Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Qmarx]

Both have been made of course, just not here.
Although I daresay, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/students-warned-read-wikileaks-government-job/, they will sorta come for you if you dare read wikileak and seek a job at the gov.

That's an overly sensationalized version of it.

An alum completely uninvolved in getting security clearances (who happens to have a security clearance himself), gives the advice that "hey, guys, if you want to get a security clearance, don't distribute classified documents to the general public.  It's that sort of stupid shit that makes you fail a background check"

[Aqizzar]

Warning - while you were typing 8 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Something to consider, Assanged turned himself in to the British police.  He wasn't nabbed or tracked down or anything, he walked into Scotland Yard and put his hands up (or he was taken to Scotland Yard, no two sources tell the situation exactly the same).  He was wanted for four charges of sexual crimes in Sweden, not anything related to Wikileaks.  For that, Interpol and the European Union's policing system launched an international mission to find, arrest, and extradite him - certainly rape and so forth are serious criminal charges, but this was the kind of effort usually reserved for Serbian warlords.  Make no mistake, he is being held and prosecuted for those allegations of sexual crimes, but he is publicly on trial for being an enemy of the American government.  And I have no doubt that real charges of some kind will manifest the day he steps back onto Swedish soil in handcuffs.

I hold no particular love of Wikileaks itself or respect for Assange.  But in full disclosure, I do support their mission statement; I believe as a person, that there should be no such thing as state secrets.  Private, individual secrets certainly, but the state's business is everyone's business.  If you as the government don't want something found out, then keep a good lid on it, but I do honestly believe that governments should have no legal recourse against internal information made public.

And to a certain extent, they don't themselves.  The New York Times isn't wanted for prosecution for republishing the material from Wikileaks.  Nobody has even really talked about prosecuting the republishing of the information; the attitude seems to be, once it's out it's out, and there's no stopping it.  I take a bit of heart in that, since trying to put the info-genie back in the bottle is a much more genuine sign of "oppression" than than prosecuting the original perpetrators.  But therein lay the legal quandary, it's apparently not a crime, in the sense that you won't be charged, to talk about stuff that was secret and is still supposed to be, so long as you're not part of the direct line by which it became public.  The real question is, who on that chain from secret to public is really at legal fault?  If you want to feel all self-righteous about Assange's situation, here's a lengthy blog with a lot of quotes.  I don't agree with it per se, but it was a good read.

And yeah, it is definitely unconstitutional to make up a new law or statute after the fact and then retroactively prosecute someone.  It's even more unconstitutional to make up legal proceeding for the specific purpose of prosecuting a single person.  Having already watched my government do both of those things, to victims of the court of public opinion ranging from terror suspects and ACORN in the past few years, I have no particular hope of Assange either escaping an American trial or getting anything like a fair one.  Not for a long time anyway.

[Qmarx]

I believe as a person, that there should be no such thing as state secrets.  Private, individual secrets certainly, but the state's business is everyone's business.  If you as the government don't want something found out, then keep a good lid on it, but I do honestly believe that governments should have no legal recourse against internal information made public.

So you think that the names of all a country's spies should be public?  The nuclear passcodes?  Undercover cops?  The exact minutes of a meeting where France and Germany talk about how they really feel about England?

[Phmcw]

And now he's being prosecuted, and arrested by interpol, for "surprise sex". Just go and see what the charges are, it's hilarious.

"The story appears to proceed as follows: Miss A, having invited Assange to speak to a leftwing campaign group in the town of Enkoping, suggested he stay in her flat, although the two had not met. Both agree that they slept together on the night before the event, during which the condom split.

The following day, the woman attended and helped facilitate the event, at which Miss W was also present. According to her police interview, Miss W accompanied the Australian and some male guests to lunch at which he flirted with her; afterwards the pair went to the cinema, where she told police she had performed oral sex on him. They slept together that night, using a condom, and again the following morning, when both parties appear to agree that a condom was not used, after which Assange left.

What happened next will be the subject of any legal process, but according to her testimony Miss W, for some reason, got in touch with Miss A (they did not previously know each other); some days later the two went to a Stockholm police station where they said they were "seeking advice" on making a complaint against Assange. Miss A is understood to have told police that he had ripped the condom on purpose, while Miss W said the unprotected sex act had been without her consent. They were reportedly advised by the police officer that these allegations amounted to rape against Miss W and sexual molestation against Miss A."

That man, is obviously a deranged serial rapist, interpol is clearly not enough! Let's combine all army in the word to hunt down this deviant!!!!
(what are those "leaks" you're talking about? Are you reffering to the fact his condom broke?)

[Leafsnail]

Okay yea I get your point. Still only a matter of time before wikileaks does something really stupid.

Seems kindof unfair.  "It's only a matter of time before this guy commits a crime of some sort.  We should lock him up preemptively".

Code: [Select]

Activating Devil's Advocate mode...Activated.
What has this last leak done for "censored and silenced" people?  Who is oppressed that this leak has brought to light?  I don't see any disagreement here.

The diplomacy thing does seem like it could've been kindof dangerous... secret pacts and agreements is part of the reason that WW1 escalated so quickly.  It's really better if you know what your neighbours think of you.


And yes, Assange is actually wanted on suspicion of crimes irrelevant to Wikileaks.  I've read the reports, and they seem to stem from the fact that he is a womanizing bastard.

On a lighter note:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/03/u-s-congressman-calls-for-execution-of-wikileaks-whistleblower/

[Aqizzar]

I believe as a person, that there should be no such thing as state secrets.  Private, individual secrets certainly, but the state's business is everyone's business.  If you as the government don't want something found out, then keep a good lid on it, but I do honestly believe that governments should have no legal recourse against internal information made public.

So you think that the names of all a country's spies should be public?  The nuclear passcodes?  Undercover cops?  The exact minutes of a meeting where France and Germany talk about how they really feel about England?

Thank you for not reading.  I didn't say governments shouldn't try to keeps things a secret.  Y'know, the old fashioned way, by only telling things to people you can trust the information with, and keeping your paperwork in places other people can't get it.  Put up walls around the missile launching computers and stuff.  I'm just saying, that once something is made public, the government's response should be "how can we do a better job of it not getting out", and not "how can we destroy the person who did it".

Stealing information from a government archive?  Yeah, that's a serious crime, because you broke into the archive and stole stuff.  Telling something you were trusted with?  Don't expect to ever be told anything again, and your boss should find better people to trust.  And hey, if you told it to an enemy spy, that's abetting the enemy.  But telling it to a reporter, no.

[olemars]

That infrastructure list is overhyped. It's an unprioritized, mostly unspecified jumble of stuff countries produce that the US imports (and probably lack domestically) and some pipelines and communications cables that everyone knows about. It's also full of errors, like the non-existent cobalt mine in norway it mentions.

What the cable really reveals is serious laziness in the state department, which I hope someone there also have noticed. If this list is sensitive in any way, should you paste it fully in one big dispatch and send it to every embassy, consulate and diplomatic mission?

For that, Interpol and the European Union's policing system launched an international mission to find, arrest, and extradite him - certainly rape and so forth are serious criminal charges, but this was the kind of effort usually reserved for Serbian warlords.

I checked the interpol website news archive. Assange is the only wanted notice they've explicitly posted on their front page this year.

[smjjames]

I believe as a person, that there should be no such thing as state secrets.  Private, individual secrets certainly, but the state's business is everyone's business.  If you as the government don't want something found out, then keep a good lid on it, but I do honestly believe that governments should have no legal recourse against internal information made public.

So you think that the names of all a country's spies should be public?  The nuclear passcodes?  Undercover cops?  The exact minutes of a meeting where France and Germany talk about how they really feel about England?

Exactly, there are some things that need to be secret, like military secrets that you don't want to fall into the enemies hands. Except for the part about France and Germany since England and France have loved to hate each other for a very long time. They don't actually hate each other now, but the relationship is still sortof there.

[Phmcw]

Those link haven't killed anyone. And won't kill anyone, because they took advice from the best newspapers before releasing them.
There is chances that the secret file is the non expunged version of the leaks, and that may be why Assange is still alive. 

[kuro_suna]

He was wanted for four charges of sexual crimes in Sweden, not anything related to Wikileaks.

This is very difficult to believe since he has already had charges laid and dropped due to lack of evidence then resurrected just as the recent leak started.

[Leafsnail]

Hmm... Roman Polanski was wanted for much more serious crimes, wasn't he?

This is very difficult to believe since he has already had charges laid and dropped due to lack of evidence then resurrected just as the recent leak started.

Since it's true, I find it quite easy to believe.

[Aqizzar]

He was wanted for four charges of sexual crimes in Sweden, not anything related to Wikileaks.

This is very difficult to believe since he has already had charges laid and dropped due to lack of evidence then resurrected just as the recent leak started.

I honestly wouldn't know.  I'm just saying that he's currently in jail and before a judge for nothing related to Wikileaks.

Those link haven't killed anyone. And won't kill anyone, because they took advice from the best newspapers before releasing them.
There is chances that the secret file is the non expunged version of the leaks, and that may be why Assange is still alive. 

Not to mention, virtually nothing in those "leaks" was all that secret in the first place.  "Secret" American facilities around the world are known to thousands of people and visible on Google Earth, the materials can be put together by anyone with some shipping know-how.  The only stuff that was really all that secret was the diplomatic cables, what diplomats think about each other, and most importantly the vast gulfs of differences between what some Middle Eastern governments espouse and how they talk in public.  In that sense, I think Assange has a lot more to fear from Saudi Arabian spies than he does from the U.S., as far as his neck is concerned.

Something to consider: With the massive explosion since September 11 in America of "secret" activity, the "secret" label being applied to virtually all government documents, and the massive farming out of intelligence analysis to private contractors, it's estimated that about 2.5 to 3 million Americans actually have access to some form of "Secret"-classified material.  It's astounding this kind of stuff doesn't happen every day.

[smjjames]

Still, some of the diplomatic cable stuff were things that were already known or suspected. The one related to the Italian PM likely didn't have an effect or added to the trouble he is already in, the one about the english royal may just say more about that particular royals lack of diplomatic skills than anything.

Also, the diplomatic stuff in the Middle east shows good restraint on the part of the US in the face of the arab nations urging more action (most likely military action) on Iran.

[Leafsnail]

the one about the english royal may just say more about that particular royals lack of diplomatic skills than anything.

Inbred moron is bad at diplomacy??  Hold the front page!

Also, the diplomatic stuff in the Middle east shows good restraint on the part of the US in the face of the arab nations urging more action (most likely military action) on Iran.

Yeah, most of the cables actually reflect quite while on the US.

[smjjames]

the one about the english royal may just say more about that particular royals lack of diplomatic skills than anything.

Inbred moron is bad at diplomacy??  Hold the front page!

IMO it also reflects American attitudes (or at least that particular diplomat) with royals, particularily english ones.