Is Wikileaks morally right?

[TerribleTractors]

I think a large part of the issues rests on your perceptions of how free or oppressive our government currently is

I think this is the most important think said in this thread so far. Personally, I applaud Mr. Assange's efforts, simply because I identify the United States government to be extraordinarily corrupt and oppressive. As it was said, "Only in an Empire of Lies is the Truth considered Treason." (we know, Assange cannot be guilty of treason; he isn't a citizen of the US)

[CapitalistSwine]

I think this is the most important think said in this thread so far. Personally, I applaud Mr. Assange's efforts, simply because I identify the United States government to be extraordinarily corrupt and oppressive. As it was said, "Only in an Empire of Lies is the Truth considered Treason." (we know, Assange cannot be guilty of treason; he isn't a citizen of the US)

I would have to agree that this is mainly influenced by how you view the United States government. Depending on your views, being against or for Wikileaks/Assange can be seen as equally absurd in a person's mind.

Also, I have found out some very interesting, and very important news on this issue. Apparently, a whole host of other wikileaks sites are coming about. I posted an article the other day about the first one that had been announced, Openleaks which was actually started by a few ex-Wikileaks employees. However, now this phenomenon is popping up everywhere:

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/12/13/here-come-the-wikileaks-copycats-indoleaks-brusselsleaks-and-balkanleaks/

[Grames]

"...I identify the United States government to be extraordinarily corrupt and oppressive."

By what standard? Compared to what? What are ordinary levels of corruption and oppression?

[TerribleTractors]

By what standard? Compared to what? What are ordinary levels of corruption and oppression?

Well, you wouldn't say you are pleased with a certain 10th Century doctor just because all 10th Century doctors were along the same standards, which was that they were all totally useless. I would not like to get into this discussion in more detail in this thread; I just mentioned that people's perceptions on government will determine how one will decide whether it is morally right or wrong to do what Mr. Assange did.

[Grames]

Well, you wouldn't say you are pleased with a certain 10th Century doctor just because all 10th Century doctors were along the same standards, which was that they were all totally useless.

I would if I were a 10th century man who didn't think all doctors were useless. I am a 21st century man, and I am pleased with the American government compared to other governments that exist.

Those people who think America is "extraordinarily corrupt and oppressive", what century do they live in?

Edited December 15, 2010 by Grames

[CapitalistSwine]

I would if I were a 10th century man who didn't think all doctors were useless. I am a 21st century man, and I am pleased with the American government compared to other governments that exist.

I can only ascertain that things in Hawaii are a bit different than here on the mainland within a lot of respects.

[Grames]

I can only ascertain that things in Hawaii are a bit different than here on the mainland within a lot of respects.

They are worse in most respects, but that is not the correct context. Compare with the world.

[CapitalistSwine]

They are worse in most respects, but that is not the correct context. Compare with the world.

I wasn't making a judgement of America based on conditions in Hawaii. Simply that I have visited (I understand visiting is much different than living) there and it game a sense of being largely disconnected in many respects. As I understand it many of the detrimental effects occurring today thanks to government action are highly concentrated in the mainland. Specifically: The drug war, terrorist attacks, etc. My point being that people that do not live in America or live in places disconnected from the mainland may have a different perspective of the country because they have different, government-derived things confronting them within their region. As far as the United States, it certainly is nowhere near the worst of the bunch but it is far and away from the golden love child many people like to view it as. It would be difficult for any honest individual to not be able to stack up quite a list of atrocities, but at any rate, that is my understanding, among other reasons, of why there is a spectrum of different views on these sensitive matters which are decided in the minds of many by how they view this country.

Edited December 15, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Maximus]

I've been in third world shit-holes in the military, and, believe me, we're living in relative paradise in the US. I'll take our corrupt over, say, Somalia's corrupt anyday.

Assninja needs to be drawn, hanged and quartered, along with anyone who aided him.

[CapitalistSwine]

To compare the United States with Somalia is nonsensicle and eludes the entire point.

[Grames]

To compare the United States with Somalia is nonsensicle and eludes the entire point.

Compare it with Mexico then. Once when working there in a Gulf Coast petro-chemical plant (no where near the U.S.-Mexican border and the drug trade criminality there), my local contact and I got pulled over by the police and shaken down for a bribe just driving from the plant to the hotel.

[brian0918]

Assninja needs to be drawn, hanged and quartered, along with anyone who aided him.

So, then, all the editors and heads of the largest newspapers in the world should literally be "drawn, hanged and quartered" for their part in vetting the leaked data (since he went to them before going public), and for publishing the data prior to its release on his website? Yes or no?

Edited December 16, 2010 by brian0918

[CapitalistSwine]

Compare it with Mexico then. Once when working there in a Gulf Coast petro-chemical plant (no where near the U.S.-Mexican border and the drug trade criminality there), my local contact and I got pulled over by the police and shaken down for a bribe just driving from the plant to the hotel.

Again this is a rhetorical tool to avoid focusing on the point made by several individuals during the earlier discussion. Making such silly comparisons has nothing to do with anything relevant to the earlier point. There is a reason we do not compare ourselves to Mexico very often. Do I need to make the point explicit so there is no more confusion?

Edited December 16, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Maximus]

So, then, all the editors and heads of the largest newspapers in the world should literally be "drawn, hanged and quartered" for their part in vetting the leaked data (since he went to them before going public), and for publishing the data prior to its release on his website? Yes or no?

That's called a "rhetorical flourish." Assninja is the responsible party, and whomever aided him by copying and passing on the classified information from within the government. Once it's out in the open, it's public domain.

[Grames]

Again this is a rhetorical tool to avoid focusing on the point made by several individuals during the earlier discussion. Making such silly comparisons has nothing to do with anything relevant to the earlier point. There is a reason we do not compare ourselves to Mexico very often. Do I need to make the point explicit so there is no more confusion?

Yes you do need to make the point explicit. It completely escapes me why it is unfair to compare America favorably to certain other countries, but fair to compare America unfavorably to still other countries. It almost seems that you are embarrassed to be in the presence of Americans who are glad to Americans, as if that was an utterly unjustified prejudice born of ignorance, parochialism and know-nothingism and you don't want to be tainted by such proletarian and declasse sentiments.

[brian0918]

That's called a "rhetorical flourish." Assninja is the responsible party, and whomever aided him by copying and passing on the classified information from within the government. Once it's out in the open, it's public domain.

Why exactly is he the responsible party, but not the newspapers who he gave the information to, who then chose to make the details public *before* he posted the data on his website?

Why wasn't it "out in the open" at the point that the individuals stole it?

If those individuals had instead given their stolen data to the newspapers directly, to vet and publish, would those newspaper execs then have been "the responsible party"?

Edited December 16, 2010 by brian0918

[Maximus]

That would need to determined in a court of objective law, would it not?

[CapitalistSwine]

As I understand it (and I have looked into it fairly thoroughly) there is no law that Assange can be tried under at this time unless they try and illegitimately use one of the espionage clauses, which at the moment I find somewhat unlikely (at this moment) since that clause has a very bad history of being used to squash dissent. This is why he has not been charged with anything by the US, has not even been accused directly of any charge, and why they tried to do a backroom deal for his extradition while he was in without bail (although they are still pushing for that I believe). The only clauses (two) that would be legitimate charges cannot be used on him because they have judicial precedence as well as intentional wording in those clauses to protect publishers (for this kind of reason). So far all he has done is publish.

Anyways, there is an important update, Julian Assange was released from prison on bail earlier today:

Listen to what he had to say upon his release today, only place I could find it, news video with it hasn't gone up yet. I guess thats what happens when you have one of the best human rights lawyers in Europe, one who has regularly stopped govt. in its tracks.

As far as Bradley Manning he is in questionable holding conditions right now. He is the one that is believed to have leaked the majority of the recent documents. The Bank of America stuff is supposed to be from an ex-BofA executive however.

Edited December 16, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[brian0918]

That would need to determined in a court of objective law, would it not?

Is that a response to all 3 of my questions, or to a specific one? You have already stated your opinion that he is responsible, that the people who leaked it to him are responsible, but that once he received it, it is now in the "public domain" and so the newspapers are not responsible. I asked for clarification on all of those assertions, to understand your reasoning.

[Maximus]

Is that a response to all 3 of my questions, or to a specific one? You have already stated your opinion that he is responsible, that the people who leaked it to him are responsible, but that once he received it, it is now in the "public domain" and so the newspapers are not responsible. I asked for clarification on all of those assertions, to understand your reasoning.

You are ignoring a key phrase: "from within the government." Whomever copied and leaked classified material is guilty of espionage, a treasonable offense. This does not apply to the press who may be the recipients of such leaked information. That being said, a journalist with a modicum of ethics would not publish information that puts peoples lives at risk because of some anti-American agenda.

[Maximus]

Did that answer your questions sufficiently? Or, do you still not get it?

[2046]

You are ignoring a key phrase: "from within the government." Whomever copied and leaked classified material is guilty of espionage, a treasonable offense. This does not apply to the press who may be the recipients of such leaked information. That being said, a journalist with a modicum of ethics would not publish information that puts peoples lives at risk because of some anti-American agenda.

So the standard of legal and/or moral value is whether some act is revealed from a source within the government or not? It is actually not clear the leaker himself is guilty of espionage and treason, or whether treason itself is even a crime consistent with individual rights. Attempting to overthrow one's government is not per se immoral or a violation of individual rights.

It must also be taken into account that breaking a law to reveal other crimes being committed by the government itself is not consistent with espionage or conspiring to aid a foreign government to make war against one's own government. The fact that a vast network of crimes and non-objective actions were revealed to be undertaken by our own government could in fact qualify the leaker to be a whistleblower and not a traitor who should be tortured and killed for daring to defy the holy, sovereign State you seem to worship as an end in itself.

Depending on what code of values one accepts, it might just be the statolatrous neoconservatives which are actually the “anti-Americans” with their spying, lying, stealing, murdering, sacrificing, and power-lusting policies.

It is also not true that Wikileaks has put anyone's lives in danger.

First, revealing crimes committed by the government and its non-objective policies doesn't put lives in danger, nor is it treasonous. It is committing those crimes and executing those non-objective policies in the first place that is treasonous to American values, and puts American lives on the altar of sacrifice.

Second, Wikileaks does not publish the material until after the major press organizations have already redacted portions of the documents and published them on their own. Nothing Wikileaks has ever done has ever caused physical harm to come to any American soldier or intelligence agent at the hands of the enemy.

[brian0918]

That being said, a journalist with a modicum of ethics would not publish information that puts peoples lives at risk because of some anti-American agenda.

Which specific information from these leaks is putting people's lives at risk?

[CapitalistSwine]

If we are going to discuss this, it is critical that we not distort the facts.

would not publish information that puts peoples lives at risk because of some anti-American agenda.

1. What proof do you have they have put lives at risk. Robert Gibbs, Robert Gates, a UN Chief in Afghanistan, and an official congressional document have all stated that no lives have been harmed from this content as of this moment.

2. You do realize that this organization has been around for several years already, and that the reason there is so much America specific stuff right now is it is all from one person, Bradley Manning. Also, most of the diplomatic cables harm other countries reputations more than they do ours. Much more change has been brought about in other countries as a result of these leaks than here. To suggest there is an anti-American agenda (specifically) is completely false.

You are ignoring a key phrase: "from within the government." Whomever copied and leaked classified material is guilty of espionage, a treasonable offense. This does not apply to the press who may be the recipients of such leaked information. That being said, a journalist with a modicum of ethics would not publish information that puts peoples lives at risk because of some anti-American agenda.

Which specific clause are you referring to within the Epsionage act.

Yes you do need to make the point explicit. It completely escapes me why it is unfair to compare America favorably to certain other countries, but fair to compare America unfavorably to still other countries. It almost seems that you are embarrassed to be in the presence of Americans who are glad to Americans, as if that was an utterly unjustified prejudice born of ignorance, parochialism and know-nothingism and you don't want to be tainted by such proletarian and declasse sentiments.

You have always been great at putting words in peoples mouths Grames, whether it is intentional or not. I will elaborate on this later (i.e. tomorrow most likely) since I don't have time to sufficiently do so in this post at this time. So yes, I will make it very clear to you what I meant then, and there will be no room for misinterpretation with that post, unless its purposeful and intended.

Also for anyone that might be curious, I just read a wiki cable release with the title, "US contractor DynCorp sold child prostitute­s to Afghan police officers as part of a bacha bazi party." Real, actual evidence of sexual crimes with victims who could not possibly consent. Where's the Interpol red notice?

Here is another "Pfizer Targeted Nigerian Attorney General to Undermine Suit over Fatal Drug Tests. Pfizer did not tell parents their children were getting experimental drug. 11 children died, others suffered deafness, muteness, paralysis, brain damage, loss of sight, slurred speech."

The experiment was horrifying.

She was 10 years old and a scant 41 pounds. She lived in Nigeria, and in April 1996 she ached from meningitis.

...

Doctors working with Pfizer drew spinal fluid from the girl, gauged her symptoms and logged her as patient No. 0069 at testing site No. 6587 in experiment No. 154-149. They gave her 56 milligrams of Trovan.

A day later, the girl's strength was evaporating, Pfizer records show, and one of her eyes froze in place.

...

Pfizer records are explicit. Action taken: "Dose continued unchanged." Outcome: "Death."

^--I realize this is unrelated to the main discussion, but this shows some examples of *some* of the stuff coming out. I also just came across it and thought some people might wish to know about such things.

I think when it comes down to Bradley Manning, I am not sure he can be considered a whisteblower. Whistleblowers usually just burst the bubble on a specific crime or various crimes. Instead he basically grabbed a bunch of stuff in a big data dump and copied it on to his CD and walked out. Wikileaks and the newspapers redact sensitive information, and don't just dump the data, but this is not what Bradley Manning has done. This can be complicated depending on how you want to look at it, there are a lot of factors involved and the conclusion would be based on your interpretation of those factors in the big picture as well as if you consider all of those factors relevant.

Edited December 17, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[RussK]

Why exactly is he the responsible party, but not the newspapers who he gave the information to, who then chose to make the details public *before* he posted the data on his website?

Why wasn't it "out in the open" at the point that the individuals stole it?

If those individuals had instead given their stolen data to the newspapers directly, to vet and publish, would those newspaper execs then have been "the responsible party"?

Assange has partial responsibility: him and his organization requested, promoted, and abated the mishandling and illegal dissemination of protected, official documents. What Assange has done is similar to the activities of a foreign intelligence agent, except he doesn't work for a government and all the information has been made public. Making information public doesn't make an organization a news outlet. And if the New York Times promotes the theft of government property, actively colludes and participates in illegal activity, and doesn't engage in dialog with the government about the potential harm of releasing certain information, then they should be investigated and brought up on charges too. However, I've never heard of them doing that, but I have heard of news organizations doing just the opposite.