So... is what Wikileaks is doing actually illegal? I know the person who originally leaked the info is in trouble, but is the recipient/publisher of the classified information necessarily breaking the law?
Stay messy, my friends.
There is no binding international compact on state secrets, and many private sector secrets are subject to no legal protection other than laws against theft of the media on which those secrets are contained. Given that Julian Assange is Australian and not operating from U.S. territory, he is no more a criminal than anyone from the U.S. would be if we put Australian or Chinese state secrets in an American newspaper. Some who assist him may be exposed though, given how easy it is in modern times for federal prosecutors to base charges around conspiracies. For that matter, if it ever became clear that he offered incentives to Americans who then went on to break espionage laws here, he could then be folded into a conspiracy to commit those crimes.
It would be unfair to call this another ACORN -- where no actual criminal conduct occurred but wildly distorted video sequences sparked ignorant outrage to such an extent as to bring down the entire organization. Here the ignorant outrage festers around a nugget of reality. For several decades, though most especially in the past 10 years, governments and large corporations have used the legitimate need for trade secrets and state secrets as a shield against all manner of public scrutiny. From mortgage lending practices to techniques of interrogating prisoners, what would serve society best as public information is instead kept veiled in shadow. New technology and new ways of sharing information threaten the viability of countless bad practices previously concealed from the public eye. Very powerful yet very nasty people do not like this. Predictably, listeners to a certain range of talk radio and believers in a certain frequency of televised propaganda are eager to serve as a megaphone for the outrage of those very powerful and very nasty people who do not like the idea of ordinary people keeping track of elites.
Wikileaks may be exposing military information, but it is no Geraldo Rivera, exposing information quickly enough to be of any use to enemies. Likewise it may have exposed a couple of awkward diplomatic situations, though along the way it also showed the world that the U.S. State Department is actually far less disingenuous and deceptive in dealings with foreign governments than was widely believed. Ultimately this is a responsible operation that shows impressive wisdom in balancing the interest in public disclosure against and legitimate concerns about security. It could be smashed, but the end result would simply be a bunch of less sophisticated and less thoughtful renegades all spreading secrets and misinformation in haphazard and often counterproductive ways.
I believe there are legitimate ways the U.S. government could cripple Wikileaks, and surely there are legal actions that could be taken against a few of Assange's American supporters; but I also believe taking such actions would be petty and vengeful while at the same time promoting less responsible handling of state secrets. From the empty-headed parrots calling for Assange's assassination the day after Rush Limbaugh did likewise to the genuinely thoughtful patriots who vaguely sense some sort of danger here, the question to be asked is, "would anybody be better off after this organization was neutralized?" Even if you are just absolutely in love with the idea that large bureaucracies both public and private can so easily evade scrutiny by citizens and journalists, I do not believe destroying Wikileaks would advance your agenda.
Regards,
messydom
It would be unfair to call this another ACORN -- where no actual criminal conduct occurred but wildly distorted video sequences sparked ignorant outrage to such an extent as to bring down the entire organization. Here the ignorant outrage festers around a nugget of reality. For several decades, though most especially in the past 10 years, governments and large corporations have used the legitimate need for trade secrets and state secrets as a shield against all manner of public scrutiny. From mortgage lending practices to techniques of interrogating prisoners, what would serve society best as public information is instead kept veiled in shadow. New technology and new ways of sharing information threaten the viability of countless bad practices previously concealed from the public eye. Very powerful yet very nasty people do not like this. Predictably, listeners to a certain range of talk radio and believers in a certain frequency of televised propaganda are eager to serve as a megaphone for the outrage of those very powerful and very nasty people who do not like the idea of ordinary people keeping track of elites.
Wikileaks may be exposing military information, but it is no Geraldo Rivera, exposing information quickly enough to be of any use to enemies. Likewise it may have exposed a couple of awkward diplomatic situations, though along the way it also showed the world that the U.S. State Department is actually far less disingenuous and deceptive in dealings with foreign governments than was widely believed. Ultimately this is a responsible operation that shows impressive wisdom in balancing the interest in public disclosure against and legitimate concerns about security. It could be smashed, but the end result would simply be a bunch of less sophisticated and less thoughtful renegades all spreading secrets and misinformation in haphazard and often counterproductive ways.
I believe there are legitimate ways the U.S. government could cripple Wikileaks, and surely there are legal actions that could be taken against a few of Assange's American supporters; but I also believe taking such actions would be petty and vengeful while at the same time promoting less responsible handling of state secrets. From the empty-headed parrots calling for Assange's assassination the day after Rush Limbaugh did likewise to the genuinely thoughtful patriots who vaguely sense some sort of danger here, the question to be asked is, "would anybody be better off after this organization was neutralized?" Even if you are just absolutely in love with the idea that large bureaucracies both public and private can so easily evade scrutiny by citizens and journalists, I do not believe destroying Wikileaks would advance your agenda.
Regards,
messydom
Just to add... the whole notion that the U.S is pushing to have him extradited from the UK to Sweden so he can be extradited to the U.S is nonsense.
It would have been far easier just to extradite him from the U.K - we are the U.S's bitch if you are cynical, and have an excellent relationship if you are not...
The problem the governments have is that the genie is out of the bottle. Shut down Wikileaks and another will pop up... indeed already have. The only thing any government can do is actually improve their own security and behavior.
Or try and gain control of the internet... which is starting be an issue with the FBI wanting a back door into all encryption, Net Neutrality (Once it's in government hands you ain't ever getting it back"), the "Internet Kill Switch", and the latest one of top level domains... the U.S government is trying to get control from ICANN.
"You can't stop the signal Mal..."
The biggest question is... is it all going to lead to a Darknet?
It would have been far easier just to extradite him from the U.K - we are the U.S's bitch if you are cynical, and have an excellent relationship if you are not...
The problem the governments have is that the genie is out of the bottle. Shut down Wikileaks and another will pop up... indeed already have. The only thing any government can do is actually improve their own security and behavior.
Or try and gain control of the internet... which is starting be an issue with the FBI wanting a back door into all encryption, Net Neutrality (Once it's in government hands you ain't ever getting it back"), the "Internet Kill Switch", and the latest one of top level domains... the U.S government is trying to get control from ICANN.
"You can't stop the signal Mal..."
The biggest question is... is it all going to lead to a Darknet?
http://twitter.com/noise17
If only you could go back in time and advise against those eyecatching red coats for the forces deployed against our Continental Army, eh? As far as intelligence goes though, I've long wondered if the civilian intelligence services of both nations aren't actually, perhaps unwittingly, the bitches of a force more sinister than any national government. Can anyone in the U.S. or the UK name a single individual (except perhaps for Tony Blair and his political allies) who suffered negative professional outcome as a result of their endorsement of the Iraqi WMD theory?
Never for a moment (well, after 1992 anyway) did such a claim have even the slightest basis in hard evidence. Never for a moment in the 21st century was it either believable that a narcissist like Saddam Hussein would undertake such a suicidal plot or that the fascist Iraqi regime would collaborate with Al Qaeda, an organization which has as its actual agenda the replacement of Middle Eastern strongman governments with Taliban-style theocracies. Anyone with an advanced degree in political science or any degree specifically relevant to the politics of the modern Middle East surely could have smelled the bullshit on that WMD conspiracy. Hans Blix and a huge team of UN inspectors had unfettered access -- not a single door closed to them -- in the weeks just before war, and they rightly concluded that nothing was being hidden. The Valerie Plame debacle is just the most well-known of many nasty fallout incidents when administration officials used despicable means to silence criticism of the case for war.
Still, there are so many imbeciles and liars contending that there was no dissent on this matter and all the experts agreed that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of making Iraq a nuclear power. If anyone at all interested in a better future for America or a better future for England were pulling the strings, dozens of CIA officials would be blacklisted for incompetence while men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would be subject to as much public humiliation as the media could feed an angry public. Instead, half the American electorate thinks those monstrous buffoons were only acting out of necessity, and our institutions have completely failed to learn lessons required to ward off the next clamor for war by a belligerent President.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen for global security would be if these ineffective institutions and methods -- having been responsible for intelligence failures that were actually deadlier than Japanese skepticism about the idea of an atomic bomb -- were exposed and subject to refinement under the light of day. Specific ongoing operations and investigations certainly should not be exposed, but as long as we continue to keep the underlying process that generates intelligence reports so mysterious, it is likely to continue to suffer from enormous and correctable flaws. Our lack of self-scrutiny makes us weak. Wikileaks may not be the ideal way to achieve self-scrutiny, but it is better than the negligible progress toward openness that national leaders and legislatures have made in recent years.
Regards,
messydom
Never for a moment (well, after 1992 anyway) did such a claim have even the slightest basis in hard evidence. Never for a moment in the 21st century was it either believable that a narcissist like Saddam Hussein would undertake such a suicidal plot or that the fascist Iraqi regime would collaborate with Al Qaeda, an organization which has as its actual agenda the replacement of Middle Eastern strongman governments with Taliban-style theocracies. Anyone with an advanced degree in political science or any degree specifically relevant to the politics of the modern Middle East surely could have smelled the bullshit on that WMD conspiracy. Hans Blix and a huge team of UN inspectors had unfettered access -- not a single door closed to them -- in the weeks just before war, and they rightly concluded that nothing was being hidden. The Valerie Plame debacle is just the most well-known of many nasty fallout incidents when administration officials used despicable means to silence criticism of the case for war.
Still, there are so many imbeciles and liars contending that there was no dissent on this matter and all the experts agreed that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of making Iraq a nuclear power. If anyone at all interested in a better future for America or a better future for England were pulling the strings, dozens of CIA officials would be blacklisted for incompetence while men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would be subject to as much public humiliation as the media could feed an angry public. Instead, half the American electorate thinks those monstrous buffoons were only acting out of necessity, and our institutions have completely failed to learn lessons required to ward off the next clamor for war by a belligerent President.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen for global security would be if these ineffective institutions and methods -- having been responsible for intelligence failures that were actually deadlier than Japanese skepticism about the idea of an atomic bomb -- were exposed and subject to refinement under the light of day. Specific ongoing operations and investigations certainly should not be exposed, but as long as we continue to keep the underlying process that generates intelligence reports so mysterious, it is likely to continue to suffer from enormous and correctable flaws. Our lack of self-scrutiny makes us weak. Wikileaks may not be the ideal way to achieve self-scrutiny, but it is better than the negligible progress toward openness that national leaders and legislatures have made in recent years.
Regards,
messydom
messydom said: Can anyone in the U.S. or the UK name a single individual (except perhaps for Tony Blair and his political allies) who suffered negative professional outcome as a result of their endorsement of the Iraqi WMD theory?
I can as it goes
The guy who stole a students report on the WMD situation and presented it as his own to the government...
Blair still hasn't really suffered, he was going out whatever... he made a lot of bad decisions on the home front and his attitude sucked to the point public perception of him was (And still is) he is a dick.
http://twitter.com/noise17
Yeah, I put a "perhaps" on the Blair comment because it seemed there was a lot more to Labour's poor showing than backlash against Iraq policy. I hadn't heard about the stolen student's report incident, but I know on this side of the pond, the tendency has been to reward incompetence. High public honors were given to the bureaucrats who insisted the WMD allegations were a "slam dunk" when they were pure phantoms unsubstantiated by a single piece of credible evidence. At lower levels within the intelligence services, where even awards for special achievements are well-kept secrets, promotions in position (thus, by inference, positive evaluations and awards) have gone disproportionately toward the strongest advocates of WMD-related falsehoods. Our analysts tend to fail upstairs, and I believe this work is too important to tolerate that practice in our times.
Regards,
messydom
Regards,
messydom
It depends on how you come about this information. Hiring someone to obtain the info then publishing it is illegal. Publishing material which you had no hand in obtaining and which does not clearly meet the "clear and present danger" clause is not illegal. Wikileaks falls into the latter category.
Also, more documents were declared top secret in the first two years of the Bush administration than in every other prior administration combined. A court case would curtail this new privilege.
So no, what wikileaks is doing is not illegal. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely anybody would be taken to court over something of this nature b/c a loss requires the government to disclose a lot of documents which would be embarrassing.
Also, more documents were declared top secret in the first two years of the Bush administration than in every other prior administration combined. A court case would curtail this new privilege.
So no, what wikileaks is doing is not illegal. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely anybody would be taken to court over something of this nature b/c a loss requires the government to disclose a lot of documents which would be embarrassing.
Oh, and I'm also stating this as a Doctor of Journalism and a student of law
|
Upcoming Events:
Scene Highlights:
Scene Highlights:
 |
