News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[zomgwtf]

Is that THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act Act? Again, how does that apply to people outside the US? Its not an international law. Its a US federal law, made for citizens, right?

Which international Espionage Act are you talking about violating? If he had committed these acts on US soil, then I could see its application. Otherwise I don't see any problem.

Yes that is the one, no I am not talking about any international act.

Why do you assume America can not prosecute in this case? Do you have case precedent to back that up? Or any sources? There are plenty of people well studied in this that say there will be no problem the only problem now is building the case.

I mean did you even read the Act? Where does it say an American citizen? Espionage can be charged against foreign nationals that'd be rather stupid if it couldn't.

 

[Reshma]

What was posted on Wikileaks on the Indo-Pak-US scenario is what the Indians had suspected all along: US's unyielding support for Pakistan. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-us-backed-isi-demand-on-2611/136371-2.html?from=tn

I haven't gone through the entire thread, so I don't have any opinion on what should be Assange's fate. But if what Assange did was illegal then why can't the US government (and other nations) just request all the local and international media not to give further coverage to the leaked documents?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I haven't gone through the entire thread, so I don't have any opinion on what should be Assange's fate. But if what Assange did was illegal then why can't the US government (and other nations) just request all the local and international media not to give further coverage to the leaked documents?

Why would they listen?

 

[Reshma]

Why would they listen?

It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.

 

[Monique]

I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.

She speaks English so well that you wouldn't know that it's not her first language, it could just be not knowing the right term.

It was brought up in several English-speaking media, as you've read I know exactly what treason is and that it doesn't apply to Assange. Others appear to be more confused. I never ruled out that he could be trialed for Espionage, but in order to do so international governments first would have to turn him over to US custody. I'm curious to see how that is going to be handled, this is going to be all about politics.

It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.

Exactly, don't blame the messenger.

 

[Borek]

It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.

Not sure what you mean. To quote BBC News:

No-one has been charged with passing the diplomatic files to Wikileaks but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of classified US documents.

While it is still not clear if Manning is responsible, he is clearly a suspect and if he will be found guilty, he will not "get away with it".

 

[Reshma]

Not sure what you mean. To quote BBC News:

I just don't quite agree with the way Assange is being made the epicentre of the diplomatic crisis. US diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Indo-Pak have always been murky. The leaked files, IMO, have just shed further light into the situation and didn't come as a surprise to me at least on the Indian issues. The fact that cables from US embassies in several countries were leaked, means the espionage trail goes much deeper. What if the classified data appeared on some other website other than Wikileaks?

While it is still not clear if Manning is responsible, he is clearly a suspect and if he will be found guilty, he will not "get away with it".

Well the magnitude of the recent leaks seems much higher. I am sure there are several others responsible.

 

[Borek]

I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.

 

[BobG]

What was posted on Wikileaks on the Indo-Pak-US scenario is what the Indians had suspected all along: US's unyielding support for Pakistan. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-us-backed-isi-demand-on-2611/136371-2.html?from=tn

Not witout a cost: WikiLeaks: Pakistan quietly approved drone attacks, U.S. special units

I don't think that's earth-shattering news, either, but it does put Pakistan's government officials on the spot.

 

[BobG]

The fact that cables from US embassies in several countries were leaked, means the espionage trail goes much deeper. What if the classified data appeared on some other website other than Wikileaks?

Actually, it doesn't. One of the factors seen as contributing to 9/11 was that US federal agencies didn't communicate with each other very well. The response was to share information freely over classified networks. US government agencies have a one-stop location to find information from other US government agencies.

It improves information sharing, but also means a one-stop shop to steal and/or leak information. Which is why it only includes information up to Secret level - there's only so many risks the government is willing to take to improve information sharing. And only having access to Secret documents is why none of the information being leaked is incredibly shocking.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.

Anyone think Assange, while a high profile target, won't be the end of leaks if caught? I feel this has a type of P2P stickiness around it.

 

[Evo]

I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.

The US soldier was turned in by a famous hacker that the soldier contacted because he wanted to hack the files but didn't know how. It is thought that Assange/Wikileaks were the ones that instructed him on how to hack the files.

 

[Monique]

Anyone think Assange, while a high profile target, won't be the end of leaks if caught? I feel this has a type of P2P stickiness around it.

Assange is the one who stepped up to put a face to the Wikileaks organization, in response to people who falsely claimed to be part of the network. He's not running this by himself and I even doubt whether he is the sole mastermind behind all of it (I don't know enough about the history).

The complete file with all the documents is already widely spreading throughout the internet. You can download it from P2P networks, but currently it is secured with a code. In the case that people from the Wikileaks organization start to mysteriously disappearing, the code will be released and everyone in possession of the file will have access to all the information.

Ah, here is an interview by the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

Isopod:
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.Julian Assange:
This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightning rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.

 

[mheslep]

NYT co-operated with the US govn't and was not intending to cause any harm to America. Can you say the same about wikileaks?

How can you or anyone in this thread possibly know the 'intent' of the the NYT?

This has already been addressed in this thread.

No, so far I've seen no detail in this thread on why Wikileaks should not be treated legally as is the NYT, or vice versa. Yes I read the http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/03/leak_consequences.html" piece provided up thread. I can imagine some reasons - perhaps because WikiL. first published the material, and thereby created first harm - but I don't know past speculation.

The NYT is not guilty under the Espionage Act, wikileaks probably is but it's a case of showing intent to harm the nation. This precedent has already been set.

Where in this thread has intent been established as critical to the assessment of espionage? For that matter, the detestable Assange could argue that by harming the current US government he was acting for the better good, much as the at-times detestable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program" , but instead went public with it.

 

[Evo]

How can you or anyone in this thread possibly know the 'intent' of the the NYT?

Probably by reading the news.

The Times went with its story after it consulted with the White House, which didn't seek to stop publication but requested that the newspaper urge WikiLeaks to withhold "harmful" material.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...26/AR2010072605410_2.html?sid=ST2010072605658

 

[zomgwtf]

How can you or anyone in this thread possibly know the 'intent' of the the NYT?

As I said they have clearly outlined the process they've gone through in order to publish this information, it's been available since they released the some info and they've been working with various govn't organizations in order to limit what is said and not said. They are ALSO trying to limit what wikileaks says and releases. Perhaps you should re-read the thread.

Since I'm assuming that people are going to keep running with this instead of looking up the info themselves here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29editornote.html?_r=1&src=mv&ref=world

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself.

It is extremely clear they do not intend to harm the USA which has been set by case precedent to be required for charges under the Espionage Act to hold.
Compare that with:

Assange has said that "his intent is to harm the United States"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone think Assange, while a high profile target, won't be the end of leaks if caught? I feel this has a type of P2P stickiness around it.

Just like the kid in S. Korea, IIRC, who started that one virus that was so damaging a couple of years ago, I think this is about precedence. It needs to be demonstrated that actions like those of Assange come with huge consequences. US security interests cannot be held hostage by a bunch of nuts or people out to harm the US. That cannot be allowed.

The real problem is the source of the leak. That guy is toast.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must say, after 911 and everything that we've been through, it is hard to believe that a PFC can cause so much trouble with a thumb drive. In my mind, that is the worst crime of all - that this could even happen.

 

[Monique]

[..] and they've been working with various govn't organizations in order to limit what is said and not said.

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

 

[zomgwtf]

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

Why?

 

[talk2glenn]

It is extremely clear they do not intend to harm the USA which has been set by case precedent to be required for charges under the Espionage Act to hold.

Intent to harm is a standard, not the standard. If the Times believes that the leaked information could harm the United States or help its enemies then copying, publishing, failing to return, and doing pretty much anything else with it is a criminal offense, and the courts have never held that there is a 1st amendment exception for reporters, dissenters, whistle blowers, or anyone else. The national security exception is broad concerning speech about classified materials.

DOJ doesn't prosecute reporters as a matter of policy, not law. Don't make the mistake of concluding that therefore the DOJ cannot prosecute reporters. It can, and if a case was sufficiently egregious, I'm sure it would. In this case, the Times took steps to protect itself by communicating with the government before publishing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

 

[mheslep]

Probably by reading the news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...26/AR2010072605410_2.html?sid=ST2010072605658

Words don't necessarily equal intent. And even if the NYT intent differs substantively from Wikileaks in this particular case, it is definitely not clear there's a difference between Wikileaks here and the NYT in prior cases, like the bank transfer tracking case, where the NYT defied government request to not publish.

As far as I know, the NYT and other papers nearly always 'consult' with the government on big issues like the release of secrets. That may well be for a couple of reasons: 1) to cover their backsides, and simply appear responsible when they intend to publish regardless of the consequences, or 2) simply to get a response from the government to enhance the buzz of story they're going with anyway.

 

[zomgwtf]

Words don't necessarily equal intent. And even if the NYT intent differs substantively from Wikileaks in this particular case, it is definitely not clear there's a difference between Wikileaks here and the NYT in prior cases, like the bank transfer tracking case, where the NYT defied government request to not publish.

As far as I know, the NYT and other papers nearly always 'consult' with the government on big issues like the release of secrets. That may well be for a couple of reasons: 1) to cover their backsides, and simply appear responsible when they intend to publish regardless of the consequences, or 2) simply to get a response from the government to enhance the buzz of story they're going with anyway.

Would those other instances have fallen under the Espionage Act? This is a very specific instance I'm not sure if other cases would fall under the Espionage Act...

 

[zomgwtf]

Intent to harm is a standard, not the standard. If the Times believes that the leaked information could harm the United States or help its enemies then copying, publishing, failing to return, and doing pretty much anything else with it is a criminal offense, and the courts have never held that there is a 1st amendment exception for reporters, dissenters, whistle blowers, or anyone else. The national security exception is broad concerning speech about classified materials.

DOJ doesn't prosecute reporters as a matter of policy, not law. Don't make the mistake of concluding that therefore the DOJ cannot prosecute reporters. It can, and if a case was sufficiently egregious, I'm sure it would. In this case, the Times took steps to protect itself by communicating with the government before publishing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

This is all true but people in this thread are asking how could the government go after Wikileaks without going after the NYT. I've provided the reason (I think... at least) This isn't to say that the government couldn't go after the NYT just that the case between wikileaks and NYT is very, very different and not comparable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's remarkable, isn't it? For a news agency?

Not at all. It is called responsible journalism.

Things have always been done this way when it comes to sensitive issues. Conversely, if the NY Times thought that there was an illegal government conspiracy in play, esp one that harms the nation, it would be their civic duty to publish that information.

Once the cat was out of the bag, there was no reason for papers to withhold the information. As one journalist put it, at this point, their choice to publish or not carried no consequences.

 

[Monique]

Why?

Clearly you must have a different view on press censorship. The fact that the United States is on position 20 of the Press Freedom Index 2010 is illustrative of the issue: access of information and editorial freedom are handled differently in the US. I guess that might cause some differing views.

 

[mheslep]

Would those other instances have fallen under the Espionage Act? This is a very specific instance I'm not sure if other cases would fall under the Espionage Act...

Obligatory (and obvious) IANAL here, I don't know. But it sure seams like the bank wire transfer tracking case would have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Enactment"

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.​

at least the last clause, by giving potential Al-Qaeda a heads up they were be tracked through financial actions.

 

[M.Dowson]

Actually I don't like all these 'conspiracy' ideas. Either you do not even try to mess with lying, or just be prepared to be knocked off. They knew what they did so they shouldn't be surprised on the mass media reaction.

 

[talk2glenn]

This is all true but people in this thread are asking how could the government go after Wikileaks without going after the NYT. I've provided the reason (I think... at least) This isn't to say that the government couldn't go after the NYT just that the case between wikileaks and NYT is very, very different and not comparable.

Oh, well in that case, you're absolutely right. There's a big difference between the conduct of the Times and the conduct of Wikileaks.

Wikileaks is the enabler. It is receiving and disseminating classified material. If the Times had taken no action, the information would still have been released.

Wikileaks could be argued to be a co-conspirator. It actively promotes and encourages the illegal sharing of classified information. This is probably the route the government will want to take to avoid an Espionage Act trial, once it convicts Manning and depending on how strongly Wikileaks plays in his conduct.

The Times contacted the government before publishing, and cooperated in redacting much (going by the published news stories) of the data the government found most damaging. Wikileaks publishes raw data, and makes no effort to forewarn or cooperate with the government before releasing it.

Clearly, there's no reason to pursue the Times in this case, and plenty of reason to throw the book at Assange.

 

[Hepth]

The Times contacted the government before publishing, and cooperated in redacting much (going by the published news stories) of the data the government found most damaging. Wikileaks publishes raw data, and makes no effort to forewarn or cooperate with the government before releasing it.

That's actually blatant lie or misinformation. Wikileaks had gone through the same method of contacting the US Gov concerning both the Iraq and Afg. war leaks. They wanted to protect the US and any of its operatives by having the US Gov go through what they were going to publish, just as the NYT did. The Us Gov refused.

"As the secretary has indicated, we have an ethical and moral obligation to take measures to protect the people that might be endangered by the release of this information," said Whitman. "But we are not going to negotiate minimizing or sanitizing classified documents. They are property of the United States government and they should be returned and removed from the website."[\QUOTE] http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Pentagon-Rebuffs-WikiLeaks-on-Review-of-War-Documents--100996339.html"

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/08/20/wikileaks-lawyer-says-pentagon-has-been-given-codes-granting-access-to-unpublished-secret-documents.html"