Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Wikileaks and the US State Department


Recommended Posts

In truth I find the whole rape aspect to be a bit of a red herring. So far in all the information I've seen relating to these allegations there doesn't appear to be anything very compelling that would lead one to believe rape had actually been committed. Certainly the Swedish authorities appear to be very uncertain as to the validity of these charges.

The rape charges now involve two women, neither of whom have any contact with Tiger Woods....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If hes guilty of sexual assault its time for jail :D But that has no bearing on the importance of wikileaks as a conduit for whistle blowers to get material out. That concept is here to stay... even if this guy goes to jail or if they manage to shut down this one website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If hes guilty of sexual assault its time for jail :D But that has no bearing on the importance of wikileaks as a conduit for whistle blowers to get material out. That concept is here to stay... even if this guy goes to jail or if they manage to shut down this one website.

I agree. One is an issue surrounding the director, the other about a conduit for the wide dispersal of espionage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. One is an issue surrounding the director, the other about a conduit for the wide dispersal of espionage.

Not to dismiss these allegations, but the bigger story is the batch of documents. Actually the story IS the batch of documents. The rape charges are a distraction from these documents. Plain and simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. One is an issue surrounding the director, the other about a conduit for the wide dispersal of espionage.

Whistle blowers != spies. The documents that wikileaks posts are documents that a person inside some organization has decided should be known to the public. They post the information on wikileaks. WikiLeaks is not more guilty of espionage than the NewYork Times was when they published the Pentagon Papers. And if wikileaks wasnt there the whistle-blower could still send his material to thousands of other media outlets and it would still get out.

The fifth estate is not legally obligated to help any government keep secrets. If the information gets to the point where its being sent to media outlets, then the government has already lost control of it, and failed to keep their own secrets.

Same goes for privileged content from any private organization. The media is under no obligation to protect the confidentiality of someone elses data.

Edited by dre
Link to post
Share on other sites

....The fifth estate is not legally obligated to help any government keep secrets. If the information gets to the point where its being sent to media outlets, then the government has already lost control of it, and failed to keep their own secrets.

Well....hell, no wonder you think pirate DVD downloads are OK too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who called for his assassination, and are you sure, cos if it's from the Guardian then that explains it. LOL

8.38am: The anti-WikiLeaks campaign is now becoming hysterical. Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to the Canadian prime minister Stepher Harper, called for the assassination of Julian Assange on a CBC news programme.

Just like their non story about SunTV and the Mounties LOL

it seems that Guardian story had it about right, save the acknowledged update correction concerning the direct versus 'Harper-arms-length' qualifier concerning Rupert Murdoch's involvement in FoxNewsNorth (FNN). By the way, Scriblett... has the PMO finally advised as to the exact nature of the New York meeting between Fox's Rupert Murdoch, Fox's Roger Ailes, Fearless Leader Harper and the MIA Kory Teneycke?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two separate rape allegations were filed on the same day - despite both alleged rapes having taken place months earlier.

Coincidentally, the allegations surfaced right around the time of the last disclosure.

The Swedish police investigated the complaints and dismissed them within days, finding them completely baseless.

The case was just re-opened and red-carded at Interpol with this latest release of documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. One is an issue surrounding the director, the other about a conduit for the wide dispersal of espionage.

No, it's a conduit that allows people an opportunity to check whether their governments have been committing geo-political vandalism when no one was looking. I look forward to the day when leaks are streamed as close to real-time as possible so the public can more efficiently check any abuse of power while its happening.

It would be irresponsible of an informed electorate to leave this task solely up to elected representatives. The poor dear leaders have enough on their plates as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two separate rape allegations were filed on the same day - despite both alleged rapes having taken place months earlier.

Incorrect. Within days of the alledged crimes

Coincidentally, the allegations surfaced right around the time of the last disclosure.

Two months prior, to be exact.

The Swedish police investigated the complaints and dismissed them within days, finding them completely baseless.

Incorrect again.

Shortly after the investigation opened, however, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". He was still being investigated for harassment, which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact

The case was just re-opened and red-carded at Interpol with this latest release of documents.

3rd time incorrect

He was questioned by police for an hour on 31 August,[95] and on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor re-opened the rape investigation saying new information had come in.

Almost 3 months prior this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sex_crime_investigation_and_arrest_warrant

Edited by M.Dancer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....hell, no wonder you think pirate DVD downloads are OK too.

Yeah sorry but thats apples and oranges. You wont see a copyright claim here because under US law the press can use copyrighted material under FAIR USE. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, archiving, etc. OTher countries based on British Common Law have similar exemptions for limited use of protected material.

Read the supreme court ruling on the Pentagon Papers.

A copyright or trademark violation case would be about as likely to success as an espionage case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a conduit that allows people an opportunity to check whether their governments have been committing geo-political vandalism when no one was looking. I look forward to the day when leaks are streamed as close to real-time as possible so the public can more efficiently check any abuse of power while its happening.

It would be irresponsible of an informed electorate to leave this task solely up to elected representatives. The poor dear leaders have enough on their plates as it is.

Not only that but making the media responsible for maintaining privilege or confidentiality asserted by a third party would require that the 1st amendment be repealed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....A copyright or trademark violation case would be about as likely to success as an espionage case.

Doesn't matter....clearly you have little respect for any form of information security, gag orders, or protections for intellectual property, public or private....even in a foreign jurisdiction. That's fine, but don't pretend such a position would always prevail in court.

IIRC, Canada famously has court imposed gag rules that can result in prosecution (e.g. Gomery hearings).

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry but thats apples and oranges. You wont see a copyright claim here because under US law the press can use copyrighted material under FAIR USE. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, archiving, etc. OTher countries based on British Common Law have similar exemptions for limited use of protected material.

Read the supreme court ruling on the Pentagon Papers.

A copyright or trademark violation case would be about as likely to success as an espionage case.

The let this guy become an accredited member of the press and play by the same rules as they have to.

I'm a combative person. I like crushing bastards so it is deeply personal. Personaly deeply satisfying to me.
Whether you agree with what he is doing or not, he is little more than a high tech vandal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter....clearly you have little respect for any form of information security, gag orders, or protections for intellectual property, public or private....even is a foreign jurisdiction. That's fine, but don't pretend such a position would always prevail in court.

IIRC, Canada famously has court imposed gag rules that can result in prosecution (e.g. Gomery hearings).

Doesn't matter....clearly you have little respect for any form of information security

Actually I do. Information security is what I do for a living. Its a great idea to put good security around sensitive information, and it might be a good thing for the government to try.

Remember... wiki leaks insnt the problem here. This leak came from within the US government... someone downloaded lots of data and decided he wanted to disseminate it. Even if wikileaks didnt exist theres thousands and thousands of other outlets the guy could have sent this information to. The guy himself probably broke the law, and is in breach of contract with his employer... hes definately in some trouble. But a successful prosecution against WikiLeaks will be tough.

Its really very similar to the Pentagon Papers where you have an insider that presents classified material to the press. The argument that the governments right to security trumped freedom of the press was soundly rejected by the supreme court, and the New York times was told they could keep running the story.

The real outrage here is totally misdirected at wikileaks. What people should be angry about is that the US government does such a terrible job of safeguarding sensitive information. They leak like a busted sieve, and that could potentially get people killed.

Edited by dre
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean crawling out of his hole and taking responsibility for his actions.

Given the topic, this is a bit selective: for one example, cite me where Hillary Clinton has "taken responsibility" for her plan of diplomats acting as spies at the UN?

Or, let's look at the media itself: where have the major news networks taken responsibility for promoting blatant, Soviet-style war propaganda?

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

I suppose we should hold Assange to higher standards than we do the Secretary of State, the heads of news corporations, and the public who swallows the deceptions with wide, dewy-eyes and stupidly-bobbing heads?

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Its really very similar to the Pentagon Papers where you have an insider that presents classified material to the press. The argument that the governments right to security trumped freedom of the press was soundly rejected by the supreme court, and the New York times was told they could keep running the story....

Wrong...the court held that prior restraint by the government had to be supported by sufficient evidence of "grave and irreparable" harm. Your own government has court ordered gag orders instantiated in law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The let this guy become an accredited member of the press and play by the same rules as they have to. Whether you agree with what he is doing or not, he is little more than a high tech vandal.

The let this guy become an accredited member of the press and play by the same rules as they have to.

You dont need any accreditation at all to get first amendment protection.

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion"

Doesnt matter if youre a major network, a guy with a blog, or Rufus The Stuntbum handing out handwritten leaflets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the topic, this is a bit selective: for one example, cite me where Hillary Clinton has "taken responsibility" for her plan of diplomats acting as spies at the UN?

I suppose we should hold Assange to higher standards than we do the Secretary of State, the heads of news corporations, and the public who swallows the deceptions with wide, dewy-eyes and stupidly-bobbing heads?

I'm coming up empty here... can't seem to find any U.S. apologies for extending spying into its diplomatic ranks. I'm on top of it and will provide updates as appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the topic, this is a bit selective: for one example, cite me where Hillary Clinton has "taken responsibility" for her plan of diplomats acting as spies at the UN?

Or, let's look at the media itself: where have the major news networks taken responsibility for promoting blatant, Soviet-style war propaganda?

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

I suppose we should hold Assange to higher standards than we do the Secretary of State, the heads of news corporations, and the public who swallows the deceptions with wide, dewy-eyes and stupidly-bobbing heads?

Not sure why she has to as yet. If it is established that she was complicit in obtaining information illegally or using it illegally I would imagine there will be repercussions. I doubt very much just having such information is illegal.

Wasn't it a newspaper that brought the analyst issue to light?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm coming up empty here... can't seem to find any U.S. apologies for extending spying into its diplomatic ranks. I'm on top of it and will provide updates as appropriate.

Much appreciated. Probably you won't find it occurring at all...but one never knows.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm coming up empty here... can't seem to find any U.S. apologies for extending spying into its diplomatic ranks. I'm on top of it and will provide updates as appropriate.

Why on earth would they apologize for that?

Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters....

Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...