News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[Office_Shredder]

I'm wondering what the actual decision was.
After much googling the closest I've been able to find is

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...al-waters-are-you-beyond-the-reach-of-the-law

Even if none of these exceptions apply, U.S. courts have held that arrest in violation of international law doesn't necessarily bar prosecution. For example, in United States v. Postal, the defendants were U.S. nationals arrested on board a vessel registered in the Grand Cayman Islands, 16 miles from shore (which at the time was the high seas). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that though the arrest violated the Convention on the High Seas (1958), the treaty violation didn't impair the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit followed suit in 2002. So on the high seas not only are you not beyond the reach of any nation, sometimes you're with the reach of two.

 

[Fra]

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.

Even if they were, there is another issue. Sweden usually should not exchange anyone that risk facing the death penalty, or by any means risk facing a unfair trial. Alot of people outside US seriously doubt that Assange would get even close to a fair trial in US. Where "fair" is a measure defined by the world, not by US domestic measures.

So even IF, US would come up with a charge, if Sweden has insufficient confidence that he will be treated fairly by swedish standards, he can't be exchanged as that would be in violation to swedish humanity law.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

The problem is it seems that Assange does not TRUST that the swedish justice will work, as wikileaks has revealed that thus has happened in the past.

Because no matter what the law is like, there are workarounds, or secret missions outside the law.

The trick used in the past is that as long as the illegal activites are kept secret from the public, and apparently even to selected parts to leaders. And what's known, obviously never took place. This is the type of democratic problems wikileaks is fighting.

So apparently, laws can and are violated, in conflict with democracy, as long as they are kept secret. Now that's a dangerous game, which most obvious when such infomration is leaked.

/Fredrik

 

[nismaratwork]

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

I don't believe that Wikileaks showed us anything that wasn't already known, discussed, or suspected... these are hardly The Pentagon Papers. I'll grant that all security, given enough time, is bound to fail. I won't grant that all security is bound to fail in the form of a catastrophically LARGE leak. The trick isn't an attempt at perfect security, but to ensure that measures are in place to constantly screen for a breach. I mean, if a CIA station chief decides to defect to another country, that would be unfortunate, but even they have a limit to what they know. Essentially nobody made a similar decision between high level diplomats, and teenagers in the army.

We SHOULD be saying, "We were betrayed, but the scope of the betrayal was made possible by our own incompetence... let's learn from this." I don't think that requires a more strict or invasive government, unless you have a security clearance.

You've also characterized Wikileaks as part of a fight, but I'm not seeing that their work-product forwards the cause of liberty... just knowing details that are mostly already known. I look at hacking groups inside of the PRC, or Iran, who work with groups such as the Cult of The Dead Cow to bypass national firewalls. If Assange could do something of similar import then we'd be talking more about the papers than the people who got them (as with the Pentagon Papers).

 

[nismaratwork]

Hmmm... this is interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/12/wikileaks.rival/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Why? IMO, one of the requirements of a civilized world is that civilized countries recognize each other's laws - especially if those laws are similar to their own laws. The concept is generally recognized internationally, it's just the application is still problematic.

Right now the US is having trouble with two international kidnapping cases, one where a minor child ran away to Brazil (?) with an adult boyfriend and was taken-in by the Brazilian family. In another, a Japanese (-American?) mom kidnapped her American kid and moved to Japan. In neither case is the other country recognizing the American claim. Could you imagine the US not returning a kidnapped British kid?

We also have corporate espionage problems with Japan and Polanski who escaped his statutory rape punishment because France doesn't recognize statutory rape.

Is the issue here really that people are not grasping the concept of international reach of law or is it this specific case that people object to? Would people still object to extradition if it was their own country's secrets platered on the net and their own country's soldiers at risk due to them?

 

[Fra]

I don't believe that Wikileaks showed us anything that wasn't already known, discussed, or suspected...

I agree. But they added more explicit proof. And increased global awareness. It's the public (ie. the voters) that should be informed.

Also some people are slower than others are learning a certin lesson.

Also, to simply speak for myself, I have learned things that I didn't know, that will change the way i act/vote in the future.

You've also characterized Wikileaks as part of a fight, but I'm not seeing that their work-product forwards the cause of liberty... just knowing details that are mostly already known.

I see it. To suspect, and to know are different. There is also a difference that some government people konws something, and that everyone knows it.

I don't see it necessarily as a "fight" as I see it as part of development. Sure, wikileaks seem to want to change the world indeed. But they do so without military weapons. And they don't just leak US secrets, their objective (as expressed by Assange himself) is to show that it's not a tenable situation to hide doubtful and immoral acts from the democratic system. And the point is that many of this doubtulf actions simply would not take place, if people understood that they can' be kept secret. One possible conclusion is that the price for keeping it secret at all cost will again WEAKEN democracy, not strenghten it. So the solution is not to secure all leaks, the solution is to make sure there are not explosive information to leak in the first place.

What I find most interesting in this, is to simply study WHICH lessons certain parties make from the given event and what their logic is. There are different conclusions one can draw as well. The question is which of them that is likely to lead to a better world for most people?

/Fredrik

 

[JaredJames]

NeoDevin, I don't think it's as simple as "you broke a US law in the UK, therefore we'll deport you there for trial".

When they say violated a US law, I believe it is similar to the current extradition case in the UK with the hacker who got into the pentagon looking for aliens. The violation of law has to have been against the US. Otherwise it's like the US saying theft is illegal, the UK saying theft is legal and so when someone steals something they can be sent to the US for trial. It doesn't work like that.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree. But they added more explicit proof. And increased global awareness. It's the public (ie. the voters) that should be informed.

Also some people are slower than others are learning a certin lesson.

Also, to simply speak for myself, I have learned things that I didn't know, that will change the way i act/vote in the future.



I see it. To suspect, and to know are different. There is also a difference that some government people konws something, and that everyone knows it.

I don't see it necessarily as a "fight" as I see it as part of development. Sure, wikileaks seem to want to change the world indeed. But they do so without military weapons. And they don't just leak US secrets, their objective (as expressed by Assange himself) is to show that it's not a tenable situation to hide doubtful and immoral acts from the democratic system. And the point is that many of this doubtulf actions simply would not take place, if people understood that they can' be kept secret. One possible conclusion is that the price for keeping it secret at all cost will again WEAKEN democracy, not strenghten it. So the solution is not to secure all leaks, the solution is to make sure there are not explosive information to leak in the first place.

What I find most interesting in this, is to simply study WHICH lessons certain parties make from the given event and what their logic is. There are different conclusions one can draw as well. The question is which of them that is likely to lead to a better world for most people?

/Fredrik

Well, I believe we agree on the facts, but not at any point philosophically, which is fine... there's no requirement that we all sing the same tune. Personally, I believe that when someone makes a choice (here I'm thinking of Pfc. Manning) to commit treason, there should be a damned good reason which obviates the act... or it's just spying. The Pentagon Papers showed that we were in Laos and bombing Cambodia, and so much more that was denied at the presidential level.

Assange got his hands on intra-diplomatic dirty laundry and evidence of events which are admitted to have happened, such as drone strikes fatal to civilians. I don't think that increasing public awareness of already-known quantities is a good enough reason to take such drastic action. You do... I don't see how this can end except in a simple disagreement between the two of us.


NeoDevin: Let me get this straight... countries regularly negotiate the exchange of prisoners, spies, and more... but you think that Sweden and the USA couldn't come to an understanding concerning Assange? That's tipping the scales on naive.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Not surprising: It may never be possible to prove Assange committed murder unles the Taliban announces it. The military doesn't employ CSI teams to investigate every civilian death in war and can't easily arrest and interview suspects.
This is one of the pitfalls to trying to apply civilian standards of justice here - and likely why espionage itself carries such harsh penalties.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not surprising: It may never be possible to prove Assange committed murder unles the Taliban announces it. The military doesn't employ CSI teams to investigate every civilian death in war and can't easily arrest and interview suspects.
This is one of the pitfalls to trying to apply civilian standards of justice here - and likely why espionage itself carries such harsh penalties.

I'd rather see information which could burn a source not tossed around in cables available for secret and no-foreign users of a HUGE network. If someone dies because of this leak, Assange or others will share in blame, but ultimately the people who couldn't be bothered to use a secure code-designation for a source bear the most.

 

[russ_watters]

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.
/Fredrik

Rediculous. There is no country in the world that would consider such releases acceptable - even the most liberal of democracies (which the US is).

 

[Fra]

I believe that when someone makes a choice (here I'm thinking of Pfc. Manning) to commit treason, there should be a damned good reason which obviates the act... or it's just spying.

There isn't much discussino about Manning in non US media so I don't have much opinon.

It's probably because the actions of Manning and the actions of wikileaks are two separate.

The only thing I've seen in media is a wikileaks trace of a communicating manning had with a colleague admitting he sent the secret files to wikileaks and that he raised concern of what he did, but that he had to do it due to conscience.

I see two cures:
US solders should not should not have access to unneccesary information?
Or make sure to selected solders as to now have so much conscience?

After all, the command structure in the military is based on following orders. The real question is if a soldier that refuse to follow orders or rules, due to his own conscience is good or bad?

I have to admit that as a general statement I think it's good. People that think on their own are rare.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

Rediculous. There is no country in the world that would consider such releases acceptable - even the most liberal of democracies (which the US is).

I think this is painful lesson that due to the inertia in these systems will change slowly. I think no-one would want to reveal all secrets to everybody. That's not what I think is the point - this is just a method of provocation wikileaks uses.

I think the idea is that awareness that whenever there is a secret operation, you better follow laws and moral standards because it may be revealed. In the long term this will increase the awareness of all actors in the world.

It's basic psychology that people in fact DO things, when they think it will not be discovered, that they would otherwise not do. This is a problem when it happens in democratic systems. Because the lack of transparency, may allow things to happen that build up tension in the world.

For example abuses that takes place in foreign territory, could be dangerous as it feeds terrorist and fanatis. Obviously the logic is understandale. See your family get killed for whatever reason and there is a good chance, that with the lack of proper education you grow up with strange ideas. These things must nto be supressed, the supression feeds more tension. To deny bad acts feeds it more.

To admit and apologize, reduces tension.

I certainly want to know if my government misbehaves. This is critical feedback for ME then next time I vote.

I think there is a big difference between what the official statements are of politicians, and what a lot of the public think.

/Fredrik

 

[NeoDevin]

Why? IMO, one of the requirements of a civilized world is that civilized countries recognize each other's laws - especially if those laws are similar to their own laws. The concept is generally recognized internationally, it's just the application is still problematic.

I haven't been able to find a copy of the US-UK treaty yet, but my understanding (from Wiki, so possibly incorrect) is that there is no requirement for "dual-criminality" (that the offense in question be against the laws of both US and UK). That is: You can perform an action which is legal in the UK, and then be extradited to the US for it.

Could you imagine the US not returning a kidnapped British kid?

I have a harder time imagining a case where the US would recognize the foreign claim. I could be mistaken, feel free to find some examples.

We also have corporate espionage problems with Japan and Polanski who escaped his statutory rape punishment because France doesn't recognize statutory rape.

I'm not familiar with this case. Presumable the statutory rape was committed within US jurisdiction?

Is the issue here really that people are not grasping the concept of international reach of law or is it this specific case that people object to? Would people still object to extradition if it was their own country's secrets platered on the net and their own country's soldiers at risk due to them?

Do you really not understand that, while you are in the UK you are not (should not?) be subject to US laws? It is not this specific case that I'm objecting to, it's the idea that, while in UK/Sweden/etc. Americans believe that Australian citizens should be bound and punishable by US laws, despite having committed no crime within the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe that Wikileaks showed us anything that wasn't already known, discussed, or suspected...

What?! Let's not lose sight of the facts here folks: names and locations of informants in a war zone is not information we already knew!

 

[nismaratwork]

What?! Let's not lose sight of the facts here folks: names and locations of informants in a war zone is not information we already knew!

That really has nothing to do with my point... that information doesn't somehow add to the public discourse, and it is harmful. I was saying, and in context it's clear, that Wikileaks hasn't shown us anything scandalous that was not already generally available.

edit: To be sure, I think that compromising sources in the name of journalism is pretty unforgivable unless the story is worth a life. Some are... this one wasn't. I would like to know why information that could compromise 100 sources in-country was being fired about in cables available in a horribly insecure network available to hundreds of thousands of people?

 

[Evo]

Do you really not understand that, while you are in the UK you are not (should not?) be subject to US laws? It is not this specific case that I'm objecting to, it's the idea that, while in UK/Sweden/etc. Americans believe that Australian citizens should be bound and punishable by US laws, despite having committed no crime within the jurisdiction of the US.

This thread is specifically about the actions of Assange. You continue to drag this thread off topic with your opinions about people going about their daily lives. Please do not continue this tactic here. Either post specifically about Assange's case or please do not post.

You also still need to cite the previous sources which were requested. You cannot just keep making statements without backing them up. Have you read the guidelines for P&WA?

 

[NeoDevin]

This thread is specifically about the actions of Assange. You continue to drag this thread off topic with your opinions about people going about their daily lives. Please do not continue this tactic here. Either post specifically about Assange's case or please do not post.

You also still need to cite the previous sources which were requested. You cannot just keep making statements without backing them up. Have you read the guidelines for P&WA?

I am leaving this discussion before I end up banned. I hereby retract any and all claims allegedly made in this thread, since I cannot provide sources for claims I didn't make.

Sorry to everyone I was having productive discussions with, but this thread is not worth being banned over.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Relevant. It is very unfortunate that CNN decided not to extend this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM_IdfPPmEY

 

[Newai]

That really has nothing to do with my point... that information doesn't somehow add to the public discourse, and it is harmful. I was saying, and in context it's clear, that Wikileaks hasn't shown us anything scandalous that was not already generally available.

edit: To be sure, I think that compromising sources in the name of journalism is pretty unforgivable unless the story is worth a life. Some are... this one wasn't. I would like to know why information that could compromise 100 sources in-country was being fired about in cables available in a horribly insecure network available to hundreds of thousands of people?

Are you referring specifically to the cables? Or Wikileaks' regular coffee and donuts?

 

[Evo]

I am leaving this discussion before I end up banned. I hereby retract any and all claims allegedly made in this thread, since I cannot provide sources for claims I didn't make.

Sorry to everyone I was having productive discussions with, but this thread is not worth being banned over.

You're not being threatened with being banned, nor are you close to being banned, you got a single infraction for violating the guidelines, so stop the melodrama and misinformation.

You know which information you were specifically asked to cite, I furnished you copies of the post numerous times in this thread.

 

[Fra]

Relevant. It is very unfortunate that CNN decided not to extend this interview.

Thanks for the link.

IMHO, Ray McGovern seems to balance the discussion in a healthy way.

/Fredrik

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you referring specifically to the cables? Or Wikileaks' regular coffee and donuts?

The cables... I admit to being generally unfamiliar with Wikileaks regular fare.

 

[NeoDevin]

Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possesses such documents. What would be the point to classify documents to keep them out of the hands of other nations?

Post your source.

This was never claimed by me. My claim was that it was not against UK law for an individual to possess/publish documents classified by the US.

I have tried to find any treaty between the US and UK regarding classified material, and it being against UK law to possesses American classified material, and come up with nothing. I am forced to conclude that such a treaty doesn't exist (unless of course, someone else can reference it, it's entirely possible that I simply couldn't find it).

I further tried to search for any mention that the UK laws have anything to say with respect to US classified documents, or more generally with respect to documents classified by any foreign government. Again I couldn't find anything, and concluded that such a law doesn't exist. I don't know how to back up this claim, short of posting the entirety of the UK legal system to demonstrate that it's not there.

Based on these two assumptions, I concluded that Assange has not broken any UK laws, and is therefore not a criminal in the UK.

This thread is specifically about the actions of Assange. You continue to drag this thread off topic with your opinions about people going about their daily lives. Please do not continue this tactic here. Either post specifically about Assange's case or please do not post.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to go off topic, just to discuss the case more generally, then one comment lead to another. Could you please split off the side discussion about extradition treaties, etc. into a new thread for me? Thanks.

 

[Evo]

This was never claimed by me. My claim was that it was not against UK law for an individual to possess/publish documents classified by the US.

I have tried to find any treaty between the US and UK regarding classified material, and it being against UK law to possesses American classified material, and come up with nothing. I am forced to conclude that such a treaty doesn't exist (unless of course, someone else can reference it, it's entirely possible that I simply couldn't find it).

I further tried to search for any mention that the UK laws have anything to say with respect to US classified documents, or more generally with respect to documents classified by any foreign government. Again I couldn't find anything, and concluded that such a law doesn't exist. I don't know how to back up this claim, short of posting the entirety of the UK legal system to demonstrate that it's not there.

Based on these two assumptions, I concluded that Assange has not broken any UK laws, and is therefore not a criminal in the UK.

If you couldn't find a source for your claim, that's all you needed to say.

No one, that I am aware of, said Assange broke any laws other than US laws and did so as a foreign national. This is why he may be tried for Espionage. As I've said, if and when that ever happens, no one knows.

Could you please split off the side discussion about extradition treaties, etc. into a new thread for me? Thanks.

I might be able to copy them to a new thread, however they are also pertinent to this thread since that is the only likely way the US would be able to procede with charges. I'll try to move them later today when I have more time.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you couldn't find a source for your claim, that's all you needed to say.

No one, that I am aware of, said Assange broke any laws other than US laws and did so as a foreign national. This is why he may be tried for Espionage. As I've said, if and when that ever happens, no one knows.

I might be able to copy them to a new thread, however they are also pertinent to this thread since that is the only likely way the US would be able to procede with charges. I'll try to move them later today when I have more time.

re B... Well they had a closed grand jury in VA. pertaining to Assange, so I think it's safe to say that there's at least one closed espionage indictment. How that translates to Assange ever seeing trial is still a, "who knows" situation as you say.

 

[mugaliens]

Relevant.

Are are the opinions of a single, outspoken ex-CIA officer-turned-activist more relevant than the opinions of the tens of thousands of other ex-CIA officers who've chosen to remain silent on the issue?

 

[WhoWee]

Are are the opinions of a single, outspoken ex-CIA officer-turned-activist more relevant than the opinions of the tens of thousands of other ex-CIA officers who've chosen to remain silent on the issue?

Isn't that 1 ex-military guy that does the UFO shows considered a kook? Ummm...there wasn't any alien information leaked - was there?

 

[Fra]

Are are the opinions of a single, outspoken ex-CIA officer-turned-activist more relevant than the opinions of the tens of thousands of other ex-CIA officers who've chosen to remain silent on the issue?

From a democratic perspective, certainly not. He is just one voice. But isn't it good for a balanced discussion to hear all arguments pro as well as con?

I think it's also quite logical, that an ACTIVE officer/politician or so, probably won't say everything he thinks. It's easier for a drop-out, retired, or ex to be more open because people prefer not to loose their job. In this sense, the drop-outs may, in a certain sense, be more relevant after all as it's more likely to be honest.

/Fredrik