Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Klimmer, you continue your seeming obtuse rant. As near as I can tell, this is not an issue about classified material, things that have been stamped with the protection of "secret" or "top secret". It has to do with the normal diplomatic discourse between governments and between different levels of the same government. Most of this is not classified, but it is normally considered confidential.
You may repudiate the concept of diplomacy, the confidential communications between governments, that have often served to prevent wars. You appear to prefer lack of communication. I prefer peace and diplomacy. I am in favor of the Kremlin Hotline. You are opposed. I am in favor of "backline" communications between our militaries, so there are no misunderstandings. You are opposed.
Your warlike ways will produce exactly that...war. They have failed through history, and will continue to fail. They are the ways of Marx, of Mao, of Stalin, of oppression. No private thought. All thought is the property of the State. All writing is the property of the State. 1984.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Ken,
All I can say is huh???????
You really don't understand me at all or what this is about.
You clearly do not understand privacy in personal matters vs. privacy in diplomatic or public matters.
Diplomatic or public mattters = they work for us. They do not or are not supposed to work for their own private self-interests. And they better not break the law, do illegal or unethical or immoral acts.
Learn the difference.
http://wlcentral.org/
2010-11-30: Cablegate: Glenn Greenwald on CBC
Submitted by admin on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 04:14
Glenn Greenwald was interviewed earlier today on CBC's Connect with Mark Kelley about WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the US government and media reactions to Cablegate, and calls to prosecute Assange:
"His whole life has basically been sacrificed on the altar of trying to bring some accountability and some transparency to these powerful people - that's supposed to be the job of journalists, and yet they seem to be quite hostile to someone like him, who's actually doing it.[...]
What ends up happening in American political culture is that most citizens, and especially the established media are essentially identifying with and getting too close to political power - they're supposed to be adversarial to political power, they're supposed to be on the outside, watching over them, prevent them from engaging in wrong-doing, and instead they come to rely upon them for access, for their sources, for their exclusives, and they come to identify with the very people and political office that they're supposed to be monitoring. And so when somebody [who] is truly adverse to political power, which is what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are, emerges, [what happens] is that these media figures, instead of identifying with the values of disclosure and journalistic exposure and bringing about checks and accountability, instead they identify with the political class into which they've essentially been merged, and the reactions between political figures and media figures are basically the same: everybody is angry and offended at the fact that somebody would inform the American citizenry about what the United States government is doing. It's really extremely bizarre, it's not surprising that the government wants to keep secrets, but to watch the media volunteer to be the leaders, the crusaders on behalf of government secrecy is really quite warped, and reflective of something that's gone very wrong in the American media.[...]
He (Assange) is absolutely a hero, and what's particularly bizarre about it is you hear certain members of the press calling for him to be prosecuted, but the only theories that would allow him to be prosecuted would be the same theories that could easily imprison large numbers of journalists. I mean, the Bush administration actively considered imprisoning or prosecuting the New York Times reporters who revealed that President Bush was illegally spying on Americans in violation of the law. Those are the same theories that they're now calling on to be invoked in order to prosecute Julian Assange for publishing secrets that he got his hands on. They seem to not know or not care that if that actually happens, the ones that would be most jeopardized would be them, at least the few of them who are actually doing investigative reporting."
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It's not "illiterate" to accuse Assange of treason. It simply betrays complete ignorance of the US constitution, and the rule of law.
Though if I were Assange, I'd stay away from the US for a while. Its 'justice' system, heavily weighed to the advantage of the government and the prosecution (especially for political 'crimes'), seems unlikely to give him a fair trial.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I agree, Anders, with this caveat: the deck is stacked against any federal criminal defendant, not merely one who is politically unpopular. While the American criminal justice system probably provides more safegaurds and rights for a criminal defendant than that of most other countries, the resources the government would throw into this sort of trial would overwhelm even the wealthiest defendant.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Klimmer, I totally understand the difference. I also understand that simply because a person goes to work for a gov't, they cease to have private thoughts, and private communications.
Your concept that EVERY communication of a public servant should be open to any dipshit is ridiculous. You don't pay for that, assuming you pay anything at all. You don't pay to have access to my tax returns, to my communications with the gov't, to my FBI file, to my licensing information (including my home address). As a citizen, I have a right to privacy.
I don't have a right to access to those things of yours, do I?
This guy is NOT alleging crimes, or any other real misdeeds on behalf of the gov't, if you think about it, when you consider the volume of documents. He is trying to weaken the US gov't. There are names for that.
This is a guy who has published the ss#'s of us military soldiers in the past. He does not have clean motives.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I heard some big time lawyer today on NPR who worked on the Pentagon Papers
case. He said Mr Wiki is toast if they get their grubby mitts on 'im.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
There's personal privacy of government workers then there's the government's right to keep something confidential. There are reasons why you can't simply submit a FOIA request and get this stuff.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
He said that? What a dipsh#t.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
From a strictly legal perspective, if the NY Times is free of any legal liability in publishing any of the cables, how is Wikileaks liable? In the Ellsberg case, the Supreme Courts found that the NY Times was protected in publishing the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy. Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, the judge dismissed all charges against Ellsberg. I would think that whoever gave the cables to Wikileaks is liable for prosecution but Wikileaks is in the clear, legally. For the attorneys posting, is my understanding of the law correct?
I love that Assange's mom runs a puppet theater. That could lead to all sorts of plot devices in the movie version.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Dingus, you will note that although an employees email is the property of the employer, it is NOT the property of the employer's stockholder. You may be a stockholder in GE, but you do not have any legal access to the email of any employee of GE, although management does.
So to use your own analogy, we citizen stockholders of the US do not, either, although the management does.
I could imagine a staffer being asked to write a background paper on the issue of the swedish cartoonist that sparked riots over his depiction of Mohammed, who writes a comprehensive paper, including the offending documents. Sh*t-for-brains publishes the confidential paper, and now that staffer is the subject of a worldwide manhunt by islamic terrorists, out for revenge. They also publish confidential personal information, which make it easier to track him. Nice job. Just for writing a paper.
You don't think that should be kept confidential?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Burn after reading was funny.
Anyway..Question: how can they not arrest the editors at the New York Times for publishing the leaked documents when they want to do the same to
WikiLeaks Julian Asasange? (he's not even an American)
Answer: they can't and won't.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
In the US Freedom of the Press allows the publication of stolen Govt
information as long as they only received and did not do the theft.
The days of editors being tossed in jail until they squeal and name the source is over in the
U.S. but is SOP most everywhere else in the world.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Private citizens lack some of the protections of the Press in the U.S.
Being compelled to answer questions to a Grand Jury is one.
Susan McDougal (born 1955, Heidelberg, Germany) is one of the few people who
served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy, although
fifteen individuals were convicted of various federal charges. Her refusal
to answer "three questions" for a grand jury about whether President Bill
Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial led to her a jail
sentence of 18 months for contempt of court. This comprised most of the
total 22 months she spent in incarceration. McDougal received a full
Presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of
his presidency in 2001.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
Every soldier who goes to war in support of his country knows that he may die for that cause. Every person who stands up for truth should know that they will be hated and reviled by many while supported by few. Yet people continue to stand up for truth, despite the martyrdom of those who have stood up before. Whistle blowers continue to leak information to the public even though they know it is against their self interest and most of the public will hate them for it. For some, the truth itself is a higher calling. Might be some genetic error or something, leftover from an evolutionary dead end. Maybe they are fools, seduced by Satan, believing that the tree of knowledge is actually good.
At this point, I assume that Julienne Assange is a figure head, the one willing to take the flack for the organization. The mechanism of Wikileaks and its credibility are established. Eliminating Assange or any other member should not effect the functioning of the organization.
The present releases are diplomatic cables if I understand correctly. I have not read any of them, so I am in the same boat as all the other nutcases posting on this. Seems to me that the goal of diplomacy is to smooth over disagreements. If our diplomats can't deal with this, then they are not very good diplomats, in my opinion. Maybe a benefit of these leaks is to reveal who are actual diplomats rather than diplomatic on the surface only.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
My father in law, Bill Patterson, spent a fair amount of time in jail for refusing to reveal the source of a government document that the Fresno Bee published. I think the judge could have kept them indefinitely, but eventually the hassle and controversy became too great, so they were released.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
some sort of legal distinction between editors, reporters, and authors.
In 2005, a Times reporter, Judith Miller, was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify in connection with the Valerie Plame Wilson leak case.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is seeking to compel a writer to testify about his confidential sources for a 2006 book about the Central Intelligence Agency, a rare step that was authorized by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/us/29justice.html?_r=1
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Q: Is it possible to love your Country, serve your Country, and protect your Country without breaking Domestic Law, The US Constitution, or International Law?
A: the answer to this really says a lot about who you are.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Paul,
"Standing up for truth" sounds perfectly virtuous, but IMHO it may not always be. If I steal, for example, a trade secret and disseminate it to the world, I'm telling the truth, but am I acting morally?
The selective leaking of information is, to me, trading in stolen property, and engaging in unfair debate. Contrary to what many assert, the government has every right to keep certain secrets, and not just to preserve individuals' rights of privacy. As just two examples, how could law enforcement operate if every sting, raid, inspection, etc. were publicized in advance? Criminals could evade capture and go on victimizing others illegally. How could the Fed's Open Market Committee operate if its moves were publicized in advance? The cost of affecting interest rates would become astronomical, and all taxpayers would foot the bill.
If someone purloined the D-Day invasion plans and told the world on, say, June 4, 1944, they would be telling the truth. Would you find them to be virtuous, despicable, or neither?
Government secrets exist because legitimate policy options require them. Those who disagree and use illegal tactics to thwart those policy options are making themselves unelected policy dictators, and direct enemies of democracy.
Selective leaks also distort information because they don't provide context, and those opposed to the position of the leakers (I'll call them the "leakees") are put in the unfair position of causing further damage by disclosing more information that should be confidential, or refraining from disclosure and allowing the distortions of their opponents to be spread without recourse.
The actions of Wikileaks, The Times and everyone else who published this information without restraint are those of people trading in stolen property. It may be legal, but it is not automatically virtuous. The direct leakers are contemptuous, anti-democratic criminals. If their disclosures cause the death of persons friendly to U.S. interests, they are accessories to murder, and should be treated accordingly.
John
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Perhaps the question should be reframed as "When should a government have the enforceable legal right to declare that something is classified or secret, and how should abuses of that power be redressed?" There's far too much scope for executive abuse of the power, intentional or simply due to clumsiness, and the courts are often rather compliant in that. The right wing activists on the US supreme court would probably quickly defer to executive privilege.
In other words, if wikileaks, and so its mainstream news media colleaugues, published things which should never have been secret in the first place, should it be held liable?
I wonder if anyone has done an independent audit of government's use of the power to declare things classified or secret, to see how badly it's abused? I'd guess that even in nominally open western liberal democracies such as the US, at least 90% and as much as 99% of things stamped secret should not and need not have been.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
MH, We have in place legal procedure both for obtaining disclosure of improperly classified material, and for prosecution of government officials who abuse their power. DMT, your rhetorical question seems, to me, equivalent to asking "if we restrict access to confidential government information to those who have followed legal procedure, will we have a better (using whatever criteria you wish to measure "better") government than if we allow individuals to disclose what they think is important, regardless of adherence to legal procedure?"
I think that's a fair question with no a priori correct answer. It also, I think, depends on your assessment of the particular government and laws involved. My personal experience obviously comes down strongly on the side of those who follow legal procedure only, and yours doesn't. Maybe because I generally think the law gets it right more often than anarchy does, I stronly believe what I said before (well, obviously).
I nonetheless respect your opinion and those who agree with you.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!