Wikileaks debate

[Dragoon Fighter]

I sighed a petition owned by some group called "Aaron Swartz, DemandProgress.org" to stop the internet black list witch I disagreed with (I disagree with the internet blacklist idea) unfortunately, I gave them my E-mail, which was a bad move on my part, because now they sent me what, in my opinion, is garbage.

Here is the garbage.....

Dragoon,

BREAKING NEWS: The Independent reports today that the American government is trying to extradite jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

There's just one problem: experts say WikiLeaks hasn't broken any laws. So Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is trying to change the law to make WikiLeaks illegal. He even wants to go after The New York Times for publishing the cables!

Click here to sign our urgent petition opposing this blatantly unconstitutional move.

The debate in Congress about this bill is going to be fast and furious, so we need to rally all the support we can get. We can't just let the government lock people up for publishing the news.

Add your name now. We'll make sure lawmakers and the media know how many people oppose this censorship.

Add your name today -- it just takes a second.

Keep on fighting,

-- Aaron Swartz and the Demand Progress team

P.S. After you sign, please forward this email to other supporters of WikiLeaks so we can build our strength.

Now, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I agree with stopping WikiLeaks, as it only spells dangerous to government operations, which is why I disagree with what Wikileaks is doing. There are a some actions that the government has taken that I disagree with, for example the making of laws to make what he did illegal is, unnecessary as what he did put workers for the government at increased risk thus charge him with conspiracy or a similar crime and if what he did results in some ones death negligent homicide. For the most part I side with the government on this issue. What do you guys think?

 

[rvkevin]

I would have to disagree. The free dissemination of information is necessary to uncover government corruption. Wikileaks is basically a whistle blower for the government. While it may be true that knowledge of such abuses, such as the use of torture, will enrage militants, I have a "tough luck" view of it. Maybe we will learn from it next time, if not, we deserve the negative consequences. Allowing such corruption to go unnoticed would be an even greater injustice that I don't see the force of the argument to censor Wikileaks because of its negative consequences. If we were wise enough in the first place, we would not have been in that situation to begin with. We shouldn't blame Wikileaks for policing us when we are the ones that get caught committing the crime. We should be thankful that Wikileaks is bringing attention to governmental problems so that we can fix them and improve our government as a whole.

 

[ballin4life]

I sighed a petition owned by some group called "Aaron Swartz, DemandProgress.org" to stop the internet black list witch I disagreed with (I disagree with the internet blacklist idea) unfortunately, I gave them my E-mail, which was a bad move on my part, because now they sent me what, in my opinion, is garbage.

Here is the garbage.....



Now, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I agree with stopping WikiLeaks, as it only spells dangerous to government operations, which is why I disagree with what Wikileaks is doing. There are a some actions that the government has taken that I disagree with, for example the making of laws to make what he did illegal is, unnecessary as what he did put workers for the government at increased risk thus charge him with conspiracy or a similar crime and if what he did results in some ones death negligent homicide. For the most part I side with the government on this issue. What do you guys think?

I'm not sure what crime that they can charge him with (as the petition says). I don't think Conspiracy would hold up (that usually mean that you and others were planning to commit another crime - so what other crime?). You definitely can't charge him with negligent homicide for publishing some stuff.

And it is definitely unconstitutional to pass a law now that makes what he did a crime and expect to try him under the new law. It's called an ex post facto law and it is right there in the constitution that Congress can't make them.

 

[Reaver197]

I would strongly disagree as well.

Both on the counts that the leaking of this material has done anything to put anybody in an increased position to be harmed (diplomacy cables?). Not to mention, Wikileaks offered to have the material reviewed by the US government to ensure that if there were any potentially life-risking information, they could redact it, but the US government refused to look it over.

Our news organizations should be doing this in the first place, the onus shouldn't have to fall solely to Wikileaks. The freedom of the press is to ensure oversight over government (and, also, corporate) on-goings, and is essential to our continuing as a free, and thriving, society. A society were one cannot reproach, expose, or question what the government (or corporations) do, will result in a society that is not only less free, but one that cannot be as productive as it could be.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I'm not sure what crime that they can charge him with (as the petition says). I don't think Conspiracy would hold up (that usually mean that you and others were planning to commit another crime - so what other crime?). You definitely can't charge him with negligent homicide for publishing some stuff.

You could charge them with negligent homicide let us use an example, let us say a local newspaper publishes how to get to a local crime lord I.E. his phone number, his address, ect. This leads to a rival gang to shot down this local crime lord, is the newspaper not responsible?

And it is definitely unconstitutional to pass a law now that makes what he did a crime and expect to try him under the new law. It's called an ex post facto law and it is right there in the constitution that Congress can't make them.

I can agree with this, and I disagree with the government doing this, however they do not need to do this even if they could as there are other crimes to charge them with.

I would have to disagree. The free dissemination of information is necessary to uncover government corruption. Wikileaks is basically a whistle blower for the government. While it may be true that knowledge of such abuses, such as the use of torture, will enrage militants, I have a "tough luck" view of it. Maybe we will learn from it next time, if not, we deserve the negative consequences. Allowing such corruption to go unnoticed would be an even greater injustice that I don't see the force of the argument to censor Wikileaks because of its negative consequences. If we were wise enough in the first place, we would not have been in that situation to begin with. We shouldn't blame Wikileaks for policing us when we are the ones that get caught committing the crime. We should be thankful that Wikileaks is bringing attention to governmental problems so that we can fix them and improve our government as a whole.

Well, I do dislike corruption...mmm...I will have to think about this and come back with a response later.

Edit: @Reaver197 you ninja'd me.

 

[ballin4life]

You could charge them with negligent homicide let us use an example, let us say a local newspaper publishes how to get to a local crime lord I.E. his phone number, his address, ect. This leads to a rival gang to shot down this local crime lord, is the newspaper not responsible?

Not really. Definitely not a crime, especially not on the level of homicide.

You can only blame the person that actually committed the illegal act, not other people that did legal things to facilitate it.

It's like saying that you can arrest my chemistry teacher when I use my knowledge of chemicals to make drugs or explosives or something. Or arresting the car salesman who sold me my bank robbery getaway car. Sure, I couldn't have committed the crime without them, but they didn't actually do anything illegal.

 

[rvkevin]

It's like saying that you can arrest my chemistry teacher when I use my knowledge of chemicals to make drugs or explosives or something. Or arresting the car salesman who sold me my bank robbery getaway car. Sure, I couldn't have committed the crime without them, but they didn't actually do anything illegal.

The reason these are not crimes is because they lack mens rea. In other words, they lack what they legally call the "guilty mind." In the case of Wikileaks, they may be able to show that his actions cause foreseeable harm. A more analogous example would be to post private information of an abortion doctor along with inflammatory remarks on posters around his town. If the offender knows that this type of action has resulted in the deaths of other doctors who have had their information posted and knows that he is increasing the chance he is going to be harmed may be grounds for something along the lines of reckless endangerment. Its fairly open-ended and is in no way a clear cut case either way, but I would hope that in the event of uncertainty, that preference will be given towards the first amendment. Also, don't forget about the classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Not being the one causing the harm does not prevent you from being charged...

 

[ballin4life]

Does wikileaks really satisfy this criteria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

?

 

[rvkevin]

Does wikileaks really satisfy this criteria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

?

I highly doubt it. Like I said, they would have to establish mens rea, and that would be really hard to establish regardless of what they try to charge him with since he is basically acting as a journalist. They would need to uncover some form of correspondence from him where he states his objective as trying to cause harm against the US, but I doubt any such intent exists. That alone would be enough of a defense for Wikileaks even if Wikileaks is likely to cause imminent harm and that is also questionable.

Just found this (I don't know the specifics of the act though):

Q: If Assange is extradited to the U.S., what legal action could the Department of Justice take against him? What would likely happen to him once he's on U.S. soil?

A: First, there would be a charge, and then extradition, not extradition before charge. The most likely charge is unauthorized distribution of classified information, or possibly the Espionage Act. Assange has a serious First Amendment argument that he is just like a newspaper publisher who receives a classified leak and thus should not be punished. I don't think that argument will prevail, but it's a serious one and it might.-CNN

 

[AltF4]

There is a war going on right now. A cyber war as real as we've ever had. A war for what the future of the Internet will be. WikiLeaks is freedom of press, they are freedom of expression.

Arguments about whether or not we should shut down WikiLeaks are inane. You cannot. You have no ability to.

The Internet was designed to prevent disruption of the information flow. The US government is currently trying everything in its power to silence WikiLeaks, and it is failing miserably. The Internet correctly identifies these attempts at censorship as errors, and routes around them.

There are over a thousand mirrors to the WikiLeaks website, the leaks themselves are on BitTorrent, the information is already out.

If you are a government and you lie to your citizens, then WikiLeaks is your enemy. If you are a corrupt corporate CEO, WikiLeaks is your enemy.

There are things you can do. Do not abide by those who side themselves against WikiLeaks. Boycott Amazon and Paypal. Help payback Visa and Mastercard. Monetary donations to WikiLeaks are still available through Flattr.

Do not Forgive.
Do not Forget.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Mastercard and the Swedish Bank holding Assange's fund, among many other websites which effectively supported censorship, were DDoS'd and subsequently shut down recently.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Now, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I agree with stopping WikiLeaks, as it only spells dangerous to government operations, which is why I disagree with what Wikileaks is doing. There are a some actions that the government has taken that I disagree with, for example the making of laws to make what he did illegal is, unnecessary as what he did put workers for the government at increased risk thus charge him with conspiracy or a similar crime and if what he did results in some ones death negligent homicide. For the most part I side with the government on this issue. What do you guys think?

I think this it's ridiculous to support the stopping WikiLeaks. It exposes the truth. If you've got to censor the truth to protect yourself, then you're in the wrong. And if you're in the wrong, then maybe you deserve to be embarrassed or exposed.

 

[gm jack]

The trouble may be in how many covert operations and how much dirty work is necessary to keep day to day operations running, or military actions which may disgust people whose closest experience to such matters is COD and arguing with friends.

However, I do fully support wikileaks in publishing the information. As you said, if you need to cover up your actions, then they aren't justifiable. However, I believe the names of individuals should be edited out (I think they are already doing editing such as this), so that individuals as important goals are not compromised. However, individuals who may be put at risk from the leaks are protected.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

However, I do fully support wikileaks in publishing the information. As you said, if you need to cover up your actions, then they aren't justifiable. However, I believe the names of individuals should be edited out (I think they are already doing editing such as this), so that individuals as important goals are not compromised. However, individuals who may be put at risk from the leaks are protected.

That is probably a good idea. Names should definitely be edited out. In that way, we get transparency without risking the lives of others too much.

 

[GoldShadow]

I have to agree with shutting down WikiLeaks.

I'm all for freedom of information and curbing corruption, but there are proper ways and channels to do it.

You call for transparency, but we do not live in a utopia. Can you imagine what would happen if all dealings between all nations became transparent? The vast, vast majority of people are neither intelligent nor rational. The vast, vast majority of people are not capable of fathoming the gravity of diplomatic issues discussed between and within nations. They have neither the need to know nor the ability to expertly assess the information.

Transparency to this extent is simply overwhelming, not to mention harmful. How could things like the latest WikiLeaks debacle help anybody? Releasing diplomatic cables? What good can that possibly do? Do people think it will shame countries into being more ethical or transparent with their dealings? If anything, it will make countries less willing to deal with issues if they know it's going to plastered over the net for everyone to see. How does that fix anything? This is not Kindergarten where you give the government a slap on the wrist, tell it to sit in time-out, and expect it to behave the way you want it to when it comes back. Human nature and governments don't work like that.

For instance, were there rational reasons for the Cold War? Do you think transparency would have encouraged solutions, or caused the countries involved to retreat deeper into their shells of mistrust? We're not talking about you and me here. We're talking nations, governments, cultures with agendas and irrationalities of their own.


In an ideal world, everybody would live in harmony, all dealings would be transparent, and nations that behaved out of line could be shamed into doing the right thing. This is not an ideal world. A certain level of secrecy and confidentiality is needed in these dealings. Without that secrecy, governments will only become less willing and able to cooperate, which, at best, will lead to no change in the status quo and, at worst, will harm people.

 

[AltF4]

How could things like the latest WikiLeaks debacle help anybody? Releasing diplomatic cables? What good can that possibly do?

Have you actually read any of the cables, GoldShadow? WikiLeaks has uncovered fraud and scandal of the highest degree with its releases.

We've learned that the US has knowingly allowed a security contractor to sell young boys to be ***** and sexually molested. We've learned that the US has been systematically lying for years about the number of civilian casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by an order of magnitude. The list goes on and on.

You can say many things, but one you just can't is that no important information has come out of WikiLeaks. What exactly do you think all of this is about?

 

[GoldShadow]

I must confess, I had not read what was actually contained within the cables.

 

[AltF4]

The diplomatic cables are only the most recent set of releases by WikiLeaks, who have been doing this for quite some time, with increasing effect.

The first I heard of WikiLeaks was some years ago when they released documents revealing the financiers of the church of scientology, and I've been a follower since.

They have, by way of releasing sensitive documents, changed the outcome of two elections. "The Cry of Blood: Extra-Judicial Killings and Disappearances" showed corruption of the highest degree in Kenyans officials.

Most recently, WikiLeaks has received information about the US government. The first was the "Collateral Murder" video, which showed US soldiers killing injured and unarmed journalists crawling away for their lives. By both US and UN rules of engagement, what they did was murder. And this fact was systematically covered up and denied by the US, until WikiLeaks released the video.

Nobody was put in danger by releasing this video. It was in no way a danger to national security.

Second was the Afgan/Iraq War Logs, a huge collection of incident reports written by soldiers themselves after patrols and operations in the war. It documents at an incredibly visceral level how our wars are actually going. Reading through the diaries, you read case after case of unnecessary civilian casualties. Entire buildings filled with innocents bombed to kill one insurgent.

WikiLeaks in this case took extra time and effort to redact names from these logs so as to not endanger any individuals. They even have a special fund for providing protection for those unavoidably affected by released material. To date, nobody has ever come to harm because of documents published by WikiLeaks.

Third is the release of the US diplomatic cables. There are 250,000 of these "cables" (email, essentially. Though they existed before email did.) so they are not being all released at once, but rather in small chunks over time so that they can be processed properly by the media and populace. The cables reveal many separate things which are hard to lump together. (Such as the security contractor selling underage male prostitutes)

The people have a right to know these things. It is important in a very real way that we do know them. Our government is keeping way too many secrets, and it is getting away with way too many crimes.

 

[Dre89]

How do they get a hold of these documents?

 

[rvkevin]

How do they get a hold of these documents?

Whistle blowers. Wikileaks operates like any other media outlet. They receive the information and then publish it.

 

[AltF4]

This just in from WikiLeaks:

Confirmation of what was widely suspected from US foreign policy with Sweden. The US threatened Sweden with trade sanctions if they did not pass draconian copyright and software patent laws they did not want. Also, the trial against the Pirate Bay founders has been orchestrated by foreign US diplomats.

Source. (Google translate)

I, for one, do not want America to be engaged in this kind of underhanded interventionist foreign policy. And if I were in Sweden, I would be very upset that my elected officials backed down to a foreign power like they did.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That is quite scary. I thought the US placed pressure on countries to get them to do what it wants, but not on the level of threatening trade sanctions.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh wow... That is low. It's not just that sweden is bowing down to the USA; it's that they're bowing down to the USA's LOBBYISTS.

 

[Aesir]

This just reminds me of the Pentagon Papers during the 70's. As long as Wikileaks isn't causing national security risks they should be doing this. I generally do agree with Gold though sometimes we need secrecy, sometimes bluffs, lies and deceit prevent wars.

Saddam Hussein lied about having weapons of mass destruction, because it scared Iran away from developing them on their own. The thought that Saddam was one call away from blowing them out of the water stopped them from developing their own weapons. What does the US do? remove him from power create a power vacuum and now we have a threat of a nuclear Iran.

Well played guys.

^ instances such as these I would prefer the truth not be openly accessible.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

The entire issue hinges on whether or not obscuring the truth for the "greater good" is acceptable or not.

Personally I think hiding the truth is a slippery slope that leads to the public being blocked from accessing information that they SHOULD know, but the controller of information would rather the public stay ignorant.

This is why it's an all-or-nothing deal. If the government censors wikileaks, it can censor anything. And who is to stop them?

 

[AltF4]

No, this does not hinge upon 'hiding the truth for the greater good'. One look at any of the WikiLeaks material shows terrible, reprehensible actions taken by every level of the US government. There is no greater good being served here. This is a clear case of a corrupt bureaucracy committing crimes and abusing secrecy to remain free from punishment. WikiLeaks removes that secrecy.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I'm not going to defend the terrible things that the government has done.

I'm also not going to pretend I have full knowledge of every document in the Wikileaks database. However, I'm looking at the issue conceptually. You cannot deny that some actions taken by the government are better off done secretly, out of the public eye. Would you seriously consider the public be constantly updated on events like the Cuban Missile Crisis? There would be mass hysteria and people would be fleeing the country en masse.

Don't get me wrong though. I support what Wikileaks is doing, so far at least. I'm just saying that whether or not full transparency is necessary or even reasonable is not an issue set in stone. There are pros and cons to each side.

 

[Aesir]

No, this does not hinge upon 'hiding the truth for the greater good'. One look at any of the WikiLeaks material shows terrible, reprehensible actions taken by every level of the US government. There is no greater good being served here. This is a clear case of a corrupt bureaucracy committing crimes and abusing secrecy to remain free from punishment. WikiLeaks removes that secrecy.

I don't think you're going to find anyone on this forum who will take the side of protecting governments right to corruption. What I do think would make an interesting debate is whether or not Wikileaks should post information that can potentially lead to a national security risk, and or cause global issues.

 

[AltF4]

Well then there's no debate. Even Julian Assange has stated many times that there are warranted times for secrecy, and that neither he nor WikiLeaks is an information anarchist, or some kind of transparency absolutist. Nobody is arguing for the side of transparency absolutism, it's a straw man.

They have stated publicly many times that the goal of the organization is justice, and the means is transparency. Transparency is only the tool for obtaining justice, it is not an end in itself.

Of course the organization of WikiLeaks intends to cause harm. Harm to the reputation of organizations which commit crimes, and harm to their ability to continue to do so. Not harm in any physical sense. So when you hear rhetoric on the TV about how WikiLeaks "Harms the US national security" really consider that means. What they're really saying is that WikiLeaks is exposing crimes committed by the US abroad, and that makes other countries not like us.

Well, maybe other countries shouldn't like us if we're going to be doing this stuff. Or maybe we shouldn't be doing them in the first place.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Then I have no choice but to agree with you on all counts. However, I was simply making a point, not trying to argue with you.

 

[gm jack]

The big problem does come in how much dirty work may be routine in keeping rouge nations in check that your average person will condemn without realising why certain things are being done. There may be many times when countries are forced to work with a lesser of to evils. However, the general public and the international community is not likely to simple accept that as an excuse for what may go on.

Sometimes, secrecy is necessary, and these measures come under threat when a single whistle blower within a large group can compromise everything they were working towards. Other times, such as the Collateral Murder case, people make mistakes when put in a situation which may be a case of your life or mine. Too much freedom of information makes it very easy for people sitting at home to criticise their actions, without understanding the implications.

 

[AltF4]

I think we've already covered the "sometime secrecy is necessary" angle. So why don't we delve into what that means, shall we?

The canonical example of irresponsible journalism that should have been criminally prosecuted was the Chicago Tribune's publication on June 7, 1942 that the US had broken the Japanese JN-25 cipher. You see, back before US involvement in the war, the US had broken JN-25 which allowed America to spy on the highest level of Japanese communications. This ability is credited with winning the US the battle of Midway among other things.

The Chicago Tribune, however, managed to find out about this fact and reported it in its newspaper. Luckily for Allied forces, Japan apparently doesn't read the Chicago Tribune. Had they read the paper, Japan would have changed ciphers and thwarted future spying efforts. This would have directly harmed many US lives in an unambiguously justified war. No actual prosecution occurred since it was a moot point.


And now what has WikiLeaks done? Exposed crimes committed by many organizations, lately inside the US government. Hardly the same at all.