Where does WF stand on WikiLeaks?
- Thread starter redwings0921
- Start date
Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Start at the Americas, work your way down.
Even things that are "well known" are not really subject to debate when there's no confirming opinion in authority or raw data. Conjecture doesn't spark debate. You can know politicians in Russia are frequently corrupt, but without a solid launching point or proof the scope of the discussion around the issue is relatively limited. These leaks give them that.
The bill of rights doesn't mention a "freedom of whistleblowing", it mentions a "freedom of press". The protections afforded to wikileaks have nothing to do with whether or not every leak is blowing a whistle on something, just that it qualifies as news.
The issue is about Democracy. There are concrete things (among them the freedom of press) that contribute to a functional Democracy. The rights we established weren't just randomly selected; they were things that contribute to a successful democracy. A Free press is one of them. Journalists afraid of being prosecuted when they discover corruption can't do their jobs.
These ideas and their impact on Democracy have been discussed at length from the times of the greeks to our founding fathers. Not because they were "pretty and quaint", but because they were important to a strong Democracy.
Ah, so I'm not allowed to use generalizations like "vast", but you are.
Even if there was no impropriety (which it's true, some cables didn't show) it allows Americans a view into what their leaders do internationally...how they function and what their priorities are. Even if there's no outright corruption, the over-classification of documents meant Americans were unable to critique their government in these issues.
Beyond that, it's not just about us. The first amendment also protects stories that would be important internationally. Many of the cables show actions by diplomats and their governments that their people object to and were before this unable to critique.
Probably because we hardly have any any information on it. But even then, the importance of the issues to those who do vote largely on foreign policy legitimizes the importance of the leaks to the extent that they're supported as "press".
Then why are you so worried about them?
Some of them were new, some weren't. And some provided corroboration to suspicions that couldn't really be confirmed, and allowed issues to be revisited.
Ethics and legality are different. Legality is what matters when you're trying to have someone arrested.
"Wrongdoing" is relative. Things you may not see as wrong may be seen as wrong by the local populations, or by me.
There are a lot of people who think the majority of our foreign policy is off-base. I suspect strongly that you and them would differ on what shows "wrongdoing"
It's 250,000 fucking cables. Ask about a specific country or topic and you'll probably have more luck.
But I'll wager a shiny new nickel you don't apply the same standard to the "harm" that comes to the US as a result of this, despite the Pentagon(those who does have the resources to go through all these) confirming no deaths/injuries as a result of the previous leak, and not mentioning any for this one either.
Except the bill of rights protects us from the government, not the government from the press.
He obviously took on risk. It's not a lack of risk that landed him in jail.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Even ignoring that they redacted most names, locations, and even vaguely identifying information and also ignoring ridiculousness of comparing foreign policy leaks to pedophilia, all of the information you just named is publicly available. School directories/whitepages are commonplace, and bus routes are public so that people can get their kids to the bus stop.
How do you live a normal life being that afraid of everything?
The American legal system has been rendered useless by expanding executive power and excessive secrecy. We don't know enough about the issues to even begin to try to piece together the necessary information. The Freedom of Information Act no longer compels the government to give us even tame documents. We can't bring lawsuits against our government on certain issues because the issues themselves are considered to be off-limits. Look into how Obama killed the warrantless wiretap lawsuits and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The free press is the last line of defense for the public exactly for this reason.
No, I pretty much always interpret it literally. The level to which I agree with the amendments varies, but I'll defend 'em all when talking from a legal perspective.
Replace him with any signer of the document, it doesn't matter.
There are these fantastic things they call "Amendments". You should read up on them.
Does this mean you're abandoning the premise that he should go to jail, or supporting the idea that someone who has commited no crime should be imprisoned?
Legally or morally?
Legally I would accept that it is what it is. I would believe the ruling was incorrect, but accept the reality that it is now illegal. Much like where I am on their interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause.
Morally? Well, I'll leave that to your imagination.
I firmly believe that this will lead to a better world and a better America. If I thought there was any other way, I would (on a moral level) support that.
In this case I believe that what he is doing is not only legal, but the only conceivable recourse left to us with which change can occur. I don't directly support the leaking itself(at least not strongly), but do support the right of our press to publish leaks.
Then they should have amended the Constitution. A "free press" is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the press is with you, sometimes the press is against you. That status does not impact whether what they're doing is legally or morally right.
I have, which is why I'm terrified of nuts that want to restrain the free press, or make it so that our government can forever bury inconvenient facts by marking them as "classified", with ZERO worry it will ever come back to them.
A little worry is good. And that "worry" is supposed to be provided by the press.
It is absolutely bizarre to me that someone can advocate "small government" and then not see the problems associated with giving the government the ability to suppress stories.
They won't. This is the beginning of something new. Whether or not you support or I support it, you can't put this back in Pandora's box.
This type of thing is only going to become more common, more distributed, and more effective. It's a political movement now.
Yet again, the press isn't only free when it's supporting America. A free press is just as free to be a pain in our ass as they are free to be a pain in China's or Russia's.
Had to trim this: too many characters. Then it still wouldn't fit, so now it's 2 posts.
Last edited:
I typed a long ass post, but I'm gonna cut to the chase and look at the bottom line here.
This is the bottom line You support WikiLeaks because you think we are fucked beyond hope, and criminal activity is the last resort to preserve the freedoms of the American people.
This explains a lot.
There are solutions out there. It's down to people. People and influence. Manipulation and ironically, marketing.
Just because you are not capable of seeing it yet doesn't mean there is no hope.
The relationship between people and the government isn't as simple as "sue if you disagree". There's so much influence and manipulation, so much marketing and catering. There's ways. You just gotta see them.
As long as we can vote, we have some control. If not enough people are voting for the right reasons, it's because of influence and manipulation.
People manipulated by money and employment will vote based on taxes and job growth.
People manipulated by gay marriage, equality and that sort of shit will vote on that basis.
Look around you. Figure out what forces manipulate people. How the trends changed so dramatically on issues like homosexuality.
See how it applies to shit like this, and how you can turn low priority issues into high priority issues thanks to marketing, influence, psychology and manipulation.
That way you won't have to support WikiLeaks, a group that claims to help the American people by fucking the representatives of the American people.
This is the bottom line You support WikiLeaks because you think we are fucked beyond hope, and criminal activity is the last resort to preserve the freedoms of the American people.
This explains a lot.
There are solutions out there. It's down to people. People and influence. Manipulation and ironically, marketing.
Just because you are not capable of seeing it yet doesn't mean there is no hope.
The relationship between people and the government isn't as simple as "sue if you disagree". There's so much influence and manipulation, so much marketing and catering. There's ways. You just gotta see them.
As long as we can vote, we have some control. If not enough people are voting for the right reasons, it's because of influence and manipulation.
People manipulated by money and employment will vote based on taxes and job growth.
People manipulated by gay marriage, equality and that sort of shit will vote on that basis.
Look around you. Figure out what forces manipulate people. How the trends changed so dramatically on issues like homosexuality.
See how it applies to shit like this, and how you can turn low priority issues into high priority issues thanks to marketing, influence, psychology and manipulation.
That way you won't have to support WikiLeaks, a group that claims to help the American people by fucking the representatives of the American people.
It explains my moral support. I think WikiLeaks is a good thing. I don't think I've tried to hide that. I also think Wikileaks will lead to changes. It's the start of something new that is going to change the world.
That said, it's still legal. I've explained the backing for this in several threads throughout Wickedfire, and it's solid. In fact they're the problems the DOJ is wrestling with right now, and why they're looking at things other than espionage right now, and trying to pass additional laws; they know WikiLeaks is protected as-is.
That's part of what I appreciate the most about it - it's a way to work legally within the system.
You'll notice I rarely if ever support Manning here. It's because I see him in a different light. Regardless of motivation, what he did was illegal.
That's why I think people are afraid of Assange. He didn't have money (or didn't start with it) and he didn't have traditional influence(corporate or political). He had a solid head on his shoulders, and that's where all of this came from. There's hundreds of thousands of people capable of doing what he did. And I think that terrifies governments.
I think what he's doing is the solution that's out there. An inherent social tax on corruption and dishonesty, not enforced by governments, but by those necessary to carry out the corruption. It decreases their effectiveness, decreases their scope, and increases the number of times they'll be brought to light.
But more importantly, if it's not the solution, there won't be one. If the "internet" loses this, the likely end result will be a large clampdown on the last truly free medium of communication. The last way we have to communicate that isn't vetted by the government or the largest of the corporations will be rendered "controllable", no matter what the cost.
Both of which have spun out of control. Even Conservative bastions like FreeRepublic have noted the obvious propaganda campaign that controls this issue...and our others aren't much better.
The only solution is the truth, and the only one that can deliver it is the press. And no one's going to hand it to them at a press conference. Sometimes Chemo hurts, but it's also a great way to kill Cancer.
Fear. Fear is what motivates Americans, and is why so many are against Wikileaks. They're so afraid that the Pentagon can confirm no one has been killed, many others officials call the leaks "nothing new", then people still buy into the line that they're going to destroy America.
For these lack of deaths and lack of foreign repercussions, people willing to destroy the only thing that safeguards you from true tyranny. That they have them arguing against the fucking truth, and not questioning them as to why the "truth" would harm America irreparably.
The same fear will eventually lead them to pass laws to make Wikileaks "illegal", especially after their espionage case falls apart.
This is a problem that fear created, not one that it can destroy. If WikiLeaks succeeds, it won't be because most Americans were for it. It will be because it was impossible to stop.
Last edited:
Fixed it 4U...
Oh man I can already guess what shady is going to say in response to this post... Clearly your least-well thought out position yet.
At the very least you deserve to have your clock cleaned for calling the things that the 1st amendment was designed to protect "criminal activity." :angryfire:
Edit: Jinx... Boy did he let you off easy! Must be Shady's bedtime.
This is where the problem with your argument lies. Wikileaks doesn't purport to be helping the American people. It's not about the American people, it's about ALL people.
You are assuming that Wikileaks are anti-america or being focused on the US, but it has nothing to do with America, it is PRO Truth and leaks from all governments and large corporations. The fact that they have a lot of information on the US is purely due to one of the leakers being a US soldier, but that wasn't the choice of Wikileaks that was the choice of the leaker.
All countries and companies with dirty little secrets are the targets, it just so happens that the US is a biggie.
Freedom of the press is a good thing. A moral tax is a good thing.
But not the way WikiLeaks is doing it. WikiLeaks depends on criminal activity to survive, and compromises too many legitimate interests in order to go after the illegitimate.
The interesting thing about this is that transparency within the law is already saturated. Any further transparency has to attained either by
a) Changing the law
b) Breaking the law (transparency without the law)
WikiLeaks depends on the second. It might yet survive, the way piracy is. But it won't be easy, and it will inevitably end up fucking over a lot of legitimate efforts. None of the WikiLeaks supporters want to touch this matter though. Why, I wonder.
Just because DOJ might not have sufficient grounds for prosecution (at least unless WikiLeaks conducts activity on US soil), doesn't mean they are automatically innocent, though. It just means our laws haven't adapted to technological changes.
Any moral check on the government must be done from within the US, with regards to US laws and protections.
That's the only way we can ensure we won't burn the forest down just to take down one bad apple.
All companies with dirty little secrets are targets.
Unless one of them is WikiLeaks, right?
Nobody has appointed WikiLeaks as the arbiter here.
They publish information they do not arbitrate.
We the people choose to pay them heed or not.
I hate linking to the HuffPo, but they have a good breakdown of the concept as it relates to WikiLeaks, using a few writings from before WikiLeaks was huge.
What "legitimate interests"(aside from a little embarassment) were compromised that wouldn't be considered a newsworthy problem by either people in the US, or people in the other country involved?
"Legitimate" interests are honest interests. And if they aren't now, they will be if this survives another 10 years.
Classifications to avoid the FOIA have skyrocketed. Compliance with FOIA has never been lower. Transparency is non-existent in our government. We don't get to see the foreign policy, we don't get to see the economic policy. Issues aren't even debated publicly on the floor anymore. Bill negotiations and discussions are now done behind the scenes, making even congressional records more or less piles of bureaucratic horseshit.
It's the first time in history the government has more means of knowing what their citizens are doing than the citizens have of knowing what the government is doing. Our privacy dwindles down to zero, their's continually expands. Their additional privacy allows them to limit ours even further with hardly a peep from us. That's how it's gone for almost a decade now.
It's over. Those days are never coming back.
This is where I cut it off. I've shown wikileaks is within the law multiple times across multiple threads. HellBlazer completely gave up the idea that he was unsupported by the courts, and you yourself said "Fuck the Supreme Court. This is about right and wrong, not about judicial masturbation."
Don't conflate your own sense of right and wrong with the law.
Last edited:
Ar Scion you claim it's not whistle-blowing and that it's putting American lives at risk. Now people have provided links to leaks which were whistle-blowing but can you show us one which endangers ones life. One which names an afgani informant which is due to be killed by Taliban?
I haven't read many of these but since you so passionate claim it endangers lives surely you must have read one which names an informant in Afghanistan.
I haven't read many of these but since you so passionate claim it endangers lives surely you must have read one which names an informant in Afghanistan.
Of course, which is why Assange broke no law and will not be vulnerable to prosecution. Hmmm, how to address that quandary? Accuse the government of corruption and illegal charges? Beautiful, it wraps everything up with a little bow.
Bottom line, if Assange broke no law, he wouldn't be lubing his rear up for the reaming of espionage charges that are most definitely coming. But then the advocates of lawbreaking say the government's corrupt and it goes on and on and on...
unsupported. Typo and you know it. Love the semantic games though. Not enough to save your position or anything, but the attempt is just adorable.
You don't have to be in the wrong legally to know the Government is going to come after you for things like this. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the US government is going to respond with force.
Uhhh, no. What he did was illegal and he's gonna pay the price. Personally, I don't even know why he gave himself up. But you saying a thousand times that the Supreme Court supports him doesn't make it true, and it definitely won't mean shit to Assange when he's rotting in a federal penitentiary somewhere.
Exactly what I predicted, i.e. the government is corrupt and these are trumped up charges. In other words, a discussion that goes nowhere.
Yeah, I'm aware. The point is that you (correctly) gave up trying to actually defend that point. I would never expect cognitive dissonance to occur with you.
It's the citations that make it true. Citations I've given you enough times that I'm not looking them up again.
So when someone does not break a law, but the law is changed or warped to persecute them then it makes it retrospectively illegal right?
I think that if he lubing up his rear it's because he knows that he is about to be completely screwed by a corrupt system which is afraid of the truth and will try to suppress it what ever way they can, legal or not.
But the problem is that this new movement has taken on a life of its own and Assange is not alone. Wikileaks and their ilk are a hydra and I believe will become stronger and stronger the more the power brokers show themselves to be ruthless and corrupt. Unstoppable.
Never gave up anything, I said there was no difference between what he did and espionage. Looks like my viewpoint was vindicated - again. He'll be prosecuted and convicted for espionage.
I don't blame you, there really isn't any other argument left but to wildly accuse the government of illegal actions and corruption. It's a clearly weak position, but there's nothing left. My position was correct all along, I win, you lose. Goodbye.
Toodles :action-smiley-052:
Love your signature by the way!
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."