Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

idk if ur trollin

but wd love to see how this movement would run foreign policy

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:21 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im just trying to game dudes motivation here, and not really making any judgement on probability of success, lord up in heaven knows its always a longshot to accomplish important things, this is maybe just abt holding governments accountable using our fancy new internet tools, its kinda obamaish really

is it napster for secrets and lies?

this is maybe just abt holding governments accountable using our fancy new internet tools

this is a good idea! assange should look into it.

yeah I don't really get how publishing a laundry list of places the State Dept deems important is "holding government accountable" really

same with exposing diplomats conversations

i guess you guys don't quite have state healthcare, but, well, plenty of information that wants to be free there. plenty of secrets to be exposed, cost-benefit analyses to be made.

yeah I don't really get how publishing a laundry list of places the State Dept deems important all of the documents wiikileaks has released is "holding government accountable" really

― goat, camel, horse, and water buffalo (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, December 6, 2010 6:32 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

on some level its at this point merely pointing out when their public rhetoric hasnt matched up to their private actions - but theres also something to the way the establishment has reacted that shows how scared they are - people are i think vibing to that

this is all obvs in its infancy - so its compelling to imagineer it into the future - regardless of what exact shape it takes i think we can agree that the internet will remake government like it has everything else its touched

btw i am now an eco blog

assange's admirers think the US state is basically illegitimate at this point so that any kind of revelation is allowed. under old rules, however, no, releasing tons of internal state dept memos is not journalism.

pssst guess what, you're not american, our rules are different, and we enjoy a free press. and also guess what: under old rules, yes, releasing tons of internal state memos IS journalism, in the legal sense. cf pentagon papers (which were Top Secret, btw). making available the documents themselves is, again, in a legal sense, virtually identical to reporting in detail on the contents thereof, which is absolutely enshrined under the first amendment. how assange is qualitatively different from woodward and bernstein legally is impossible for me to discern.

you can get haughty about the fact that assange isn't a "real" journalist (and i would agree), but the fact remains that in america, any revelation IS allowed, if the person making it is a journalist. and since assange didn't steal the documents himself, nor pay for them, nor directly solicit them (we assume), and instead merely received them and them public, he is a de facto journalist.

MAKE them public

thank you for your consistently otm work in this thread, gbx.

yeah u been killin it dude

doesnt britain enjoy a free press too

making available the documents themselves is, again, in a legal sense, virtually identical to reporting in detail on the contents thereof, which is absolutely enshrined under the first amendment

this isnt true under copyright law fwiw

which isnt to say that its not true here. just that "the law" has been willing make the distinction in the past.

fair use etc

also, w/r/t yr snide reference to the NHS and health documents, and the protection of privacy: i should point out that, again, here in america, making someone's health information public is not illegal; tabloids do it all the time. the only ppl that are required to abide by HIPAA are practicing health professionals; not sure what the situation is in england. if the average joe finds out that an elected official has a heart condition, or that their neighbor had a sex change operation, they are allowed to tell whoever the fuck they want. that's just how it goes. (NB - unless of course they acquired that information by theft/surveillance/etc). moreover, that's how it ~should~ go, for reasons that ought to be clear to a rational person ("___ is allergic to shellfish," "___ just got out of chemo, fyi, and isn't feeling well enough to eat spicy food," etc). should doctors be able to go blabbing about people? no, of course not.

xp good point, max. but copyright law is sort of an exception that proves the rule, no?

doesnt britain enjoy a free press too

― max, Monday, December 6, 2010 7:28 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

compared to most of the world, of course. but, eg, their libel/defamation laws are o_O iirc

did u know that in that saying "prove" is being used as a synonym for "test" cf "proving ground"? tmyk

which isnt to say that its not true here. just that "the law" has been willing make the distinction in the past.

― max, Monday, December 6, 2010 7:29 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

and it would appear that some of our legislators are willing to make new and interesting distinctions in the future. however, i'm really not sure how they could parse out what sorta govt stuff is ok to reveal and what sorta stuff is a no-no w/o totally running roughshod over the role of the fourth estate as a check, you know? can they only reveal govt action that's illegal under US law? what about under treaties (which are, iirc, technically US law)? stuff that isn't embarrassing?

i mean, i'm willing to say that shakey and history mayne are right in that the govt needs to operate in secret some or even much of the time, but letting it dictate when and how journalists (even "fake" ones like assange) blow its cover sorta undermines the entire idea of a free press. full stop.

makes u feel like the entire project of liberal democracy is inherently corrupt huh

no?

boom

oh

im just f-ing with you anyway, this is why the judicial system is a whole separate branch of govt--let them sort out the exec branch messes

i think what's important to remember here is how security classifications even work. and i'm spitballing from anecdotal evidence (i have a friend with secret clearance, oh noes!), but basically being culpable (LEGALLY) for the revelation of state secrets in the public domain (vs say selling them to the russians) is something you buy into. you fucking sign up for it. which is why manning is going up the river---he was in the army, that's how it works.

on the other hand, if i'm walking down the street, as a civilian who does not work for the govt, and accidentally come across an envelope marked Top Secret that fell out of dick cheney's briefcase, and the contents are "wmd? lol j/k," i am can take that document to a journalist or transform into a journalist myself and, ideally, do so without fear of punitive action from the govt. again, that's how it works. even if the contents were "our troops are here, don't tell anyone or else they die," i'm STILL free to do that. i'd be a dickhead, but again, that's how it works.

I've done a 180-degree on WikiLeaks, in part, I gotta confess, because the Beltway media is so united in opposition.

on the other hand, if i'm walking down the street, as a civilian who does not work for the govt, and accidentally come across an envelope marked Top Secret that fell out of dick cheney's briefcase, and the contents are "wmd? lol j/k," i am can take that document to a journalist or transform into a journalist myself and, ideally, do so without fear of punitive action from the govt. again, that's how it works.

Yeah. See Justice Brennan in the Pentagon Papers decision (i.e. the Founders had precisely these scenarios in mind when writing the First Amendment, including having Alex Hamilton saying "lol jk").

so when history mang makes strawmen out of health records, and when CNN gets hand-wringy about lists of vulnerable sites, you gotta keep in mind that some people willingly gave up the right to certain speech acts when they became keepers of sensitive information. manning was one of them. assange was not. the gulf between the two, and the tension it creates*, is one of the tricky parts about having a liberal democracy, but one i'm totally happy to live with.

*can a gulf create tension....sure, if its the persian gulf! i'll be here all night, tip yr waitress

xps

Hard to believe I side with FOX's Judge Napolitano:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO4NVoBYQ_M

is his first name Judge, or is he just a judge

Judge Reinhold Napolitano

I've done a 180-degree on WikiLeaks, in part, I gotta confess, because the Beltway media is so united in opposition.

― look at it, pwn3d, made u look at my peen/vadge (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, December 6, 2010 7:51 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, i feel like i've talked myself into being their #1 fan in the course of the last few days on this thread---a week ago i was pretty squarely on the fence. anyway napolitano otm.

i think what's important to remember here is how security classifications even work. and i'm spitballing from anecdotal evidence (i have a friend with secret clearance, oh noes!), but basically being culpable (LEGALLY) for the revelation of state secrets in the public domain (vs say selling them to the russians) is something you buy into. you fucking sign up for it. which is why manning is going up the river---he was in the army, that's how it works.

If my experience working for the foreign office means much, this is esentially correct - at least it is so in Australia, and I dont imagine it's much different in the US.

The shit you go thru to even have access to "eyes only" and classified stuff is INSANE.

(I'm not prepared to talk much about what I used to do on public record tho, I'm not comfy with the idea)

haha, yeah, trayce, i think a take home lesson here is "DONT DO IT"

Yeah basically!

No one -- anywhere? -- has said Pvt. Manning shouldn't be prosecuted, right?

where is TOMBOT :(

xp nope, alfred, i don't think so. i certainly haven't.

not that i'm aware of. i'm certainly rooting for the defense, tho

Soto: no, I dont think they have, but the question lies with what Assange is culpable of.

And when my PM can't answer the simple(is) question "what law has he broken?" then it's more than a little embarrasing.

I personally am more on WL's side, but in no way in a cult of personality sense.

...except in the fact I think Assange is as hot as fuck, but I've thought that for a long time and I know it's totally WSoS.

Would SwallOw Semen?

o_0

would smash of shame.

lol

iirc most ppl are at least in agreement in a sorta vague way w/r/t the first amendment protections/espionage charges against assange (but not manning)? adam bruneau felt very strongly about some stuff, balls showed up looking for ron paul stans to clown, shakey shook his damn head at assange but didn't really stake out a claim one way or another on whether or not anything should happen to him, history mayne did his routine about how the public should just trust the govt and not ask too many questions, icey dared to dream of a glorious revolution, and max was pithy and funny

i posted waaaaaay too much and bought a ron paul 2012 campaign button

Trayce wanted to smh Assange, I was legalistic, gbx patient.

in other words: we revered to type as usual

glad that pity and funny is my type