Am I alone in thinking wikileaks is a GOOD thing?

[Dr Grump]

Lets see, I held a TS security clearance. My wife still to this day does not know about some of the places I went and why. And why? Because it was classified. Now, what if I wrote her a letter about all those places and things that I was involved in? What the hell is the difference? The difference is that I would be telling my spouse who since she doesn't have a clearance I would have been in deep shit and spent some time behind bars. But if a News Paper prints it for the world to see then the first amendment comes into play? I don't think so.

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

 

[California Girl]

Then you don't understand how Freedom of the Press works.

Hey numb nuts, it's fucking wrong.

The First Amendment is wrong?

Once again, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree...

Sorry, that doesn't actually cut it with this one. The information was illegally obtained - stolen from the US Government. If I steal something from you and sell it to someone else who knows it is stolen... I am guilty of stealing it and whoever buys it is guilty too. Same thing with information. Disseminating that information falls within the US Espionage laws.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't have to. Eric Holder does. See how that works? He's top puppy at Justice. His call. And... the President, of course. Obama has a great opportunity here to show some backbone and go after America's enemies.

1) And I'm saying he wont' because he can't.
2) What enemies? Assange... tell me you are kidding...

 

[Trajan]

I was pissed when the swift prgm .etc. was outted, and I am pissed now. As a leader in a foreign country or what may be worse, as a foreign intel operative thinking of sharing intel etc. with us, I'd have second thoughts.
The military is supposed to have a tight hand on information, a step above for the obvious reasons than civilian apparatus that closet information. Is anyone scared of ponying up everything there is to know about your health etc. to the gov.? I am.

 

[California Girl]

Lets see, I held a TS security clearance. My wife still to this day does not know about some of the places I went and why. And why? Because it was classified. Now, what if I wrote her a letter about all those places and things that I was involved in? What the hell is the difference? The difference is that I would be telling my spouse who since she doesn't have a clearance I would have been in deep shit and spent some time behind bars. But if a News Paper prints it for the world to see then the first amendment comes into play? I don't think so.

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

You cannot publish information stolen from the US Government. That's against our laws.

 

[jillian]

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

if i steal something and give it to you... and you know that the goods are stolen, you are committing a crime as well if you keep those goods.

here, he knows he's publishing classified information stolen by someone.

he's as guilty of espionage as the person who gave him the info, imo.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hey numb nuts, it's fucking wrong.

The First Amendment is wrong?

Once again, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree...

Sorry, that doesn't actually cut it with this one. The information was illegally obtained - stolen from the US Government. If I steal something from you and sell it to someone else who knows it is stolen... I am guilty of stealing it and whoever buys it is guilty too. Same thing with information. Disseminating that information falls within the US Espionage laws.

BS... this is information that has no come into the public domain...doesn't even pass the giggle test IMo...

 

[The T]

Lets see, I held a TS security clearance. My wife still to this day does not know about some of the places I went and why. And why? Because it was classified. Now, what if I wrote her a letter about all those places and things that I was involved in? What the hell is the difference? The difference is that I would be telling my spouse who since she doesn't have a clearance I would have been in deep shit and spent some time behind bars. But if a News Paper prints it for the world to see then the first amendment comes into play? I don't think so.

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

You cannot publish information stolen from the US Government. That's against our laws.

And there are Congresscreeps that have done it and weren't held to account.

 

[boedicca]

Under the premise that the Founders did not write a suicide pact, there does reach a point where the behavior of those who call themselves The Press disqualifies them from such distinction and protections.

Wikileaks has reached that point.

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one....

Really? Then all anyone who ever gets caught breaking into a government facility or computer has to do is claim he is the Press, and he gains absolution?

Wow.

 

[Jeremy]

On a more serious note. I did like the one about how Gen Kahdafi likes to whore around with that big titted blonde gal.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Lets see, I held a TS security clearance. My wife still to this day does not know about some of the places I went and why. And why? Because it was classified. Now, what if I wrote her a letter about all those places and things that I was involved in? What the hell is the difference? The difference is that I would be telling my spouse who since she doesn't have a clearance I would have been in deep shit and spent some time behind bars. But if a News Paper prints it for the world to see then the first amendment comes into play? I don't think so.

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

Most of what I was involved in was really classified. And your opinion of where or troops were and what they were doing does not make anything any less classified.

 

[boedicca]

And Assange is an admitted terrorist who should get the Black Ops treatment.

And if you think that you're a fucking idiot...

Go back to your land of sparkly leprechauns and candy trees, moron

 

[The T]

He's a fucking twerp.

Yes, he is. And I would certainly like for our Government to find a way to deal with him. But, the one who stole the information.... he's an American. He should face charges of treason. And.... assuming he is found guilty.... he should be executed.

And of course you feel this way about Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA spy being exposed. Correct? Just hang umm!!!

She wasn't 'Covert' when she was supposedly 'outed' and NO. I ain't going to go down this stupid road again. And before you regale us with Scooter Libby was convicted of it...he wasn't. He was convicted of formally lying.

Go play elsewhere troll.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

After reading through some of the materials, I found no great revelations....world leaders bashing each other, gossip about who's bombing who, nukes in pakistan, saudis hating on iran. Anyone with a few brain cells could have suspected as much. Whoopty doo.

 

[Dr Grump]

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

if i steal something and give it to you... and you know that the goods are stolen, you are committing a crime as well if you keep those goods.

here, he knows he's publishing classified information stolen by someone.

he's as guilty of espionage as the person who gave him the info, imo.

Cool, remind me of that next time somebody attempts to the blow the whistle on Big Tobacco, or the likes of Erin Brokovich, or those fools who run those private armies in Iraq, or any one of a dozen other examples where without whistle blowers there would be no accountability.

Has he given away US troop movements? No
Where you nukes are stored? No
Where you Atlantic and Pacific fleets are positioned? NO
Passwords to sensitive military installations? No

This is just conservative shills wanting their pound of flesh.

I for one am now glad that it is ALMOST an indisputable fact that certain Saudi businesses fund AQ. I think the vast majority of people suspected it, but now it looks like a fact. I hope Obama does something about THAT, which is far more important that some dude releasing MEMOS - that's right folks MEMOS - not freaking state secrets - to the media.

You all need to get a grip - seriously - I feel like I'm in an episode of the Bold and the Beautiful with the about of DQ's on this thread.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The First Amendment is wrong?

Once again, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree...

Sorry, that doesn't actually cut it with this one. The information was illegally obtained - stolen from the US Government. If I steal something from you and sell it to someone else who knows it is stolen... I am guilty of stealing it and whoever buys it is guilty too. Same thing with information. Disseminating that information falls within the US Espionage laws.

BS... this is information that has no come into the public domain...doesn't even pass the giggle test IMo...

Don't ever remember when your opinion was worth a fuck.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Under the premise that the Founders did not write a suicide pact, there does reach a point where the behavior of those who call themselves The Press disqualifies them from such distinction and protections.

Wikileaks has reached that point.

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one....

Really? Then all anyone who ever gets caught breaking into a government facility or computer has to do is claim he is the Press, and he gains absolution?

Wow.

No, if someone gets caught breaking into a facility or computer, he should be arrested. But the NY Times or the NY Post can't be prosecuted for printing the information later.

 

[The T]

Espionage:

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.
To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assange can be charged with espionage.

That little shit Benning (I will not give him his military rank), should face treason charges.... but, espionage would be an easier sell. Either way, the little shit should kill himself.... only honorable thing to do.

Good luck proving that....

I don't have to. Eric Holder does. See how that works? He's top puppy at Justice. His call. And... the President, of course. Obama has a great opportunity here to show some backbone and go after America's enemies.

And from what I understand? He's pissed off about this. ONE thing I agree with him on.

 

[Annie]

1) The person who took the 'secrets' is the one responsible for the 'crime', not the person publishing it (unless they are one and the same, but in this case, it is not so)
2) And when you look back on that 'classified' shit, was it really that classified, or was it made classified as some BS excuse to cover your arse for doing something, or being somewhere, that the US has no business being (think Central America in the 1980s)...

if i steal something and give it to you... and you know that the goods are stolen, you are committing a crime as well if you keep those goods.

here, he knows he's publishing classified information stolen by someone.

he's as guilty of espionage as the person who gave him the info, imo.

That reasoning was the position the NYTimes took with Climategate emails. Guess they found a different standard for the Wikileaks.

 

[boedicca]

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one....

Really? Then all anyone who ever gets caught breaking into a government facility or computer has to do is claim he is the Press, and he gains absolution?

Wow.

No, if someone gets caught breaking into a facility or computer, he should be arrested. But the NY Times or the NY Post can't be prosecuted for printing the information later.

Scuze me. They received STOLEN INFORMATION, and knowingly published said STOLEN INFORMATION. They are accomplices after the fact to the theft.