http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/cia-responds-to-wikileaks-wtf/?hpt=T2 I love Wikileaks and their quest for government transparency, but this made me LOL.
Interesting note. My exam in University Writing had us examining a New york Times article about Wiki Leaks. It was quite interesting. Had us write a summary of the paper too
While the US prosecutes non-citizens for US crimes frequently (i.e. drug runners, etc) I doubt that this guy will see the inside of a jail cell in the US...it's not really a crime to publish leaked classified information...if that were case law the entire editorial staff of the New York Times would be in the clink. However, I do think that the US Serviceman who had the clearance and gave the classified information to this organization should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn't matter if we think it is trivial information, or if we think it should not be classified. It was classified. "BradAss" should pay for the crime he committed.
@bamaboy: there's some reason to be skeptical of the claim that Bradley Manning provided all the leaked cables. He wasn't a State Dep't insider; it seems unlikely he had access to all the cables, at least not without the assistance of someone else inside the State Dep't.
i was watching my weekly phildefranco show episodes and saw that in retaliation to this some people decided to mirror the site like 355 thousand times xD once on the internet always on the internet
Personally, I'm behind Assange all the way on this one. Bless his philandering cosmopolitan heart. I support full disclosure of all government activity, especially any activity which violates the founding ideals of my country and subverts American principles like honesty, integrity, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and justice. People have the right to privacy - the government is a servant of the people and has no such right. A lot of classified information only protects citizens from having to witness the corruption of their governments firsthand. One only has to read some of the documents that Wikileaks has released (or watch a few Reuters journalists get callously murdered by railgun) to realize that. Heck, just look at anything coming from Abu Ghraib. The American government wants that embarassing little Nazi-fest "classified" too. The reason the government doesn't want this information coming out from a source beyond their control is because it makes Americans look like scumbags. And guess what? If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...* *Not that I'm saying all Americans are scumbags. Just saying that it's hard to argue with our dirty laundry when it's laid out in living color for us and all the world to see.
Well, I think there are some things that the Government should keep classified because there are somethings that we simply don't need to know (obviously if this--or any government--is engaged in, or actively condoning war crimes or gross human rights violations, that should come to light) The only way Assange would ever see the inside of a cell (on this issue anyway) is that if it is proven that he was deliberately trying to inflict harm upon the United States...which is a high threshold to meet. One of the main reasons why the US did not want these out was because it embarrassed the US diplomatic corps...and I personally don't see why most of them were classified seeing how there was nothing earth shattering in them (calling the Ambassador to Italy an egomaniac is not really going to jeopardize anything except an ego) Some of the ones that got out...eh..they probably shouldn't have published. But, all that aside, classified information (not matter how trivial) was leaked and that should be addressed. @Liam: That is very possible. If another person(s) is(are) involved in this he or she should be prosecuted too.
My beef is the people who get to decide what we need to know and what we don't need to know, and the fact that I don't trust them any farther than I could throw them. But honestly, what sorts of things should we not need to know? We are the ones directing our government (that's the theory, anyway), so technically we should have access to every piece of information they have so we know how best to guide them (or have the situational awareness to tell them, "Hell no, absolutely not."). Chances are, if this kind of classified information is something the government is so ashamed to have its own people see that it would actually take measures to destroy and discredit Wikileaks, I'd put money down it's something they had no ethical right to do in the first place.
Well, your first point I don't think anyone could really argue lol. I certainly trust very few in government...let alone the creature of government itself. But, we have to work with what is given to us I suppose...if not them, who? I don't think we need to know the details of intelligence information (spy networks, informants,etc.), military strategy, nuclear placement and weapon technology, etc...and even some high level diplomatic negotiations are among a few things that come to mind that I think should always remain in the highest level of confidentiality.
Not according to the black flags. :icon_wink I don't really think we should spy on people. Why is it acceptable for our government to do something that we wouldn't legally be permitted to do in our own communities? I agree with you to a degree on the classification of military strategy/weapon technology, simply because I work in weapons research and development and recognize the need to maintain discretion in those fields because lives are on the line, as well as our country's military superiority (which I can assure you if you're American borders on the ridiculous). And I don't believe in having nuclear weapons, period. An individual person might be trustworthy enough to handle that level of responsibility (maybe) but people as a collective? As a government? Way, way, way too stupid to ever be responsible for that level of power over the life - or potential lack thereof - on this planet.
I find it funny how government officials have said that if you openly support Wikileaks than you can't hold a government job for your entire life. I just love how the entire government is taking the "We are free! Lolwut? Oh! Well, we'll take that freedom away...! WE'RE FREE!" Russian PM Putin was actually making fun of the US for that. I found it funny as well.
I openly support Wikileaks and I already work for the government. *shrug* Granted, I don't support Wikileaks to the point that I would ever disclose classified information to them, but that's because I sort of like my job and really hate prison. Because like it or not, classified information is protected under the law, and disclosing it is extremely illegal. (Besides, I don't work on anything that would merit whistleblowing, so I'm off the hook.) The thing that was crazy to me was that I got a notice at work saying that even though the diplomatic cables are available online for the world to see, that the information is still considered CLASSIFIED and that it was essentially a violation of operations security to view it. Like, we were told to not even download it to our personal computers at home. So I have a secret clearance and I'm not allowed to look at the leaked diplomatic cables, but some teenager in Russia can read the whole thing? Er....what? Literally the most stupid directive I have ever been given. If a document is leaked to the general public, I think it's pretty safe to say it's not classified anymore.
