Wikileaks

[Beavah]

Nah, that's what I meant about Joe McCarthy, BS-87. You're throwin' around the word "terrorist" without much thought.

 

Terrorists blow up random civilians for a cause.

 

The diplomatic documents leaker leaked some documents to the press. He didn't sell 'em to our enemies to be used against us, he released 'em to our own media so they're no longer of any strategic or tactical value to anyone.

 

That's not even remotely close to terrorism.

 

Just because we don't like what someone has done doesn't mean that they must be mass murderers out to kill women and children. And certainly not that they should be put to death.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BadenP]

It really is a sad truth that the US Govt. has to play the same immoral games that our ally and enemy governments do to push our own interests in the world. What I find even sadder is that our allies Great Britian and Israel spy on us even more than our enemies do bringing to mind the old saying "No honor among thieves". Then again they do supply an abundance of material for all the spy movies and tv series we see today, the only question that remains is what about all the dark covert ops going on that never see the light of day? So the question then becomes how far is too far, and does the American public have the moral or legal right to know what these rogue underground secret agencies are doing?

[vol_scouter]

One of the interesting things to me is the hypothetical that Beavah brought up, if he were here he would be protected by the first Amendment to the Constitution under Freedom of the press. I would argue that Wikileaks is not a member of the press while others would surely aver that it is. In this digital age, the definition of the press is blurred. I do not believe that bloggers and websites constitute a press though I believe that those are playing an important role.

 

I have not seen any stories that would fit with whistle blower. The State Department documents have assessments of countries and individuals that express their candid views. Those assessments will be combined with various other assessments from a variety of sources to form viewpoints and policies. Everyone on this list has at some time provided an assessment of someone else that they would not like to have published. That is not whistle blowing.

 

People entrusted with classified information sign documents stating that they understand the importance and accept the responsibility as well as understand that revealing any of that information to anyone who is not cleared and have a clear need to know constitutes a crime. So the folks providing the information are guilty of a crime. They deserve harsh penalties.

 

Assange is not a terrorist but he is an enemy. If his goal is to reveal how countries deal with each other then we will see the same thing about Russia, China, etc. Don't hold your breathe because he is a leftist out to damage the US. Besides, can you commit treason to the USA when not a citizen? He owes no loyalty to this country.

[Beavah]

 

I have not seen any stories that would fit with whistle blower.

 

Oh, probably Secretary Clinton's very ill-advised memo instructing diplomatic personnel to engage in efforts to collect biometric data from other nations' diplomatic staff could be considered that.

 

Much of what was released about China's behind-closed-doors stuff and about the heads of most of the mideast nations could be considered whistle-blowing on them. After all, Wikileaks did "out" China on what they really feel about North Korea (more embarrassing to China than to us by far) and all the nations who are quietly calling for armed assault on Iran (again, more embarrassing to them than to us). Certainly they "outed" the Yemeni government for lying, though that's da one I think was irresponsible. And we come off lookin' pretty good tryin' to get the Pakistanis to get control of their nukes.

 

So all and all it's been an equal-opportunity whistleblowing. The data just happened to come from us.

 

B

 

[vol_scouter]

I thought that whistleblowers were revealing wrong doing. Hiliary was requesting biometric data which is now commonly obtained by most countries. I do not believe that requesting biometric data on non-citizens violates US law though I am clearly not an attorney.

[Beavah]

If we weren't doin' something bad, then why are we so embarrassed about it, eh?

 

I don't think yeh can make a case that having your ambassador gather biometric data for identity theft from other delegations is an ethical act. Leastways not with a straight face.

 

That it's also contrary to international law and protocol is irrelevant to the ethical question, as is whether or not some other bad actors do the same thing.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Kahuna]

Beavah: Terror, from which we get terrorism is defined as a state of extreme fear. The fact that these guys are exposing U.S. government secrets scares the heck out of me. Worse, you and I don't know who or what has been or may be blown up as a result of their actions. As to treason, I'm sure you know the SCOTUS has ruled that only witnesses, including investigators, to the fact that the act was treasonous are required. Confession is also allowed. I have no doubt a successful treason case can be put together.

 

It's all very well to talk about shining a light on the actions of government, but to endanger lives and put national relationships in jeopardy is another thing.

 

It's true that if Assange were a U.S. citizen or had he committed the act in the U.S. the First Amendment would apply to him. So would the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793). He isn't a citizen, but the Espionage Act appears to apply to what he did.

 

I stand by my original thoughts.

 

 

[Beavah]

It's true that if Assange were a U.S. citizen or had he committed the act in the U.S. the First Amendment would apply to him. So would the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793).

 

And in the conflict between the two, the First Amendment would rightly prevail.

 

Expansive definitions of criminal laws (like "terrorism") are a fundamental threat to personal liberty that is far larger and more "terrifying" than learning our diplomats think Menendev is Putin's lapdog.

 

You would have us apply a felony prosecution (with the death penalty in play, no less), because you happen to feel afraid. How does an average citizen engaged in anything controversial conduct himself so that no one feels afraid? Especially someone with no particular experience in the area? If a liberal black man becomes fearful because of the Tea Party rally down the street, can we prosecute the Tea Partiers for terrorism? After all, he doesn't know who might be beaten or attacked because someone got inspired by what the Tea Partiers said, and he's heard through the grapevine that the Tea Partiers might be racist.

 

Criminal acts must be defined specifically and narrowly in the law, so as to prevent the government (in the form of a politicized or overzealous prosecutor) from doing something like applying capital terrorism or treason charges to an act of press freedom. Insisting that those definitions be kept narrow even when we think the press has been irresponsible is how we guarantee freedom for everyone, because at some point someone is going to feel that the statements or press that WE put out are irresponsible and make them afraid, and we don't want to face capital charges at the hands of an overzealous government official ourselves.

 

What we apply to Assange and Wikileaks now might well be applied to Glen Beck publishing a leaked Obama document on Fox News blog tomorrow. Do yeh think that the current justice department is completely free of any overzealous liberal prosecutors?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CalicoPenn]

One) The whole "Biometric Data" revelation is overblown - and that's because "Biometric" is a word that sounds more important than it's true meaning.

 

Gather your Scout Unit together - take a group picture - guess what you just did? You have gathered "Biometric" data. That's right - an act as simple as taking someone's picture is gathering Biometric Data. A US Ambassador that makes sure s/he arranges photo-ops to get photos of everyone s/he meets, or everyone attending a party at the embassy has followed this directive to gather biometric data. But no, typical American Media brainless minds have to go into overdrive and immediately conjure up visions of James Bond gathering DNA samples, and fingerprints, and iris prints and blood/urine/tissue samples. Think I'm being too simplistic? We knew that Saddam Hussein used doubles many many times - we could even identify photo-ops of his where one of his doubles was there and not him. Why? Because we had photographs of the actual person to compare. Simple use of "Biometric Data".

 

Two) A lot of outright lies are being spread in this thread about Valerie Plame. The facts are that Valerie Plame was NOT an "EX-CIA" agent at the time her identity as a CIA Agent was leaked. Plame was still an active agent, working undercover, for the CIA in Langley, at the time her identity was leaked. The bull-puckey about her not being an agent at the time is rubbish spread by desperate people trying to justify their criminal, and I would argue treasonous, acts. Nor for that matter was her suggesting her husband for the task he was brought on for in any way, shape, or form, illegal. Plame did not make the decision to send Wilson anywhere, she properly suggested that his experience and reputation as a former Ambassador might be useful, and it was the people in charge of that operation that made the decision that he was the right person for the job. Again, the claims otherwise are an attempt by desperate people trying to cover their own butts when it came out that his report differed so much from their presentation. As for Libby, he was not charged with being the leaker - he was charged because he lied to a Grand Jury. And that's all I'll say on this subject because I prefer to live in the real world, and not some right-wing fantasy land that makes Candyland look like a real vacation spot.

 

Three) Has it occurred to anyone else that either the US intelligence services have been and and are continuing to be a bumbling mass of utter incompetence incapable of dealing with an amaturish operation like Wikileaks, or that the government is playing everyone like chumps and is using Wikileaks to do exactly what they want it to do? If it's the former, then we really are in trouble. If it's the latter, then they are sly as a fox. Given the precision in which we can now target a single building in a urban area for a missle strike, I have doubts its the former. Let's think about this - how hard can it be to find Assange anyway? As I heard from somewhere else, it should be as simple as starting with all the 5-star hotels in London and working your way down.

[vol_scouter]

CalicoPenn,

 

At least according to Wikipedia, Plame was an active CIA agent when her identity was revealed. That was a despicable act apparently by Richard Armitage but one has to wonder if that is the correct leak since there was never a prosecution. In reading the article on Wikipedia, the obvious question also comes up - why wasn't Joe Wilson ever prosecuted for releasing classified information about the assessment for WMD in Iraq? I am certain that he would likely claim whistleblower status which in this circumstance might be justified. The lack of prosecutions makes me believe that there is far more to this story than has ever been released. From what I read at the time, the Wilson's were democrats who disliked President Bush and wanted to discredit him. At the same time, I could see the possibility that they disliked him because they felt like that the President was not honest about the WMD reasons to attack Iraq. Likely only they will ever know that truth. If they disliked President Bush and that caused them to not carry out the duties of their positions to the best of other abilities, they should have resigned. When Joe Wilson published an op-ed piece in the NYT, he knew that it would likely have repercussions. That would in no way justify revealing Valerie Plame's identity.

 

I agree with you on the first point. The third point could also be that Assange has enough notoriety that somehow removing him would be viewed much as the west viewed the Po poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko.

[Eagle92]

Vol,

While wikipedia can give you a quickl reference, you do need to take things with a grain of salt as I learned the hard way. Anyone who is registered can alter content, wheather it's valid or not. Good example, I tried to edit the Korean War entry based upon info that was released within the past 3-5 years of me attempting to make the edit. had source citations, the whole 9 yards. Well a few days later, my info was removed, my citations expunged, etc.

 

As for the death penalty for espionage and treason, the last time it happened to my knowledge was the Rosenburgs in the 1950s. Despite a trial that convicted with valid evidence and testimony, there is still an aura of repulsiveness for executing. Even to this day, there are folks who beleive that they were innocent and set up buy the US government, despite that we know from declassified VENONA transcripts and former Soviet archives, that they were guilty.

[Beavah]

that's because "Biometric" is a word that sounds more important than it's true meaning.

 

Yeh need to read the memos, CalicoPenn.

 

Diplomats in some countries were instructed that biometric data includes "fingerprints, facial images, DNA, and iris scans" and asked to obtain it from hundreds of people, including civilian "ethnic, religious, and business leaders."

 

They were also instructed to gather identity-theft information including credit card account numbers, frequent flyer numbers, passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks, all cell phone and pager information (presumably for intercepts), internet addresses, email listings and handles, work schedules, and biographical information (which is used in identity-theft and surveillance).

 

It was a pretty hefty intelligence "shopping list" for diplomatic staff, eh? I suspect it was a product of Mrs. Clinton's inexperience (and her staff's) that they just sent da CIA wish list out without vetting it. But still...

 

Again, da Golden Rule applies, eh? How would we feel about foreign embassy staff tryin' to gather all that from our "ethnic, religious, and business leaders."

 

I agree with yeh, though, that Valerie Plame was an active undercover agent at the time she was outed. That was a far more dangerous act than anything I've seen from Wikileaks so far. And it was done by Americans. That there were no prosecutions other than for Libby's coverup shows how high da politically-motivated corruption ran. Shameful.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[vol_scouter]

Eagle92,

 

I totally agree with your comments on Wikipedia - that is precisely why I quote it as the source. I do not believe that it is accurate on the Valerie Plame Wilson story but frankly, I consider this an informal discussion around the campfire so better references are not necessary for most discussions. If I use Wikipedia, I say so in order for everyone to make their own decisions as to the veracity of the story.

 

Beavah,

 

As is often the case, I agree.

[Eagle92]

What I really find interesting about the leaks is that most, like 75%, of what is being covered in the news currently, has been hinted at and or published and ignored previously. Grant you some of the details are interesting, i.e. Saudi calling Iran a snake, but the animosity between Arabs and Iranians, aka Persians, is very historic. Hezbollah using Red Crescent ambulances to transport armed folks unmolested has been reported. etc etc.

 

 

[JoeBob]

Now that WikiLeaks has published a list of critical infrastructure in the US, are they a terrorist; yet?