News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[pftest]

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
Evo, I hope you know that I love you more than life itself. I barely know Monique, but have always respected her intelligence and neutrality. In regard to this discussion, she is absolutely correct and your are not. I feel bad about disagreeing with you, but reality knows no borders. The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.

Look at all the wars going on, all the conflicts. Its the human condition, not specifically the US condition.

 

[Evo]

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
Evo, I hope you know that I love you more than life itself. I barely know Monique, but have always respected her intelligence and neutrality. In regard to this discussion, she is absolutely correct and your are not. I feel bad about disagreeing with you, but reality knows no borders. The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.

We can disagree. IMO, Assange's actions indicate a level of naivete equal to that of a two year old. Aside from the damage he's done to global relations, this will only force governments to become even more secretive. To think that world leaders will go "oh gosh darn, he's right, we should just all stop worrying about things and all share and get rid of borders and all cooperate and all trust each other and all just keep it all out in the open, what were we thinking?". If anyone believes this is possible, I have some stock I can sell them.

There are bad people. A lot of bad people want control of other people, they want to control counties. A lot of bad people control countries. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.

What Assange did was plain moronic, it has only made matters worse.

To the people that appove of Assange's actions, let me ask specifically what good this did for conditions in the world? Be specific. What has it fixed? Don't respond with hand waving about oh, but it's wrong to have secrets. What benefit to world relations did it have?

 

[Fra]

To the people that appove of Assange's actions, let me ask specifically what good this did for conditions in the world? Be specific. What has it fixed? Don't respond with hand waving about oh, but it's wrong to have secrets. What benefit to world relations did it have?

I think sometimes a short term conflict, may vent, and prevent longer terms larger conflicts. As I see it, the information leaked, will not lead to major conflicts (such as larger wars) right now. I think partly because somehow no one is surprised because everyone konws, everyone has secrets. That's why it's more embarrassing than surprising.

I think global democracy me be strenghetened in the long run. For democracy to work properly, as many as possible, needs as complete information as possible, in order to use their voice correctly. The fact that governments use dirty tricks under the surface to execture certain things, is IMO something that the democractic system might not approve if its was known.

It's also a big point to prove that information that shouldn't leak, did leak. This will lead to improving these problems. There are two reactions - escalation, such as in even more secrets, harder and more brutal methods to protect this! Or the insight that our actions, and diplomacy must be more clever and try to have a real dialogue with others, rather than only "tactics".

To be honest, I think both things will happen. Everyone will learn, that it is REALLY difficuly to actually KEEP secrets. So a strategy that doesn't rely too heavily (there will still be secrets of course) on secrets may be more stable, and less prone to leaks. Everyone will ALSO learn, that some things that someone for various reasons relaly need to be kept secret will be have to handled better, AND that any such act, is in fact a risk. Whatever game strategy that is played, must evaluate the RISK that information is leaked and what price it will have.

But don't blame free journalisms for publishing leaks when it occurs. It was not Assange that stole information as far as I know. Someone who was trusted with this information did reveal it. If something is the bad guy this is the one.

I think that the general respons to information is always a potentail "conflict" but as long as this conflict isn't fatal (which I don't think Assanges is - because then my opinion would differ) then it will strenghten the long term stability. Many small conflicts is part of negotiations, and may be what prevents a large fatal conflict (big world war).

/Fredrik

 

[Evo]

I think sometimes a short term conflict, may vent, and prevent longer terms larger conflicts. As I see it, the information leaked, will not lead to major conflicts (such as larger wars) right now. I think partly because somehow no one is surprised because everyone konws, everyone has secrets. That's why it's more embarrassing than surprising.

Excellent post Fra. I think what upsets me is the naivete associated with the release. People that think that they can change human nature on a global scale. I keep hearing the coca cola commercial playing in the background

I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.

OY. Forcing more transparency among the honest will just allow more dishonesty among the dishonest.

 

[Danger]

Forcing more transparency among the honest will just allow more dishonesty among the dishonest.

I agree that Fra made a good post. As to the quoted sentence, though, it is evading reality. Those upon whom the transparency was forced were obviously not honest. They are movers, shakers, liars... in short, politicians. If anyone should be assassinated, it should be them rather than the guy who released the truth.

 

[zomgwtf]

Danger with all the ******** you've been spewing uncited I'm surprised your posts have been allowed to stay. Most of the **** I've read in your post I would equate with what would come from the conspiracy theorist NWO crap.

Please go actually research what's occurring then come back to thte thread.

 

[Evo]

I agree that Fra made a good post. As to the quoted sentence, though, it is evading reality. Those upon whom the transparency was forced were obviously not honest. They are movers, shakers, liars... in short, politicians. If anyone should be assassinated, it should be them rather than the guy who released the truth.

My point is that it's not likely to have any positive effect on those in power. But it has done harm and will take a long time for that harm to be undone, probably not in our lifetime. That's why I am against it.

 

[humanino]

To the people that appove of Assange's actions, let me ask specifically what good this did for conditions in the world? Be specific. What has it fixed? Don't respond with hand waving about oh, but it's wrong to have secrets. What benefit to world relations did it have?

I must say I do not necessarily approve of Assange latest leaks. However, I think it is worthwhile to pose for a second before codemning wikileaks altogether. Have you watched
TED talk, Assange : Why the world needs WikiLeaks
?
I think it begins by answering your question "what good has he specifically done for the conditions of the world", in this case Kenya. In general, the vast majority of leaks are not really "news". They consist in backing up with references what more or less everybody already knows.

It is also possible that wikileaks already has leaked much more serious material in the infamous "insurance file", as of now the encryption key was still not released. If this is true, the non-release of this content goes against the idea they merely try to harm diplomatic relations.

 

[Danger]

Danger with all the ******** you've been spewing uncited I'm surprised your posts have been allowed to stay. Most of the **** I've read in your post I would equate with what would come from the conspiracy theorist NWO crap.

Please go actually research what's occurring then come back to thte thread.

I challenge you to disprove anything that I've posted. The burden is upon you. I have no need to cite anything, because reality is my alibi. The information is all readily available through legitimate news sources (and I mean legitimate, not Fox.) Try CBC, BBC, CTV, something from France or Greece or Germany... anything that doesn't have a US latex gauntlet ensconced in it's rectum. You will find that I am correct.
By the bye, why are you on my planet? I thought that I left strict instructions with the orbital guards.
Evo, your last post has clarified things a bit. Perhaps we are not so far apart idiologically as I first suspected. I will be glad to hear more of your thoughts upon the matter.

 

[Evo]

I must say I do not necessarily approve of Assange latest leaks.

Good point, I should clarify that it is the release of information from the military grunt that I am against. I've stated earlier in this thread that I am not against the exposure of corruption, but I feel I should add where the exposure does more good than harm.

 

[talk2glenn]

I challenge you to disprove anything that I've posted. The burden is upon you. I have no need to cite anything, because reality is my alibi.

...lol

 

[zomgwtf]

I challenge you to disprove anything that I've posted. The burden is upon you. I have no need to cite anything, because reality is my alibi. The information is all readily available through legitimate news sources (and I mean legitimate, not Fox.) Try CBC, BBC, CTV, something from France or Greece or Germany... anything that doesn't have a US latex gauntlet ensconced in it's rectum. You will find that I am correct.
By the bye, why are you on my planet? I thought that I left strict instructions with the orbital guards.
Evo, your last post has clarified things a bit. Perhaps we are not so far apart idiologically as I first suspected. I will be glad to hear more of your thoughts upon the matter.

Hardly anything of what you said was fact or based on fact.

Btw your comments on the 'Canuck military' disgust me and I am ashamed to be a Canadian while you call yourself a Canadian.

 

[humanino]

Danger has posted mostly personal opinions in this thread, very few facts. The facts he posted are not really questionable. Some US members here do not understand how Danger feels. You may dismiss it as irrelevant. The right question however is : "how many outside the US feel that way ?" and "how many will feel that way if the US fails to change its international politics ?". I would be more constructive to try to understand how Danger came to feel that way, I believe.

 

[Evo]

Whoa. No name calling. Opinions don't have to be backed up as long as it's not overly speculative. I'm busy right now, so I expect this thead to straighten up by the time I get back, please.

 

[zomgwtf]

Whoa. No name calling. Opinions don't have to be backed up as long as it's not overly speculative. I'm busy right now, so I expect this thead to straighten up by the time I get back, please.

I failed to read where he clearly stated "It's MY OPINION".
i.e. He did not say 'it is my opinion that America has trumped up bogus sex charges...' that's just one of many instances in his posts where he makes a factual claim without reference.

Anyways if that's how it's going to be played then It's my opinion that his opinion is wrong and not based on anything factual.

 

[Fra]

I think there are always two sides of any conflict, and from the point of view of diplomacy or negotiations it's actually irrelevant to establish objective truth or who is "really right". It is usually a diplomatic advantage to NOT take side. Instead one should start with finding an agreement about the disagreement, and I think the right way to progress is that achieve mutual understanding of the logic of your enemy. This is why "negotiating with terrorists" is unavoidable. It's just that it may be explicit or indirect. The objective in a negotiation is not to establish objective truth, it's to establish a negotiated position that establishes an equiblirium. Now if this equilibrium is based on too many volatile lies, the of course the stability is weak.

Either you protect the stability by tightening leaks, or IMO better - to negotiate a more stable agreement, where there is mutual understanding of different thinkers rather than mutual lies. Sure, a perfect world may be naive, but as long as development is in the right direction I'm happy. I think democratic systems should build on openness (the votes must have complete information, or the democracy doesn't work). This includes IMO also the indirect democracy that is implicity in global cooperation between countries.

As most of us here are scientifically inclinded, I think we can discuss this without taking side.

I somehow feel that the wikileaks is provocing healthy reflections about how diplomacy actually work. I just hope that the leaders are clever enough to make rational conclusions. When people seems to jump on Assange, as if HE is the root cause, then I am worried that the responses aren't rational... that is for me at least, certainly is good feedback for me for the next time I vote.

/Fredrik

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

What I'm wondering is what are Assange's motivations. Did he think he'd be a hero to someone for doing this? Is he expecting a better life? Is he thriving for world attention? Is it some kind of intellectual thrill? Does he have a grudge against someone? Does he have good intentions or does he want to hurt? Does he have any respect for the diplomats and the taxpayers who pay them? Who are his supporters? Is he expecting a Nobel peace prize? Does he want to prove something? Did he not expect the serious consequences? Is he actually sane? And so on. Just what are his motivations.

 

[rootX]

All unrelated posts/discussions should be removed/stopped. This incident is expected to develop more; it will be difficult to discuss further developments if unrelated topics keep on going. People from both sides seem to be exaggerating this issue.

 

[OmCheeto]

...That ought to be interesting. Not only do I wonder if Wikileaks will survive, I wonder if Assange will survive. I wonder if there's any government officials in the world that would mourn him if he doesn't.

He better stay out of Iran. The whole world now knows that Ahmadinejad got slapped by a subordinate!

Does anyone know if that's the Persian equivalent of having a shoe thrown at you in Iraq?

One of the older files is instructions on how to deal with, or more precisely, how difficult it is to be diplomatic with Persian officials. It almost looks as though the writer says its a waste of time. It's dated August 13th, 1979. Interesting western appraisal of a very foreign nation.

Is anyone else reading this stuff? Most of it is pretty boring. Fortunately nearly every news media outlet in the world appears to be skimming through it for us to pick out the good bits.

I think the funniest thing is that just about everyone on the planet now has access to it, but US Government employees are forbidden to look at it, because it's still classified material.

 

[JaredJames]

Is anyone else reading this stuff? Most of it is pretty boring. Fortunately nearly every news media outlet in the world appears to be skimming through it for us to pick out the good bits.

I've been skimming through and so far haven't seen anything interesting or shocking. Just confirmation of what most already suspected.

Even the media seem to be reporting uninteresting stuff at the moment.

I think the funniest thing is that just about everyone on the planet now has access to it, but US Government employees are forbidden to look at it, because it's still classified material.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Wikileaks did not release all 251,000 documents at once. I think Wikileaks plans to release the documents in stages. So far, we have learned that:

1. The US Secretary of State seems to have instructed her subordinates to "spy" on foreign diplomats.

2. US "allies" financially fund terrorist organizations that target the US.

3. China engages in significant online "hacking" activities.

4. Russia is effectively a mafia state.

5. Iraq's neighbors seem to be meddling in Iraq, preventing any form of stability.

6. North Korea has provided military aid to Iran.

7. Many Middle East states are worried about Iran's nuclear program.

8. The Afghan Government seems to be corrupt to the core.

9. The US and the UK conspired to break an international treaty (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/02/us.britain.munitions/index.html)

If this is not shocking, then it is a clear sign people are desensitized to all the corruption and deception around them. Evidently, Sarah Palin commenting on how "she can see Russia from her backyard" is more "shocking" and "newsworthy" than global governmental corruption and sickness.

Edit: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html

Unauthorized federal workers and contractors have been warned not to attempt to read the classified documents on WikiLeaks on either government or personal computers.

Because Big Brother is watching.

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

 

[mheslep]

If this is not shocking, then it is a clear sign people are desensitized to all the corruption and deception around them.

There are many more news worthy revelations coming out of the WL than those. However, of those you list most of them have been more or less public knowledge for some time - Afghan govt. corrupt, NK provided military aid to Iran, etc. How then do you expect publicly known events could be shocking?

 

[Mathnomalous]

There are many more news worthy revelations coming out of the WL than those. However, of those you list most of them have been more or less public knowledge for some time - Afghan govt. corrupt, NK provided military aid to Iran, etc. How then do you expect publicly known events could be shocking?

Why would "publicly known events" create a "diplomatic crisis"?

 

[mheslep]

Professional diplomat (former UN Ambassador John Bolton) versus Libertarian (somewhat loopy IMO) commentator (former Judge Napolitano) on Wikileaks

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/01/showdown_john_bolton_vs_judge_napolitano_on_wikileaks.html

 

[mheslep]

Why would "publicly known events" create a "diplomatic crisis"?

Because of the sources revealed in the cables, not the information itself. Those revelations mean that i) information shared as private with the US can not assured to be kept private in the future, and ii) a cable from a given source likely associates the source with one side or the other of a controversial subject, even if the general fact basis (e.g.Afghan govt is corrupt) is publicly known.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Because of the sources revealed in the cables, not the information itself. Those revelations mean that i) information shared as private with the US can not assured to be kept private in the future, and ii) a cable from a given source likely associates the source with one side or the other of a controversial subject, even if the general fact basis (e.g.Afghan govt is corrupt) is publicly known.

Because obviously this is the first time sensitive information has leaked and foreign diplomats are so horrendous at performing their jobs they cannot figure out who is on what side.



Anyways, summary of the video: "The rulers of society do not have to abide by social contract. Do as I say, not as I do."

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Power.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
4. Russia is effectively a mafia state.
...
If this is not shocking, then it is a clear sign people are desensitized to all the corruption and deception around them. ...

It's time for bed and I don't have time to research all 10 of your bullets, so I picked one at random.

"Russia is effectively a mafia state."
attributed to Spanish National Court Prosecutor Jose “Pepe” Grinda Gonzalez.
Transmitted Feb 8, 2010.

Yup. That's pretty much what Pepe said. It's actually a very interesting piece. The press doesn't do it justice, IMHO.

But I wonder who didn't know this already? Moscow does have more billionaires than any other city in the world. How could one city amass that many people with that much wealth in such a short time? Entrepreneurship?

 

[mheslep]

Anyways, summary of the video: "The rulers of society do not have to abide by social contract. Do as I say, not as I do."

Not from that Bolton video.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Not from that Bolton video.

I think that becomes painfully clear at 2:51 in the video...

Judge Napolitano: "Why do people in the Government think that the rules of society or the laws don't apply to them?"

John Bolton: "Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution, they are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally, where different rules apply."

 

[zomgwtf]

Hmmm people still going to support wikileaks? Just leaked more info... a lot more damagin to US security and a lot less to do with public interest. Still not convinced of the want to harm USA intentions (which as already been admitted)?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1OPtIuzLrrJkZwzhJLYAZ-HPedw?docId=CNG.e49d8f7446a37c4bd9b779af911a7e43.7d1

 

[mheslep]

I think that becomes painfully clear at 2:51 in the video...

Judge Napolitano: "Why do people in the Government think that the rules of society or the laws don't apply to them?"

John Bolton: "Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution, they are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally, where different rules apply."

Which means that in civil society rulers do indeed have to abide by the "social contract." A civil society has no "social contract" with, say, Hitler and the landing location of D-day troops to use Bolton's specific example, and Bolton made that clear again later when he said officials can not break the law (of their respective countries) without suffering the consequences. Both of which lead me to believe you watched at most parts of the video, and thus your post #232 was fabricated nonsense.

 

[WhoWee]

Wikileaks did not release all 251,000 documents at once. I think Wikileaks plans to release the documents in stages. So far, we have learned that:

1. The US Secretary of State seems to have instructed her subordinates to "spy" on foreign diplomats.

2. US "allies" financially fund terrorist organizations that target the US.

3. China engages in significant online "hacking" activities.

4. Russia is effectively a mafia state.

5. Iraq's neighbors seem to be meddling in Iraq, preventing any form of stability.

6. North Korea has provided military aid to Iran.

7. Many Middle East states are worried about Iran's nuclear program.

8. The Afghan Government seems to be corrupt to the core.

9. The US and the UK conspired to break an international treaty (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/02/us.britain.munitions/index.html)

If this is not shocking, then it is a clear sign people are desensitized to all the corruption and deception around them. Evidently, Sarah Palin commenting on how "she can see Russia from her backyard" is more "shocking" and "newsworthy" than global governmental corruption and sickness.

Edit: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html


Because Big Brother is watching.

I'm not sure that any of these claims are "new" - a few of them sound like recent movie themes. I do think the quantity of information is unbelievable. I am very disappointed with US security.

As for the interest in the leaked information - a few Mark Twain quotes comes to mind.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain122865.html

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

btw - the Palin comment was unnecessary - IMO.

 

[Fra]

Does he have good intentions or does he want to hurt?

Personally, I don't have any reasonable doubt that Wikileaks has anything but good intentions, and I while his strategy is indeed a high risk one, the logic isn't that irrational to me.

Certainly the re-equilibration or corrupt structures that I would guess suspect that they seek, will be painful. But presumably only transiently so, for the benefit of long term improvements.

It is most probably so that some individuals, come to pay a large price for this process, not to mention Wikileaks themselves. But to think that hunting down Assange, is THE rational and most constructive response to this factual situation is I think a mistake. If something does happen to Assange I think nothing will have improved.

I think Assange is trying to prove a weakness in a world stability that is not built on sufficient openness and democracy. He has proven the point already, no matter what happens, but let's just hope that for once the world will learn to break the previous pattern of action, rather than to reinforce the system that led us here.

I don't even ask myself the question how bad it was that wikileaks did this, as that's a meaningless question; the leak obviousl did take place. Fact. The better question today is what the most constructive way forward is.

/Fredrik

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

The better question today is what the most constructive way forward is. /Fredrik

Of course.

 

[BobG]

Professional diplomat (former UN Ambassador John Bolton) versus Libertarian (somewhat loopy IMO) commentator (former Judge Napolitano) on Wikileaks

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/01/showdown_john_bolton_vs_judge_napolitano_on_wikileaks.html

Maybe Bolton and "(somewhat loopy IMO)" Napolitano make an appropriate match. "Professional diplomat" is an interesting description for John Bolton. If anything, Bolton's job as UN Ambassador illustrates how leaks can sabotage real progress.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10734

Rice's involvement came after Bolton had won round one in the Syria battle. Bolton and Rice's bureaucratic tiffs over Syria had actually boiled over two weeks prior to the Security Council vote. Journalist Ibrahim Hamidi, writing in the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, reported -- and the Prospect has independently confirmed -- that Bolton had leaked to British newspapers that the Bush administration had signaled its willingness to offer Syria a “Libya-style deal” -- a reference to Libyan President Muammar Quaddafi's decision last year to give up pursuing weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism in return for a restoration of relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. According to The Times of London, Syria responded positively to the secret U.S. offer, which was made through a third party. But after Bolton publicly aired the details of the potential deal -- which would require Syria to cooperate with the Mehlis investigation, end interference in Lebanese affairs and alleged interference in Iraqi affairs, and cease supporting militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah—Damascus quickly denied that such a deal was in the offing.

On the other hand, that incident also illustrates how easy it is to patch up problems like that. Secretary of State Rice had to intervene into something that should have been handled by the UN Ambassador, but the leaks wound up having little to no effect on the final resolution.

In the end, the Wikileaks have effects that range from bad to disastrous for individuals, but the world does whatever is necessary to restore order back to their diplomatic processes.

 

[mheslep]

"Professional diplomat" is an interesting description for John Bolton.

Oh? Then, http://www.aei.org/scholar/121" , who does earn that job description in your mind?

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations, 2005-2006
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, 2001-2005;
Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, 1989-93, Department of State
Senior Vice President, AEI, 1997-2001
Attorney, Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus, 1993-99
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, 1985-89
Attorney, Covington & Burling, 1983-85, 1974-81
Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, 1982-83; General Counsel, 1981-82, U.S. Agency for International Development

I give little credence to A. Prospect articles; it's advocacy journalism.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Danger, I've found several of your posts to be both insulting and in some cases against posting guidelines of this forum, so I grabbed some quotes from previous pages:

Russ, you are widely known as a knee-jerk Conservative Republican, but I've always respected your intelligence despite that.

Should I view your political affiliation or views as derogatory? You're not making any sort of constructive argument or point, you're belittling Russ's political views (of which I and I'm sure many other members of this forum are in agreement with). Please refer to PF's posting guidelines:

Guidelines on Langauge and Attitude:
Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives.

In this case, however, you are so full of **** that I can't stand to think of it.

Again- it's obvious this remark neither meets PF's posting guidelines, nor the requirements of a "civil" debate. I'm disappointed...

My own country was embarrassed by things that came out of that leak, but we sure as hell don't want to kill the guy.

Do you speak for your country, or do you at least have some links to articles establishing Canada's official stance on the subject? Perhaps "my own country" should be replaced with "I personally," and "we" with "I."

He is neither a Yank nor a Canuk, so issues of treason don't apply to either of us. That would come into play only if he betrayed his own country. As far as I know to date, he has not been charged with that, since it is unprovable by any stretch of the imagination.

For what it's worth, I didn't notice Russ ever mentioning anything about charging him with "treason." I admit I thought more people were talking incorrectly about reason about 6 pages ago, but it turns out it was only erroneously mentioned by a single poster.

Be that as it may, Russ did mention he thinks he can and should be tried under the US's Espionage Act (and I am in agreement with him). It is my understanding that most (if not all) other countries have very similar laws regarding the unauthorized pursuit and/or release of state secrets, especailly by foreign nationals, inside or outside the country. Whether he is extradited for such a prosecution is yet to be determined. He won't be invited to any of Obama's state dinners, that's for sure.

Instead, someone in your country exercised unwarranted influence in order to trump up bogus sexual assault charges against him. The spirit of Nixon lives on.

Please provide proof of this claim, otherwise it is in violation of PF's posting guidelines. Specifically:

Conspiracy Theories/Closed Topics:
Discussion of conspiracy theories and certain perennial pseudoscience topics that have been "debunked" beyond any reasonable doubt are not allowed anywhere on the site.

You can just emulate the USA; make up non-existent weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade the country whose resources you want.

This is of course not on topic, and inflammatory with no useful outcome.

And who is the paranoid schizo? His initials begin with U and S.
...
The man did nothing wrong other than in the minds of those with something to hide.

Are you questioning the US govt's ability to excercise its rights as a sovereign nation to protect it's state secrets?

As to the quoted question, it just serves to reinforce everyone's opinion that the US seeks world dominance.

WAY off-topic and in addition it is conspiracy theory, and not acceptable for posting here.

I will state for the record that I feel very comfortable with Obama in office, as opposed to that moronic MF'r Bush, but I still have to question the motives of the nation as a whole. Please remember that it is a whole lot different living in that country than it is living next door to it.

You're entitled to feel however you like, but your feelings don't have a whole lot of relevance to this topic...

We see you as a very serious threat to both world peace and our own existence. Canuks are peacekeepers, and we are frankly a little bit tired of cleaning up your messes.

More of the "royal we," shall we consider you an official of the Canadian government? It's better if you just leave your interpretations of Canadian policy for other threads...

We are now involved in a damned war in Afghanistan that you started, and which has cost us the lives of several hundred Canuk soldiers. We were there as part of a UN delegation to maintain order, and you got us into a shooting war. Not to mention that ******* Schmitt (or whatever spelling) who took it upon himself to deliberately murder an entire unit of Canuk soldiers because he was hot to kill someone and didn't have a legitimate target. Is it any wonder that we don't feel any sympathy for you?

Relevance? I find your condescension... disturbing. And of course against posting guidelines as well.

I challenge you to disprove anything that I've posted. The burden is upon you. I have no need to cite anything, because reality is my alibi.

You of all people know that this is exactly opposite of the posting requirements here at PF. Claims are to be backed up with hard facts (and preferably peer-reviewed papers when it comes to scientific claims, not really relevant here). Challenging us to disprove your claims is not only arrogant, it's not how PF works! Scientists (and conspiracy theorists) must prove it first!

The information is all readily available through legitimate news sources (and I mean legitimate, not Fox.) Try CBC, BBC, CTV, something from France or Greece or Germany... anything that doesn't have a US latex gauntlet ensconced in it's rectum. You will find that I am correct.

Again, your US-bashing attitutde is pretty offensive... be that as it may who's to say ANY of those news outlets are any better than US-based outlets? I admit that many media outlets have bias one way or another (I would argue that they tend to lean more left than right), but bias exists in European news sources as well. PF has a pretty high average intelligence, what's wrong with trusting people to make up their own minds?

Well, I got my $.02 in before the thread is closed. I hope you will try to maintain a higher standard of mutual respect in future posts...

 

[BobG]

Oh? Then, http://www.aei.org/scholar/121" , who does earn that job description in your mind?


I give little credence to A. Prospect articles; it's advocacy journalism.

Bolton has a history of comments that are a little too entertaining for a diplomat:

http://www.economist.com/node/3868862?story_id=3868862

... he called Kim Jong Il a “tyrannical dictator” who had turned his country into a “hellish nightmare”. Mr Bolton said the speech had been cleared by the State Department (where he was under-secretary for arms control) and represented administration policy. But the speech's timing was awkward, to say the least. It came just before the first meeting in six-party talks designed to deal with North Korea's announced nuclear-weapons programme.

Incensed, the North Koreans demanded to see Jack Pritchard, the State Department official responsible for the talks. In public, they called Mr Bolton “human scum”. In private, they were not flattering either.

But at least his comments seem more in tune with the spirit of openness some people on this thread feel Wikileaks encourages (but, then again, we don't know what N Korea said about Bolton in private).

 

[Mathnomalous]

Well, if you are called "human scum" in public, I very much doubt you will be called the "benefactor of humanity" in private. Bolton is just a marionette, anyways.

 

[russ_watters]

Apparently though I dropped-out, I'm still a pretty hot topic. I'll expand on my previous point for clarity, but let others deal with the reaction to it from the last few days...

I dropped out of the thread last week due to frustration and irritation over the lack of seriousness for the topic shown both by members of the forum and even our government - downplaying it nearly to the point of factual mischaracterization. Let me explain exactly how serious it is.

The breach and release last week was one of the most serious espionage incidents in history, both in magnitude and importance of the information. It compromises the ability of every country in the world to conduct diplomacy. We live in relatively stable and peaceful times, but in other times in history, this sort of thing could start wars or bring down countries. Espionage doesn't get much more serious than that.

The release of the Afghan War Diary a few months ago was much worse. Among other things, it gave the enemey insight into our tactics, which they could use against us, and named names of Afghan civilians assisting us. That breach/release almost certainly killed people (somehow some people in this thread questioned whether it could kill people - incredible, it is so obvious). That was basic wartime espionage, but on a massive scale.

Spies have died for less than last week's leak, but spies must be killed if it can prevent future leaks like the Afghan War Diary. The military and CIA have the responsibility to do what they need to do to prevent further leaks.

So to be clear:
1. If the US government believes that Wikileaks is in possession of additional documents as potentially damaging as the Afghan War Diary, it has the responsibility to go after Wikileaks with extreme measures, up to and including physical destruction of the Wikileaks servers and killing those involved in releasing the documents - if it believes that that could prevent further releases. That's how you have to deal with wartime espionage.

2. If the US government does not believe Wikileaks is in possession of additional documents as potentially damaging as the Afghan War Diary (recognizing that there was another leak today!), it has the responsibility to prevent future act by Wikileaks by somewhat less serious means. Destroying the data by hacking and capturing key staff would be reasonable, imo.

3. There are certainly practical considerations preventing a simple arrest, extradition and trial, but that's why spies aren't awarded the status of common criminals - they act outside the law and as such are not protected by it. Assange's status could be more like an illegal enemy combatant, who has virtually no rights. But the US courts could try him for espionage if they could get ahold of him and they wanted to deal with him that way. Yes, you don't have to be a citizen or even in a country when you commit your crime to be capabale of being tried for espionage in it. People already know and accept this for other crimes but somehow have forgotten for this one (remember the Somali pirates we have in jail?). But countries are loath to extradite their own citizens in such cases - that's just not how the spy game works. What makes this case interesting, though, is that Assange indirectly spied against every country in the world, including his own. So he could even be tried in Australia for different but equally serious crimes as in the US. In the US it's espionage - in Australia, it's treason.

Now regarding his crime itself. I alluded in my previous post to the Pentagon Papers' case potentially providing an "out" for Assange under the 1st Amendment. But after reading-up on that case (just the wiki), I found that I was wrong: the Courts did not rule that the 1st Amendment protected the New York Times from espionage charges: the case only dealt with the issue of prior restraint (whether the government could censor a story in advance of its publication). So I don't think Assange's status as a journalist - or not - is relevant.

Logically, Assange is a facilitator. He received stolen, secret information that was not yet in the public domain and he put it in the public domain. In a way, he's like the getaway driver in a bank robbery: he didn't crack the safe or remove the money, but he transported and disseminated it, instead of returning it to the bank and/or contacting the police. Being the getaway driver is still a felony and if a murder is committed during the robbery, the getaway driver gets charged with murder. Again: he's a facilitator. He helped make it happen. If anyone died because of these releases (and the Taliban promised to kill people named in the War Diary release), Assange is a murderer.

People can reasonably disagree about the death penalty. They can disagree - with less room - about tactics in war. Regarding espionage law, there isn't much room to argue except insofar as this case has some unique elements that don't have precedent behind them - even if they have relatively clear law. But whether you like the way these issues work in the real world, the way they work is the way they work.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now regarding his crime itself. I alluded in my previous post to the Pentagon Papers' case potentially providing an "out" for Assange under the 1st Amendment. But after reading-up on that case (just the wiki), I found that I was wrong: the Courts did not rule that the 1st Amendment protected the New York Times from espionage charges: the case only dealt with the issue of prior restraint (whether the government could censor a story in advance of its publication). So I don't think Assange's status as a journalist - or not - is relevant.

Your argument would be valid if the Pentagon Papers was the only precedent governing such leaks. Do you know that to be true? Should Novak have been killed/arrested for outing Plame?

Logically, Assange is a facilitator. He received stolen, secret information that was not yet in the public domain and he put it in the public domain. In a way, he's like ...

...a newspaper that breaks a story based on a leak?

 

[zomgwtf]

Your argument would be valid if the Pentagon Papers was the only precedent governing such leaks. Do you know that to be true?

...a newspaper that breaks a story based on a leak?

One which breaks the law that is. Very well pointed out Gokul.

 

[Mathnomalous]

But whether you like the way these issues work in the real world, the way they work is the way they work.

Except when someone or a group of people dislike the way they work and decides to change the system.

 

[Gokul43201]

One which breaks the law that is.

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but newspapers routinely publish classified information that they acquire from someone in the government who leaked it to them. Yet, in recent history, the worst I've seen a reporter suffer for that was Judith Miller's 3-month jail term for contempt of court.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Someone in the government, who more than likely leaked it to advance a political or governmental agenda. Assange is a "rogue" agent outside of government.

 

[zomgwtf]

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but newspapers routinely publish classified information that they acquire from someone in the government who leaked it to them. Yet, in recent history, the worst I've seen a reporter suffer for that was Judith Miller's 3-month jail term for contempt of court.

There's always the caveat of intent to harm the nation... no?

 

[lisab]

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but newspapers routinely publish classified information that they acquire from someone in the government who leaked it to them. Yet, in recent history, the worst I've seen a reporter suffer for that was Judith Miller's 3-month jail term for contempt of court.

Well, in the US and Europe, at least. There are plenty of places on Earth where journalists have to watch their backs.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's always the caveat of intent to harm the nation... no?

I think not, though I think primarily since that would be very hard to establish (also, which nation?). You don't think the people at wikileaks believe that all this is ultimately for the greater good? That revealing to the public all the dirty backroom dealmaking between governments might force the dealmakers to think twice the next time they participate in something underhanded, expecting protection of secrecy (or somesuch)?

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's the opinion of another libertarian:

 

[zomgwtf]

I think not, though I think primarily since that would be very hard to establish (also, which nation?). You don't think the people at wikileaks believe that all this is ultimately for the greater good? That revealing to the public all the dirty backroom dealmaking between governments might force the dealmakers to think twice the next time they participate in something underhanded, expecting protection of secrecy (or somesuch)?

Well I've read from various sources that Assange is quoted saying he intends to harm America. So that kinda sets the record straight on his intent does it not?