News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[Phrak]

It's a new, digital world, where privacy is forfeit. Kinda sucks in my opinion but a witch hunter's paradise. There are plenty of folks, bored of themselves, unconcerned whether they will find food tomorrow, or simply bored with their lives, with nothing better to entertain them than seeking witches with pitch forks, flaming torches, and sadistic glee in their eyes.

There is a biblical quote worth remembering about casting stones in this new world.

 

[Monique]

This reminds me of the Australian government who threw a Dutch crime reporter and his college in jail. They were trying to speak to an international fugitive: a murder-suspect on the list of interpol for extradition. The police took the person (wanted by interpol) in protection. Apparently Australia doesn't extradite murder suspects to Honduras and an attempt to contact such an individual for an interview will land you in jail.

Outside court, de Vries told reporters he found it strange he was put in a cell when he had tracked down a murder suspect in Australia and just wanted to ask him some questions and hand him a letter.

"It's very strange, I thought I was in Australia, a free country with free press, but it looks like I'm in China or Korea.

"I'm very surprised the police decided this."

He said he explained to police what happened.

"I didn't touch him, I didn't insult him, I didn't threaten him," he said.

"This is a homicide case and I tracked him down and now you're putting me in jail. That's the world upside down."

De Vries said he was stripped for his overnight detention.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/dutch-crime-reporter-slams-wa-police/story-e6frg6pf-1225908190397

 

[DanP]

It doesn't matter that he might not have broken any Australian laws, do you think agents that steal or receive classified documents are tried based on the laws of their home country or the country they have commited the crime against?

Some reading.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001

It does matter. It's not like anyone should submit himself to the might of US laws, regardless of his presence on US soil or not, and his citizenship status. If US wants him, they should follow extradition procedures and see if Sweden will be willing to hand them this man or not.

 

[cobalt124]

To respond the opening post. My (limited?) understanding concludes that what Wikileaks is doing is wrong and should be stopped. I recall reading somewhere that Wikileaks stated they would not release anything that would risk lives (this seems to be the opposite of what the opening post is saying though?). This implies selectivity of what to release and this implies an agenda. A principled stand (which is what I believed they had) would either release it all, or not bother at all, anything else IMHO is wrong.

As for what constitutes national security, if you trust your government, surely you would want them to take no chances. I see no problem with the list quoted in this context. We certainly do not know everything that is going on, so any comment is valid only to a point, and an element of trust is always there. If you don't trust your government, then you may be inclined to feel that Wikileaks is doing a good job.

Al-Quaeda is not the only threat.

Cutting a cable or any sort of vandalism costs resources to repair and has consequences. It will always benefit hostile organisations who are playing a long game (Al-Quaeda, or whoever).

Evo, rootX, good to see a place of employment where data is treated as such. I deal mainly with personal information, but from since I started working, when information was completely respected, we seem to be now well down the path to it being public/commercial property. Only in recent years are we starting to get back to protecting data.

There is no way any respectable government could have any communication with Assange and legitimize him, the USG has already made the mistake security wise, no point making another.

 

[nismaratwork]

It does matter. It's not like anyone should submit himself to the might of US laws, regardless of his presence on US soil or not, and his citizenship status. If US wants him, they should follow extradition procedures and see if Sweden will be willing to hand them this man or not.

If we have a mutual treaty with a country that allows for us to rapidly get our hands on this individual, or even a diplomatic understanding, that's enough for me. Sweden is just one country he's alleged to have committed crimes... and since he's with the British right now you can bet that the reason he's going to the Swedes first is mutual agreement.

This isn't as one sided or high-handed as it seems... if something similar occurred to the British or Aussies, we'd hand them the person they wanted as well. This isn't an issue of a country's law (except in cases where many countries won't extradite to us for a death penalty case), but rather international treaties, and diplomatic agreements of the moment.

 

[DanP]

If we have a mutual treaty with a country that allows for us to rapidly get our hands on this individual, or even a diplomatic understanding, that's enough for me. Sweden is just one country he's alleged to have committed crimes... and since he's with the British right now you can bet that the reason he's going to the Swedes first is mutual agreement.

The problem is that all this is empty talk. First of all we need to know in details the legislation governing the extradition process in Sweden.

Diplomatic understandings have to defer to the laws of the land, i.e a man only can be extradited in legal conditions. As far as I know, but I might be mistaken, laws in Sweden only allow extradition for a criminal offense which is punishable by the laws of both states involved. Also I believe one can reach Supreme Court of Sweden if it opposes extradition. So no diplomatic understanding will allow you to get your hands rapidly on the individual.

The Nordic states in EU are the world foremost democracies. I believe the person will have a wide legal base to fight the extradition process.

The individual in question is Australian though, so in fact we have to know details of extradition Australian laws too.

 

[cobalt124]

Quote - "This isn't as one sided or high-handed as it seems... if something similar occurred to the British or Aussies, we'd hand them the person they wanted as well. This isn't an issue of a country's law (except in cases where many countries won't extradite to us for a death penalty case), but rather international treaties, and diplomatic agreements of the moment."

This isn't as clear cut as some would like:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11226673

 

[nismaratwork]

Quote - "This isn't as one sided or high-handed as it seems... if something similar occurred to the British or Aussies, we'd hand them the person they wanted as well. This isn't an issue of a country's law (except in cases where many countries won't extradite to us for a death penalty case), but rather international treaties, and diplomatic agreements of the moment."

This isn't as clear cut as some would like:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11226673

That only has relevance when and if those laws are changed... a process I gather would take quite some time since we'd be talking about drafting a new treaty.

The problem is that all this is empty talk. First of all we need to know in details the legislation governing the extradition process in Sweden.

Diplomatic understandings have to defer to the laws of the land, i.e a man only can be extradited in legal conditions. As far as I know, but I might be mistaken, laws in Sweden only allow extradition for a criminal offense which is punishable by the laws of both states involved. Also I believe one can reach Supreme Court of Sweden if it opposes extradition. So no diplomatic understanding will allow you to get your hands rapidly on the individual.

The Nordic states in EU are the world foremost democracies. I believe the person will have a wide legal base to fight the extradition process.

The individual in question is Australian though, so in fact we have to know details of extradition Australian laws too.

If you think that Assange is going to find refuge under the usual diplomatic protections, it will only be so as long as all aggrieved parties want it to be. As for Australian laws, they don't matter in the least, and since this isn't a death penalty case there would be little resistance. In fact, the USA seems to be happy to allow Swedish authorities to extradite to their "formeost democracy", where Assange can face charges of "Sex By Surprise" http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/19741444 .

If for some reason the Swedes don't want him I'm fairly sure that you'll find he makes his way to the US, or to a country which is less democratic... then the USA.

It may be that right now the US is being blamed for the wikileaks event in the international community, but if you think any government wants Assange near them, you're barking mad. There will be posturing, but in the end he's proven willing to use measures that would make any government wary.

 

[DanP]

If you think that Assange is going to find refuge under the usual diplomatic protections ...
.

Its not diplomatic protection, it's extradition laws which are pretty specific to each country.

Diplomatic protections only apply to very specific personal, and are ANYTHING but usual.

 

[nismaratwork]

Its not diplomatic protection, it's extradition laws which are pretty specific to each country.

Diplomatic protections only apply to very specific personal, and are ANYTHING but usual.

No, not protections by virtue of diplomatic credentials, protections as a result of diplomatic efforts to secure a treaty. You've completely misunderstood.

 

[WhoWee]

Watching this discussion progress, I've become more aware of the slippery slope ahead with regards to internet regulation.

Assange is not a journalist - he didn't write or edit the information posted - given the sheer volume it's doubtful he even read all of the content.

Assange is also not an individual (like a PF member) freely exchanging ideas.

Assange is in a class of his own. He doesn't seem to care where or how information is obtained and apparently doesn't care about consequences to individuals.

While it's important to address this specific situation, I'm in no hurry to call for a central regulatory authority over internet content - identity protection and theft/fraud is a separate topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

Watching this discussion progress, I've become more aware of the slippery slope ahead with regards to internet regulation.

Assange is not a journalist - he didn't write or edit the information posted - given the sheer volume it's doubtful he even read all of the content.

Assange is also not an individual (like a PF member) freely exchanging ideas.

Assange is in a class of his own. He doesn't seem to care where or how information is obtained and apparently doesn't care about consequences to individuals.

While it's important to address this specific situation, I'm in no hurry to call for a central regulatory authority over internet content - identity protection and theft/fraud is a separate topic.

This is a lesson to everyone, teaching a fundamental truth that has been the case for over a decade: once something hits the internet there are NO MEASURES that can be taken that will stop determined users from disseminating the information. If you want to protect your diplomatic cables, it has better be at the source. You'd think this would be instinctual for people who live by the adage that, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[WhoWee]

You'd think this would be instinctual for people who live by the adage that, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (Benjamin Franklin)

...and sometimes that doesn't even work.

 

[Proton Soup]

Watching this discussion progress, I've become more aware of the slippery slope ahead with regards to internet regulation.

Assange is not a journalist - he didn't write or edit the information posted - given the sheer volume it's doubtful he even read all of the content.

Assange is also not an individual (like a PF member) freely exchanging ideas.

Assange is in a class of his own. He doesn't seem to care where or how information is obtained and apparently doesn't care about consequences to individuals.

While it's important to address this specific situation, I'm in no hurry to call for a central regulatory authority over internet content - identity protection and theft/fraud is a separate topic.

Assange is running a press. is the journalism distinction really important?

 

[WhoWee]

Assange is running a press. is the journalism distinction really important?

IMO - it's important in the context of future discussions regarding regulation of the "press" on the internet.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Just saw this on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

 

[NeoDevin]

Evo, I am withdrawing from my discussion with you pending external review of your moderation decisions. I do intend to return to that discussion later, if possible.

It is also not against Australian law for Assange to come to the US and rob a liquor store or sexually assault somebody, but it is in the US, and he can be held accountable for that or violation of US law by agreement between the US and Australia.

This is true. The difference there is that the crime would have been committed within US jurisdiction. You can only be held accountable to the laws of whoever has jurisdiction.

In the case of Wikileaks, the "crime" was releasing documents which were deemed classified by the US. In the UK (the country under who's jurisdiction Assange currently finds himself), this is not against the law, to my knowledge.

That's why we have extradition treaties with other countries. Where it is an equivalent crime in his own country, if he commits that crime against another, his country may honor the extradition treaty they have with the U.S. and let the U.S. try him for the equivalent offense.

Most current extradition treaties require that the crime being extradited for have been committed within the jurisdiction of the country requesting the extradition. They also frequently have an exception that alleged crimes that are political in nature are not eligible for extradition. If/when the US makes a formal extradition request, then we will have to take a look at the treaty with whichever country Assange is in at the time.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This is true. The difference there is that the crime would have been committed within US jurisdiction. You can only be held accountable to the laws of whoever has jurisdiction.

This isn't strictly true. For example
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_960.html

There are also some things that might be legal in the country you visit, but still illegal in the United States, and you can be prosecuted under U.S. law if you buy pirated goods or engage in child pornography.

 

[NeoDevin]

This isn't strictly true. For example
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_960.html

This is true, but you can't be extradited for them (to my knowledge), only charged upon your return.

 

[Digitalism]

I'm rather surprised that many seem to so quick to jump to the defense of the US government and to villify Assange. Personally, I try to keep in mind the old saying "Both the family with children and the family without feel sorry for one another" when engaging in potentially controversial discussions such as this. I hope that Assange's revelations may be the the first steps to a world in which governments are more open with and accountable to one another and their citizens.

 

[mugaliens]

Just saw this on BBC...

They're missing the point, which is that intelligence operations are risky enough as it is, and do not need the signficant additional risk cause by a very rich person who's only concern is increasing his wealth, regardless of the cost or damage resulting from his actions.

If informants lose their lives, that would be tragic enough. Whether or not that happens, however, is largely immaterial, as most damage involves the loss of the intelligence channels, highly useful in thwarting the activities of terrorists and insurgents. Their efforts are either stopped, avoided, or minimized, in large part due to intelligence channels.

Without those channels, many more terrorist activities will be successful, resulting in increased casualties to Iraqi/Afghanistan civilians, police, government officials, as well as to our own sons and daughters over there.

Oh, by the way: Yeah! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_wikileaks_assange" !

About time.

I'm rather surprised that many seem to so quick to jump to the defense of the US government and to villify Assange.

Assange notified our government of possession of the documents long before he made them public. Our government notified Assange that would be a global "no-no" if he went ahead and did so. I therefore have no sympathy for Assange for his choice to make a buck regardless of the damage he's caused.

 

[Newai]

Most current extradition treaties require that the crime being extradited for have been committed within the jurisdiction of the country requesting the extradition. They also frequently have an exception that alleged crimes that are political in nature are not eligible for extradition. If/when the US makes a formal extradition request, then we will have to take a look at the treaty with whichever country Assange is in at the time.

Bold mine.

Please demonstrate this for me, because I can't find such a requirement in the Swedish-U.S. treaty as necessarily outlined in Article IV. I can't say for the U.S.-U.K. treaty, but I would like to see that as well. Anyway, the only provision I see is if the crime being charged calls for at least a two-year sentence regardless where it occurred.

 

[NeoDevin]

Bold mine.

Please demonstrate this for me, because I can't find such a requirement in the Swedish-U.S. treaty as necessarily outlined in Article IV. I can't say for the U.S.-U.K. treaty, but I would like to see that as well. Anyway, the only provision I see is if the crime being charged calls for at least a two-year sentence regardless where it occurred.

I stand corrected, and withdraw the claim. Interestingly, in my reading, I found that the US-UK extradition treaty allows for the extradition of UK citizens who have violated US law within the UK. If I were a UK citizen, I would find this very worrying.

Edit: See http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-99/Extradition-Law--Canada.aspx" , for example:

The first step is the receipt by Canada of evidence from another state that the alleged conduct of the person sought while that person was in the jurisdiction of the requesting country, would have been a crime if committed in Canada ("dual criminality") and which could have been punishable by two or more years of incarceration.

Which is what I based my assumption on.

 

[NeoDevin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Restrictions" has revealed something interesting:

In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Parties to the European Convention also cannot extradite people where they would be at significant risk of being tortured inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished

Note that the European Convention on Human Rights applies to both UK and Sweden.

Given the US recent history with torture, and the fact that many in the US are calling for Assange's death, this will likely drag on for years and ultimately prove futile if the US requests extradition.

Also from the same link:

Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime.

 

[Fra]

This is a lesson to everyone
...
If you want to protect your diplomatic cables, it has better be at the source.

The lesson wikileaks are trying to teach us is deeper than that. The lesson is that ALL sources do leak eventually.

So the real lesson, that wikileaks try to teach us is that democracy must build on transparency with a minimum of sercret sources in the first place. It's that fact that there exists secrets (in particular about foreign relations, corruption, military abuse or other "doubtful" actions that) that is the real threat to democracy.

As far as I understand, this is the major lesson of wikileaks, and what we now see is the proof, the hard way.

We must be careful to not response to this "event" in a way that weakens democracy. MORE secrecy, more violent measures to eliminate leaks is a measure in an unfortunately direction IMO.

/Fredrik

 

[NeoDevin]

From the http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf" (Article II.1):

An offense shall be an extraditable offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by deprivation of liberty for a period of at least two years.

Since publishing documents classified by the US is not an offense "punishable under the laws" of Sweden, I think the US will have trouble getting Assange extradited from Sweden.

 

[Newai]

I stand corrected, and withdraw the claim. Interestingly, in my reading, I found that the US-UK extradition treaty allows for the extradition of UK citizens who have violated US law within the UK. If I were a UK citizen, I would find this very worrying.

Edit: See http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-99/Extradition-Law--Canada.aspx" , for example:

Which is what I based my assumption on.

Here's what I think is worrying:

Whether there is an extradition treaty in place or not, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is legally proper for a U.S. federal agent to kidnap an individual from a foreign country, even if in contravention of that country’s local law. The kidnapping is not the basis for dismissal of the U.S. charges. Tricking, lying, and deceiving by federal agents is also allowed.

http://www.mcnabbferrari.com/international-extradition-cases.html

I'm sure there is similar attitude and precedence with many of our allies toward us. Well, I'm not too worried since I'm not hostile toward any country, but wow.

 

[NeoDevin]

I'm sure there is similar attitude and precedence with many of our allies toward us.

Don't suppose you could find any support for that (the "many of our allies do the same" claim)? I just did a quick google search and couldn't find anything, all that came up are cases of kidnapping within a particular country.

 

[NeoDevin]

Here's what I think is worrying:
http://www.mcnabbferrari.com/international-extradition-cases.html

Has this actually ever been attempted by the US, against an ally? Or even another "first world" country?

 

[Newai]

Don't suppose you could find any support for that (the "many of our allies do the same" claim)? I just did a quick google search and couldn't find anything, all that came up are cases of kidnapping within a particular country.

Nope. Only an assumption. But if our SC is willing enough...

Has this actually ever been attempted by the US, against an ally? Or even another "first world" country?

[PLAIN]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4384/shrugsmiley5.gif