nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
Fair enough... in the meantime I found this very amusing. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/cia-responds-to-wikileaks-wtf/?hpt=T2
Evo said:And you were wrong.
Looks like they do.
continued...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20026074-281.html?tag=mncol;txt
Galteeth said:Here is a recent MSNBC interview with Assange (video is after the summary article, scroll down a bit). I'd say he knocks it out of the park. Of course one can't judge someone's mental state solely by an interview, but he certainly comes across lucid and intelligent.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-charges-shock-jock-fox-hosts/
Galteeth said:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026419-503543.html
Wikileaks has struck a deal with a Russian newspaper to provide documents relating to Russia. I thought I'd post this, as some have criticized Wikileaks for not targeting regimes like Russia.
Proton Soup said:yeah, i think Putin has a lot more birthdays in his future.
Galteeth said:I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Proton Soup said:Novaya Gazeta correspondent Anna Politkovskaya, who wrote about graft under then-President Vladimir Putin and chronicled abuses by military forces in Chechnya, was shot dead in her Moscow apartment building in 2006, on Putin's birthday.
jreelawg said:Funny thing is, that if assassins start taking out wikileaks staff, wikileaks won't know who is behind it. So, whatever wikileaks claims to be willing to release in the event people start to going missing, would have to be incriminating for all their targets. Therefore they logically should only attack organizations, which they have serious dirt on, and which have enough restraint not to retaliate anyways.
Some of the worse targets, probably would be harder to blackmail, as they often could care less what the rest of the world thinks, and often act irrationally and against their own interests, or are so oppressive that public opinion doesn't matter anyways.
On another note, if they actually do have damning information to use against the U.S., then it would be in the interest of the U.S. to protect wikileaks.
Galteeth said:Damning is relative. i would argue some of the information in the leaks does expose wrongdoing by the US (and other countries). For example, a recent revelation was the UK's training of a Bangladeshi para-military squad that human rights groups have called a "death squad."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40773855/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
"Rapid Action Battalion or RAB is an elite anti-crime and anti-terrorism unit of Bangladesh Police constituted amending the Armed Police Battalion Ordinance, 1979. Under the command of Inspector General of Police (IGP) it consists of members of Bangladesh Police, Bangladesh Army, Bangladesh Navy, Bangladesh Air Force, Border Guards Bangladesh and Bangladesh Ansar. It was formed on 26 March 2004 and started its operations from 14 April 2004. Additional Inspector General of Police Anwarul Iqbal is the founding Director General of this elite unit.
Since its inception, the RAB has seized a total of 3,149 illegal arms and more than 36,000 rounds of ammunition. It has also had many notable arrests. Although the RAB has been successful in apprehending several high-profile terrorists, including the infamous Bangla Bhai, Amnesty International has criticised the RAB's lack of accountability as it has been responsible for numerous deaths which have been attributed to crossfire.[1][2] In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"
1. (C) The leadership of Bangladesh's Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) has pledged to provide additional information about alleged human rights violations committed by members of the force since its inception in 2004. This pledge came during two days of intensive fact-finding and discussions with members of an interagency USG team that visited Bangladesh to assess both the RAB's current operating procedures regarding human rights violations as well as possibilities for engagement. The RAB seeks a broad engagement with the USG including human rights and counterterrorism training and recognizes the need to address allegations of past abuses. While there are lingering concerns about the RAB's human rights record, there is a widespread belief within civil society that the RAB has succeeded in reducing crime and fighting terrorism, making it in many ways Bangladesh's most respected police unit.
Galteeth said:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026419-503543.html
Wikileaks has struck a deal with a Russian newspaper to provide documents relating to Russia. I thought I'd post this, as some have criticized Wikileaks for not targeting regimes like Russia.
nismaratwork said:Well, there's one problem solved... The Russians do NOT play games when it comes to espionage, and the old 2nd Directorate KGB vets are some of the ones who Putin and others have the most pull with. The USA might try to put you in jail... the Russians will feed you some nuclear waste, or a ricin pellet.
jreelawg said:The RAB, is called a death squad by human rights groups, but human rights groups often have similar bad things to say about the U.S., the U.K., Israel, etc etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Action_Battalion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/187025
The fact that some of the RAP had received training from the UK is neither strange, or particularly damning. Actually, it is something you would expect. After reading what was leaked about it, I think it actually makes the UK look good because it shows their concern for RAP human rights violations, and presents arguments for why they are necessary in the war on terror. The RAP would exist without UK training, but UK training and support puts pressure on the RAP to conform to human rights expectations.
I could go on all day posting much more damning news strait out of mainstream news sources, especially under the subject of bad guys who had received training from, or had been funded, by a particular government or military branch.
Galteeth said:"In March, 2010, the battalion leader stated that they have killed 622 due to 'crossfire', while some human rights organizations claim that over 1,000 extra-judicial killings are the product of the battalion.[3] There have also been many reports of torture.[4][5]"
622 killed in crossfire? Come on now.
Note: If we are going to debate the RAP, it might be better to start a different thread, as this is a somewhat tangenital topic.
jreelawg said:Assassinating people in exotic and incriminating ways, kind of is playing games if you ask me.
jreelawg said:The leak if anything makes the RAP look bad, but not the UK. The RAP already looked bad before anyways, and the RAP is not a para-military squad, they are official. And, it was already known that the UK supports Bangladesh in the war on terror. It is hardly any more damning than the fact that Bangladesh is a UK ally. But I agree, we are getting off topic.
The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.jreelawg said:I have one question in my mind I would like to resolve. What is the difference between wikileaks reporting classified information, and MSNBC, or the Guardian reporting it? I just noticed that the mainstream media seams to feel free to report anything wikileaks puts out. Wikileaks doesn't steal the information, they only publish it. It seams that if the Guardian can repost what wikileaks has, than there must be laws protecting this right.
Under the amendment, which was adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a journalist is defined as someone who:
(iii) obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity—
(I) that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and
(II) that—
(aa) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(bb) operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier;
(cc) operates a programming service; or
(dd) operates a news agency or wire service;
Evo said:The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
Evo said:The difference is that wikileaks doesn't actually provide journalism. They solicit the information and distribute it.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/shield-law-definition-of-journalist-gets-professionalized/
Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to some restrictions, such as defamation law and copyright law.
In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.
As famously said by journalist A. J. Liebling, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."[2] The individuals, businesses, and organizations that own a means of publication are able to publish information and opinions without government interference, and cannot be compelled by the government to publish information and opinions that they disagree with. For example, the owner of a printing press cannot be required to print advertisements for a political opponent, even if the printer normally accepts commercial printing jobs.
In 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Near v. Minnesota used the 14th Amendment to apply the freedom of the press to the States. Other notable cases regarding free press are:
* New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): The Supreme Court upheld the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): The Court decided that for written words to be libel they must be, first of all, false.
[edit]
US supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor has said the court is likely to have to rule on the issue of balancing national security and freedom of speech due to WikiLeaks posting a cache of US military records about the Afghan war.
Proton Soup said:i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States
and it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video
nismaratwork said:Wikileaks gave their material to JOURNALISTIC outlets to work with and publish. A reporter's job isn't just to collect scads of raw information, unprocessed... well, is SIPRnet a 'publishing' outlet? There is no added element, even context, added to this information that would allow it to be a journalistic effort.
jreelawg said:This is how they describe themselves on their website,
"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."
wikileaks
You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.
LOL. Just a few months ago this was their Mission Statementjreelawg said:This is how they describe themselves on their website,
"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."
wikileaks
You can argue they aren't, but I think the law as it is gives them that status.
WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”
Evo said:LOL. Just a few months ago this was their Mission Statement
WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”
http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_15649651
Heh... in other words, a secure clearing house. You're more than a pretty face Evo!![]()
Did you see my post #321?jreelawg said:I'm not going to defend wikileaks, I'm only interested in what the court of law actually says.
Evo said:Did you see my post #321?
jreelawg said:I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.
I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.
Proton Soup said:i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_Statesand it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video
In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.
U.S. Supreme Court Center said:The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.
Newai said:I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:
Proton Soup said:sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the United States is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?