WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[jreelawg]

Well, there's one problem solved... The Russians do NOT play games when it comes to espionage, and the old 2nd Directorate KGB vets are some of the ones who Putin and others have the most pull with. The USA might try to put you in jail... the Russians will feed you some nuclear waste, or a ricin pellet.

Assassinating people in exotic and incriminating ways, kind of is playing games if you ask me.

 

[Galteeth]

The RAB, is called a death squad by human rights groups, but human rights groups often have similar bad things to say about the U.S., the U.K., Israel, etc etc.



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



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/187025

The fact that some of the RAP had received training from the UK is neither strange, or particularly damning. Actually, it is something you would expect. After reading what was leaked about it, I think it actually makes the UK look good because it shows their concern for RAP human rights violations, and presents arguments for why they are necessary in the war on terror. The RAP would exist without UK training, but UK training and support puts pressure on the RAP to conform to human rights expectations.

I could go on all day posting much more damning news strait out of mainstream news sources, especially under the subject of bad guys who had received training from, or had been funded, by a particular government or military branch.

"In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"

622 killed in crossfire? Come on now.

Note: If we are going to debate the RAP, it might be better to start a different thread, as this is a somewhat tangenital topic.

 

[jreelawg]

"In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"

622 killed in crossfire? Come on now.

Note: If we are going to debate the RAP, it might be better to start a different thread, as this is a somewhat tangenital topic.

The leak if anything makes the RAP look bad, but not the UK. The RAP already looked bad before anyways, and the RAP is not a para-military squad, they are official. And, it was already known that the UK supports Bangladesh in the war on terror. It is hardly any more damning than the fact that Bangladesh is a UK ally. But I agree, we are getting off topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

Assassinating people in exotic and incriminating ways, kind of is playing games if you ask me.

It's definitely how Russia has liked to send a message post-Soviet era. Then, 2nd directorate would simply take you to Lubyanka or some s****ole satellite 'office' and your family to a prison. Now they're much more civilized, and 'send messages'.

Besides, in a very real way espionage is played, not like a fun game, but a game nonetheless. Brutally or exotically killing people who sincerely **** with your country is practically a national pastime. Contrast this to the Chinese who will simply shoot you, done, game over. Contrast again to the USA which (the consensus seems to be) harasses you about Swedish sex crimes... you see my point?

 

[nismaratwork]

The leak if anything makes the RAP look bad, but not the UK. The RAP already looked bad before anyways, and the RAP is not a para-military squad, they are official. And, it was already known that the UK supports Bangladesh in the war on terror. It is hardly any more damning than the fact that Bangladesh is a UK ally. But I agree, we are getting off topic.

Yeah, I wonder what happens in the Philippine jungles with our (US) forces and our Filipino counterparts. I'm sure it's all about precision and taking prisoners...

 

[Evo]

I have one question in my mind I would like to resolve. What is the difference between wikileaks reporting classified information, and MSNBC, or the Guardian reporting it? I just noticed that the mainstream media seams to feel free to report anything wikileaks puts out. Wikileaks doesn't steal the information, they only publish it. It seams that if the Guardian can repost what wikileaks has, than there must be laws protecting this right.

The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.

Under the amendment, which was adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a journalist is defined as someone who:

(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;

http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/

 

[nismaratwork]

The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.



http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/

I would add that, whatever your stance on this, you have to agree that the information was stolen. Simply turning around and releasing that in a raw form to the public is at best, whistleblowing... not journalism. In a way, it's not even that...

Manning might be considered a whisteblower by some (not me), but Wikileaks was just one of a number of possible outlets, including Manning slapping the whole thing in a file and seeding it as a torrent. Wikileaks... they did what the source could have done, and they don't bother with explaining anything unless it's in a media appearance. They're an extra-legal/extra-national information clearing house without any particular talent, just the willingness to face international retribution.

Julian Assange himself has expressed his love of being a rebel, and attention... I think there's a good reason that this supposedly noble crusade has become about one man's sex charges, and that some Wikileaks founders have split off to pursue another competing project. In some form, a leaking website can be hugely helpful, but to do be so it needs to have respect and gravitas, which is achieved by picking your battles and using only the most damning evidence.

 

[Proton Soup]

The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.



http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/

i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.

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

Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.

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."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.

As famously said by journalist A. J. Liebling, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."[2] The individuals, businesses, and organizations that own a means of publication are able to publish information and opinions without government interference, and cannot be compelled by the government to publish information and opinions that they disagree with. For example, the owner of a printing press cannot be required to print advertisements for a political opponent, even if the printer normally accepts commercial printing jobs.

In 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Near v. Minnesota used the 14th Amendment to apply the freedom of the press to the States. Other notable cases regarding free press are:

* New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): The Supreme Court upheld the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): The Court decided that for written words to be libel they must be, first of all, false.

[edit]

and it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video

 

[jreelawg]

US supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor has said the court is likely to have to rule on the issue of balancing national security and freedom of speech due to WikiLeaks posting a cache of US military records about the Afghan war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/27/wikileaks-war-logs-free-speech-supreme-court

 

[nismaratwork]

i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.

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


and it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video

Wikileaks gave their material to JOURNALISTIC outlets to work with and publish. A reporter's job isn't just to collect scads of raw information, unprocessed... well, is SIPRnet a 'publishing' outlet? There is no added element, even context, added to this information that would allow it to be a journalistic effort.

 

[jreelawg]

Wikileaks gave their material to JOURNALISTIC outlets to work with and publish. A reporter's job isn't just to collect scads of raw information, unprocessed... well, is SIPRnet a 'publishing' outlet? There is no added element, even context, added to this information that would allow it to be a journalistic effort.

This is how they describe themselves on their website,

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

wikileaks

You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is how they describe themselves on their website,

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

wikileaks

You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.

Would you post a quote from a Jihadi website describing themselves as "freedom fighters"? I don't care how they describe themselves on their homepage, but rather what they've actually done, and how they've done it.

Wikileaks cultivates and compromises sources, gathers information and centralizes it, then meters it out to media outlets for actual context and translation from "diplo-cable-ese" into English. That's basically an espionage service that gives away their information (except for the Insurance File...) and not a journalistic outlet. They operate like a stateless espionage service, and that's how they're being treated... what did they expect?

They don't hold themselves, nor are they held to journalistic norms... they don't even pretend except in writing.

 

[Evo]

This is how they describe themselves on their website,

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

wikileaks

You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.

LOL. Just a few months ago this was their Mission Statement

WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15649651

 

[nismaratwork]

LOL. Just a few months ago this was their Mission Statement

WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15649651

Heh... in other words, a secure clearing house. You're more than a pretty face Evo!

 

[jreelawg]

I'm not going to defend wikileaks, I'm only interested in what the court of law actually says.

 

[Evo]

I'm not going to defend wikileaks, I'm only interested in what the court of law actually says.

Did you see my post #321?

 

[jreelawg]

Did you see my post #321?

I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.

I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.

I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.

I'm not a lawyer either, and I think the debate in the courts may well boil down to what you're saying vs. the stance I'm taking. In the end, I just don't see any journalistic element to Wikileaks, which only leaves individual speech. You can't share the secrets of a state and expect it to sit passively... in the end it doesn't matter if this is right or wrong... Assange has clearly been marked to be made an example of, and now Wikileaks is messing with Russia? They're going to get killed or get other people killed, and thus far I haven't seen enough from them to warrant what they do to get the info and the impact it has on diplomacy.

 

[Evo]

Good point Nismar, even a journalist isn't protected if espionage, or conspiracy, or risk to national security are involved.

 

[Newai]

i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_Statesand it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video

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."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.

I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.

 

[Evo]

I think this thread has run it's course. wikileaks seems like last week's news, they dog has pooped, time to roll it up and stick it in the trash.

 

[Proton Soup]

I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:

sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the United States is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?

oh, and i see i have been edited for content.

 

[Newai]

I can't speak for the others on the red herring, and in fact I don't really care about this issue. I just want to be sure, for whatever reason people are choosing to define the press, that it is correct.

 

[Evo]

sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the United States is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?

Since Proton Soup knows that no crime has been committed (how *does* he know these things, I wonder if the USG knows yet?)

This thread is done, Assange will be fighting extradtion while living in the lap of luxury for a long time, it seems. If anything new happens, a new thread should be started at that time.