News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[Gokul43201]

That bothers me a lot. It implies that Obama is not taking this seriously.

Or it implies that Obama is trying to downplay the whole thing as the first step in damage control. You don't believe that when Bush said the he doesn't think about bin Laden, that at least a part of the reason for saying that may have been to downplay the failure to capture him ... or do you instead believe that Bush didn't take terrorism seriously?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Back in 2008, Obama freaked out his own election campaign with his no-drama approach to crises. Of course he is concerned about this. How could anyone think otherwise?

What matters is what they do to solve the problem. No amount of fretting will help.

In a few years, Woodward can tell us all about how angry Obama was about this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have to think that before this is over, Assange will be dead. At the least, he will be locked away permanently.

 

[zomgwtf]

I have to think that before this is over, Assange will be dead. At the least, he will be locked away permanently.

I agree, I certainly hope that he doesn't just disappear or anything of that sort... or mystically dies... but I can't say I would feel sorry for him. Like what did he set out to accomplish? Why did he do this? Just to be a douchebag internationally?

He had a good amount of support before he should have left it at that... this has gone too far though and he's turned nearly everyone against him. He should have just stuck to bashing the American military, no one would have faulted him for that!

 

[russ_watters]

Or it implies that Obama is trying to downplay the whole thing as the first step in damage control.

Well, there is speculation that there may already be a secret arrest warrant out for Assange, so it is possible there is more to Obama's reaction we don't know about, but I don't see how publicly downplaying it works toward damage control. Could you explain that please? Or are you just saying that downplaying it is a political move to cover his own butt? ...so how is that not an expression of not taking it seriously? If his own butt is his primary concern, then his primary concern is not in dealing with the leak, right? The damage he should be controlling is the damage it did to his country, not to his own image.

You don't believe that when Bush said the he doesn't think about bin Laden, that at least a part of the reason for saying that may have been to downplay the failure to capture him ... or do you instead believe that Bush didn't take terrorism seriously?

Absolutely it is intended to downplay the failure. But obviously we know he was taking it seriously because he started a war in Afghanistan to find him. Downplaying is so far about all we have from Obama. That's a big difference: One downplayed a failure after making an effort to do something. The other is downplaying a failure while apparently doing nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

Back in 2008, Obama freaked out his own election campaign with his no-drama approach to crises. Of course he is concerned about this. How could anyone think otherwise?

I think he may not be concerned because:

1. He isn't talking like he's concerned.
2. He isn't taking action that implies he's concerned.
3. In the past, he's not just avoided looking concerned, but has actually not taken appropriate action so I don't have default trust in him like you apparently do. See: the Xmas bombing and Ft Hood incidents.

What matters is what they do to solve the problem. No amount of fretting will help.

I'm not looking for fretting. The problem is itself largely an image problem so the overt response is a large part of what is important.

 

[Hepth]

I'm not looking for fretting. The problem is itself largely an image problem so the overt response is a large part of what is important.

How specifically would you have him act in a perfect world? Go on public TV declaring a national emergency as we're leaking classified info all over the place? Maybe not. Maybe calling for the arrest of those involved? Well the one who stole the material is already in custody, only the international publisher is still at large, and we're not even sure if what he did was beyond what the Times does everyday with info leaks. They requested the FBI/CIA/DHS to check the info before they posted it for stuff to be redacted that could be TOO sensitive. They THEMSELVES redacted a lot of names and locations to protect people.

What else can he do? Consider it unfortunate, work to make security tighter, and run damage control on the information leaked as the most important thing right now is to maintain international diplomacy. That's what seems to be going on, right?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I have to think that before this is over, Assange will be dead. At the least, he will be locked away permanently.

That's pretty strong. It's not even clear to me that he did anything wrong, legally speaking. (It would obviously be illegal was he an American, but that's neither here nor there.) Do you know anything on the matter?

 

[NobodySpecial]

I think he may not be concerned because:

The leaks so far suggest that the US believes
Putin is the real power in russia
Berlosconi is a ladies man
Merkle is boring
Kharsi is a crook
China wouldn't be too happy about a permanent US military presence in N Korea

You have to wonder if some of the future leaks include the defecation location of bears and the religion of the pope

 

[mheslep]

As I understand it, the NYT also accepted the stolen classified information (from Wikileaks). CNN, and the WSJ refused receipt. I don't think I'd label the NYT as being at war with the US, deserving destruction, even if I disagree violently with their decision to publish. PFC Manning is the traitor/thief; it is he that deserves to be thrown under the jail, and likely will be.

 

[zomgwtf]

That's pretty strong. It's not even clear to me that he did anything wrong, legally speaking. (It would obviously be illegal was he an American, but that's neither here nor there.) Do you know anything on the matter?

I am 100% sure this falls under the espionage act. Whether that act itself is still constituitional remains to be answered. All that needs to be proven is that Assange intended to harm America by publishing it, which I am pretty certain he is. It may be hard to prove this though since he pushes himself as doing this only for openness of information.

Now this doesn't call for his death, but certainly warrants and investigation (which is obviously occurring) and for the Obama team to get into action finding how to
a)Get him
and
b)Convict him
(both of which they are doing so as a side-note I do not agree with what russ said the Obama administration is very much part of all this and has been acting the entire time)

 

[NobodySpecial]

Now this doesn't call for his death, but certainly warrants and investigation (which is obviously occurring) and for the Obama team to get into action finding how to

The difficulty is how to prosecute him without also prosecuting the NYT, generally governments do not like to try and imprison people like Rupert Murdoch.

 

[zomgwtf]

The difficulty is how to prosecute him without also prosecuting the NYT, generally governments do not like to try and imprison people like Rupert Murdoch.

I'm pretty sure I pointed out that the intent to harm? I highly doubt the NYT was intending to harm America at all.

EDIT: In fact after reading their statement it is extremely clear they did not intend to harm America at all.

 

[Proton Soup]

Is this spin?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/26/white-house-blasts-wikileaks-media-documents-leak/

"The White House on Monday heaped criticism on government transparency advocate Wikileaks for publishing a huge database of secret field reports from the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

"Besides being against the law, [it] has a potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military, and those that are working to keep us safe," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said of the publication."

Is the message here that "transparency" is bad?

yes, i think so. we're not supposed to know what's going on, we're supposed to be do harmless things like arguing about tea partiers.

I have to think that before this is over, Assange will be dead.

but that would be an act of terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

That's pretty strong. It's not even clear to me that he did anything wrong, legally speaking. (It would obviously be illegal was he an American, but that's neither here nor there.) Do you know anything on the matter?

You have it backwards: whether he is an American is what is "neither here nor there". Whether he is an American has no bearing at all on the legality of what he did. It's illegal and he can be arrested and tried (or perhaps just killed since it could also be considered an act of war).

What you are saying is essentially a self-contradiction: he committed a crime but it isn't illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

As I understand it, the NYT also accepted the stolen classified information (from Wikileaks). CNN, and the WSJ refused receipt. I don't think I'd label the NYT as being at war with the US, deserving destruction, even if I disagree violently with their decision to publish. PFC Manning is the traitor/thief; it is he that deserves to be thrown under the jail, and likely will be.

CNN refused to accept because of the terms Wikileaks wanted to impose. IIRC, the issue from the Pentagon Papers is that the news media is protected. Logically, you could say that they didn't receive and release stolen documents, but rather they were who the stolen documents were released to. It's kinda the same as why you can't be arrested for reading them.

 

[russ_watters]

[assange might be killed] but that would be an act of terrorism.

No, it most certainly would not be an act of terrorism. What definition of terrorism are you using?

 

[russ_watters]

How specifically would you have him act in a perfect world?

As I said, a lot of it is about his reaction itself. I don't like gamemsmanship: if he believes this is a serious issue he should tell me he believes it is a serious issue. That would give me more confidence that he intends to try to prevent such leaks from happening in the future and that he intends to try to stop the leaker here from continuing his crimes.

What you, Ivan and Gokul are essentially saying is that when Obama says he's not taking this seriously, he's lying and that he actually is taking it seriously. One interpretation of Gokul's post suggests that there is a national security reason for doing so. Perhaps he doesn't want to reveal what he's doing - but while I see that possibility, I don't see what that possibility actually is. So I'll need gokul to explain it to me.

Actions he could take, though, include:

1. Create a panel to investigate the root cause of the breach.
2. Issue an arrest warrant for Assange.
3. Take immediate action to shore-up security such as re-checking the backgrounds of people who have access to such information and re-evaluating the need for its release.
4. Make a speech/public statements condeming the action and addressing the world community to help limit backlash (backlash doesn't seem to be bad despite his not doing this, but he should do it anyway).

 

[Monique]

I find it beyond words that people are suggesting Assange should be killed for releasing the documents, especially when the word "just" is used.

You have it backwards: whether he is an American is what is "neither here nor there". Whether he is an American has no bearing at all on the legality of what he did. It's illegal and he can be arrested and tried (or perhaps just killed since it could also be considered an act of war).

It matters what laws apply to him: U.S. laws about treason don't apply to him. Laws against the release of classified information are aimed at those who initially release the information, which wasn't Assange. He spread the documents, but so did countless other media.

 

[Danger]

Thank you for that voice of reason, Monique.

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree Danger. Monique and several others misunderstand how the law works because they are not thinking logically about it and are instead just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful reality. Again, one does not need to be physically located in a country to be subject to some of its laws and one does not need to be the trigger puller to be a murderer. These are realities, whether you like them or not, and they must be understood and accepted for this discussion to remain productive.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Again, one does not need to be physically located in a country to be subject to some of its laws and one does not need to be the trigger puller to be a murderer.

No but one generally does need to be of a country to commit treason against it.
It would be a little unfair for the Capt of the USS Nimitz to be charged by the Russian navy for activities against the interests of the USSR

 

[BobG]

I have to think that before this is over, Assange will be dead. At the least, he will be locked away permanently.

That's pretty strong. It's not even clear to me that he did anything wrong, legally speaking. (It would obviously be illegal was he an American, but that's neither here nor there.) Do you know anything on the matter?

You're taking too limited a view. It may be US documents that were leaked, but it affects more than just US officials.

For example, the release was bad for Ahmadinejad. We may not care; in fact, it could be good for Iranians to see the path that Ahmadinejad's taking in a new light. As much as the world worries about Iran attempting to gain influence in the Arab Middle East, it appears that those efforts have been unsuccessful. Instead of gaining influence, Iran is more isolated than ever. That is going to have an effect on the Iranian people and on Ahmadinejad's political future.

It's more than the US (and more than just Iran) that resent having the 'sausage' of diplomacy spilled out for everyone to see. I think Assange would have legitimate reasons to fear for his life.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The leaks so far suggest that the US believes
Putin is the real power in russia
Berlosconi is a ladies man
Merkle is boring
Kharsi is a crook
China wouldn't be too happy about a permanent US military presence in N Korea

You have to wonder if some of the future leaks include the defecation location of bears and the religion of the pope

You win teh internets!

 

[CRGreathouse]

I am 100% sure this falls under the espionage act. Whether that act itself is still constituitional remains to be answered. All that needs to be proven is that Assange intended to harm America by publishing it, which I am pretty certain he is. It may be hard to prove this though since he pushes himself as doing this only for openness of information.

It's not clear to me that there's anything wrong with Assange violating the laws of a country where he neither resides nor holds citizenship. Surely I have violated the laws of North Korea (not wearing one of the approved haircuts), Saudi Arabia (eating during Ramadan), China (visiting the Dalai Lama's website), and Thailand (criticizing, on principle, its king).

But as I have no ties to these countries it's not obvious that I have done wrong -- in fact it seems that I have not.

 

[BobG]

Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan could be the first diplomat to resign as a result of the leaks.

Wiki fallout? Canada's envoy offers to resign

 

[CRGreathouse]

You have it backwards: whether he is an American is what is "neither here nor there". Whether he is an American has no bearing at all on the legality of what he did. It's illegal and he can be arrested and tried (or perhaps just killed since it could also be considered an act of war).

So, presumably, I could be arrested by any of the four states listed in my post above. But can Thailand/DPRK/PRC/Saudi Arabia extradite me or otherwise act on this desire to arrest me? Or, more to the point, can America do anything* to Assange in (say) Switzerland?

* Legally, that is; of course they could send assassins easily enough.

 

[Monique]

I disagree Danger. Monique and several others misunderstand how the law works because they are not thinking logically about it and are instead just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful reality. Again, one does not need to be physically located in a country to be subject to some of its laws and one does not need to be the trigger puller to be a murderer. These are realities, whether you like them or not, and they must be understood and accepted for this discussion to remain productive.

One could equally well argue that the opposite response is a knee-jerk reaction to a distasteful reality.

But to the point, the following case is illustrative and informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States" , also known as the Pentagon Papers Case.

The Nixon administration wanted to prevent that the NY Times would publish a classified study from the Defense Department about US activities Vietnam. The court ruled against the government censor: the First Amendment protects the freedom of press. The New York Times had the right to publish the classified documents.

If the United States or another country want to take Assange to court, they are free to attempt that. History has shown that court cases based of the Espionage Act has not led to significant convictions. A civilized country would go this route, instead of taking the law in its own hands and going out assassinating people with divergent views.

 

[BobG]

An interesting take on how the leaks affect the Arab world - WikiLeaks and the Arab public sphere

Arab leaders routinely say different things in private and in public, but that their public rhetoric is often a better guide to what they will actually do since that reflects their calculation of what they can get away with politically. Arab leaders urged the U.S. to go after Saddam privately for years, but wouldn't back it publicly for fear of the public reaction. It's the same thing with Iran over the last few years, or with their views of the Palestinian factions and Israel. But now those private conversations are being made public, undeniably and with names attached.

The leaks pose some interesting dilemmas. Al-Jazeera has a lot at stake, as it has a reputation as the only independent news source in the Middle East (regardless of the opinion most Americans may have of Al-Jazeera). Their coverage has been very restrained so far. Covering something like this may be their biggest challenge yet.

But, public reaction in the Arab world has a good chance of affecting how Arab countries will behave in the future. That could be positive (for the US) in that they'll be more willing to stand up to Iran, or it could be negative (for Israel) in that they'll be more aggressive in demanding a better deal for Palestinians.

 

[zomgwtf]

Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION. This man fully was attempting to do this he said things along those lines many times and it makes what he did fall fully under the Espionage Act.

As well what you said earlier about not being charged with treason if you're not American is bs too. Two Germans were charged with treason I believe back in WWII.

As well you may break laws in other nations you don't hold citizenship but they have to apprehend you and bring you back and convict you of the crime with the entire world watching. Good luck to North Korea doing that, whata rediculous notion.