not such a good idea.

In any case, nothing Wikileaks has done thus far could have been construed as an actionable offense in the sedition acts. Since the documents were released in their entirety, they could not be false and there is no proof that Wikileaks published them with malicious intent against the Government. Their motivation is to keep governments honest and as such they are honorable.

Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily, so while I might be safe to assume that my opinion now interests you, you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.
 
Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the Sedition Acts as a violation of the First Ammendment and upon becoming president he pardoned everyone who was procescuted under it and the Congress repaid all fines resulting from it with interest. Clearly they realized it was not such a good idea.

Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.


In any case, nothing Wikileaks has done thus far could have been construed as an actionable offense in the sedition acts. Since the documents were released in their entirety

You don't know that they were.


they could not be false

Exceptionally specious "reasoning."


and there is no proof that Wikileaks published them with malicious intent against the Government. Their motivation is to keep governments honest and as such they are honorable.

"Honorable." :lamo

Here's a nice rundown of what he's about:

Commentary: 'International subversives' - UPI.com

I guess you might consider him "honorable" if you share his agenda.


Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily,

You didn't "handle it" at all. :lamo You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.

As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.

But you're more concerned with (what you consider) scoring points than understanding what someone writes, apparently.


so while I might be safe to assume that my opinion now interests you,

You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.


you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.

Oh, goody. Another new poster who thinks bluster is the same thing as debate. You're going to get rolled here, and I'll enjoy watching; I always do. In the meantime, there's a whole group of guys just like you that I'm sure you'll naturally gravitate toward.
 
Last edited:
You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.
What I said, in essence, was that if you did not add something to the discussion then you were not worth my attention. I took your last post as an ill conceived attempt to be a constructive part of this conversation, but because you made an attempt I felt it was at least worth giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.
So in your opinion the founding fathers would have had to unanimously agree with what Wikileaks is doing in order to give credence to Michael Moore's statement? By that reasoning, even the U.S. Constitution would be an invalid example of what the founding fathers wanted, since it was the result of considerable debate and compromise.

Exceptionally specious "reasoning."
No, My reasoning was not specious, however I will go as far as to concede that my statement was more ambiguous than it could have been, it was not my intent to be misleading. I will restate it in a more clear form: Wikileaks released the cables and documents without editing them. Whether the statements in the documents are true or false is not at issue here. Their veracity is out of Wikileaks' purview to control, nor is such expected. Any "falsity" that might be attributed to Wikileaks could only arise if they had edited the documents or else fabricated false documents.

The credibility of Wikileaks rests on their ability to insure that whatever they release is authentic, and I have not yet observed any official charges that the documents have been tampered with. Beyond that, the burden of veracity rests with the various authors of the documents, not with Wikileaks as an institution.

You didn't "handle it" at all. :lamo You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.
I didn't mention it because it is not a valid distinction. We have a free press specifically to act as a check against a government that relies on 'State Secrets"

As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.
But you're more concerned with (what you consider) scoring points than understanding what someone writes, apparently.
I am concerned with addressing the issue in a way that will allow everyone to understand it fully, and find ethical common ground. Michael Moore also made his statement "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time" but that has led to this entire discussion, so apparently a truly thoughtful person should have told you that such a distinction is redundant at this point.

Oh, goody. Another new poster who thinks bluster is the same thing as debate. You're going to get rolled here, and I'll enjoy watching; I always do. In the meantime, there's a whole group of guys just like you that I'm sure you'll naturally gravitate toward.
Bluster is aggressive and ineffectual, so no I don't think that. I have added to this conversation with at least one unique observation of my own. Your accusation that I don't distinguish between bluster and debate is patently malicious and false.
 
Last edited:
I love it how people always say "if the founding fathers were alive today, they would _______." It reminds me of guys who say "if I were a girl, I would stare at myself naked in the mirror all day."

Well, no you wouldn't, because you wouldn't be a pervy male if you were a female. So it doesn't matter. The only purpose of the statement is to demonstrate how obsessed you are with a certain subject.
 
You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.[/url]
What I said, in essence, was that if you did not add something to the discussion then you were not worth my attention.

Funy, you said in the next post:

you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.

Yet I still warranted your attention, as attested by your response -- and even your continued response here. Indeed I do warrant your attention, and no doubt will continue to.


I took your last post as an ill conceived attempt to be a constructive part of this conversation, but because you made an attempt I felt it was at least worth giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Apparently not, considering this thing about "yet to present anything subtantive."

Back. Pedal.

Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.[/url]
So in your opinion the founding fathers would have had to unanimously agree with what Wikileaks is doing in order to give credence to Michael Moore's statement? By that reasoning, even the U.S. Constitution would be an invalid example of what the founding fathers wanted, since it was the result of considerable debate and compromise.

More specious "reasoning." All I did was show a significant chunk who had different thoughts from what you're presenting.



Exceptionally specious "reasoning."[/url]
No, My reasoning was not specious

Oh, well, if you say so.


however I will go as far as to concede that my statement was more ambiguous than it could have been, it was not my intent to be misleading. I will restate it in a more clear form: Wikileaks released the cables and documents without editing them.

How do you know?

And how do you know they were ALL released, and in the proper context?

We have only Assange's word on that. But perhaps that's good enough for you.


Whether the statements in the documents are true or false is not at issue here. Their veracity is out of Wikileaks' purview to control, nor is such expected. Any "falsity" that might be attributed to Wikileaks could only arise if they had edited the documents or else fabricated false documents.

You don't know that they didn't. You don't know anything other than what they want you to know.


The credibility of Wikileaks rests on their ability to insure that whatever they release is authentic

What makes you think "credibility" is a priority for Assange? His mission appears to be rather different.


and I have not yet observed any official charges that the documents have been tampered with.

That doesn't mean they weren't, and it doesn't mean they were released in full context. "Charging" same would require releasing even more documents. Not hard to see why someone wouldn't want to do that.

So, all you have is Assange's word.


Beyond that, the burden of veracity rests with the various authors of the documents, not with Wikileaks as an institution.

You would think a "responsible" journalist would have an interest in it.

Take Michael Moore himself -- he's whining because he says cables about him are false and others are saying journalists shouldn't have published the cable which makes him look bad because they had a duty to determine their truth.

Does not Assange, if he's to be understood as a "journalist" :)lamo), have the same responsibility?

Or does that responsibility only apply when it makes the wrong people look bad?



I didn't mention it because it is not a valid distinction.

Oh, that's funny; I thought you "handled it." Yep, that's what you said:

Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily

So, either you "handled it," or you didn't mention it. :lamo <------ (love that the text of this is "lamo")



We have a free press specifically to act as a check against a government that relies on 'State Secrets"

So what? That doesn't mean seeking and publishing state secrets wouldn't have been opposed by the Founders.


I am concerned with addressing the issue in a way that will allow everyone to understand it fully, and find ethical common ground. Michael Moore also made his statement "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time" but that has led to this entire discussion, so apparently a truly thoughtful person should have told you that such a distinction is redundant at this point.

No, you're concerned with proppping up Wikileaks as a paragon of responsible journalism and defending what Moore said. If not, you'd recognize that what Moore said, "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time," is exactly what I did with the Sedition Acts. Hmmm.


Bluster is aggressive and ineffectual, so no I don't think that.

Yet you engage in it anyway.


I have added to this conversation with at least one unique observation of my own. Your accusation that I don't distinguish between bluster and debate is patently malicious and false.

You simply don't like being called on it. But I'm sure you'll live through it.
 
Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.

Madison also opposed the Sedition act, and considering he was the main author of the 1st amendment..well...In any case the Sedition act was repealed for obvious reasons.

You don't know that they were.

I would agree that under the Sedition act wikileaks would be able to be charged. After all, what was published was scandalous. Which was one of the qualifiers in the Sedition Act. But what does it matter? Not only was it repealed a long time ago (after a new president was elected) but others that have been enacted that were like it also lost in the court room.


"Honorable." :lamo

Here's a nice rundown of what he's about:

Commentary: 'International subversives' - UPI.com

I guess you might consider him "honorable" if you share his agenda.

While I wouldn't deem Assaunge as "honorable" I wouldn't be using that link of yours to use against the idea of him being honorable either. Seriously...a commentary? The need for proving claims in a commentary is about as stringent as living in a theives den and expecting there to be civilized rules.


You didn't "handle it" at all. :lamo You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.

And you should realize that the press do this all the time. While they certainly don't accomplish it like wikileaks has do you really think that if they had a chance to do what wikileaks did that they wouldn't jump on it? Everyone is always saying that the media are attention whores and will do anything to get that attention and their ratings up. Considering how much media attention has been given to wikileaks it is fair to say that any news agency that did what wikileaks did would have had lots of attention. The only real difference between wikileaks and any other news agency is that wikileaks thought up the idea first.

As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.

You are correct. However it should also be noted that the Sedition Act didn't last very long. Which indicates that it wasn't very popular. It was probably pushed through like the HCR of today was.
 
Why do you keep addressing this as though I approve of the Sedition Acts? I never said I did. That was never the point.

As for the "commentary," it simply brings together a number of facts which speak to his "honorability" in this endeavor.

(Not that he doesn't belie his own bull**** about "government accountability" by stating he's going after private organizations anyway.)
 
Why do you keep addressing this as though I approve of the Sedition Acts? I never said I did. That was never the point.

It was not my intention to imply that you approved of the Sedtion Act.

As for the "commentary," it simply brings together a number of facts which speak to his "honorability" in this endeavor.

With no proof of those "facts" backed up.
 
Back
Top Bottom