Wikileaks Opinions?

[sanctus]

Just curious what people here think about it (votes should not be public, if I got the settings right ;-)). And am surprised that it did not come up yet...

 

Anyway, I don't see a reason why a honest government should be against it? I mean names are deleted so where is the problem? If you got something to hide, my question is why? :-) I like austraslia's foreign minister position on it:bbcnews

[Tormod]

I also think it's a good thing that this information has exposed. I think that it's really strange to see how the US acts in this case. :blink:

[C1ay]

I completely support free speech. Organizations like Wikileaks should be free to publish any truthful information they have.

 

OTOH, a citizen that steals state secrets and reveals them with the intent of causing harm to his/her country by aiding its enemies is a traitor.

[modest]

And am surprised that it did not come up yet...

 

Me too. Interesting topic.

 

I mean names are deleted so where is the problem?

 

I think it is a small problem that names were made public. The Times of London, for example, said they found hundreds of names and the locations of Afghan informants in the documents without too much searching. Other news agencies said they found dozens, and a Taliban spokesmen said that they will act on the information punishing the informants which usually means beheading them and/or their family. So, it's reasonable to assume that at least a few Afghan civilians will die because of the leaked documents.

 

But, I don't think this necessarily makes the leaks a bad thing. It is good to keep countries in the light of day—keeping them honest. It takes a well-informed public to elect a good government, and whistleblowers no doubt help in that regard. Don't get me wrong, I do honestly feel bad for the victims of reprisals and their families, but I think, like Assange said, there is a greater good.

 

As far as the legality, I don't think wikileaks broke any U.S. laws. Publishing secret information is not illegal as the U.S. has no official secrets act. Looking at wikipedia... I guess it would be illegal in the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, of course China, and some other countries, but I would be opposed to that type of law. It could too easily be used as a political tool of censorship. Like they say, "He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both."

 

~modest

[Jay-qu]

Just curious what people here think about it

I support what wikileaks are doing and think that a high level of disclosure is a good thing.

 

I like [Australia's] foreign minister position on it:bbcnews

 

This is the smartest thing our ex-prime minister has said.

 

I have been following the whole Wikileaks coverage with interest, as the reactions of governments and organisations in this situation really defines them. You see which companies bend to their governments, for no reason and again get to see my prime minister blindly echo the US stance. The hypocrisy is astounding, my favourite example: Amazon.

 

It is also very fun to see groups like Anonymous take down sites of companies that won't support Wikileaks :P

[Mercedes Benzene]

I'm all for free speech, but that's not the issue at hand here. I am 100% against Wikileaks. The information released is *classified*. There's no question about that. If it was public record, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the fact is this information was not intended to be seen by the public. It shouldn't matter whether the release of these documents is good, bad, or inconsequential for people's lives or American politics. The fact that the government doesn't want it to be public information should be respected.

 

If anyone in the US has a proven relationship to the release of these documents, they should be charged with sedition and executed.

 

This doesn't send a message of free speech. In fact, it's the opposite. It sends a message of inflammation and disrespect.

[modest]

I have been following the whole Wikileaks coverage with interest, as the reactions of governments and organisations in this situation really defines them. You see which companies bend to their governments, for no reason and again get to see my prime minister blindly echo the US stance. The hypocrisy is astounding, my favourite example: Amazon.

 

It is also very fun to see groups like Anonymous take down sites of companies that won't support Wikileaks :P

 

Echoing the US?...

 

March 17, 2009

 

WikiLeaks on Thursday exposed a secret blacklist of web pages the Australian government reportedly is considering permanently filtering from the internet.

 

The list of some 2,395 web pages, the authenticity of which the Australian authorities dispute, includes the usual suspects of sites pertaining to child pornography, extreme violence and even bestiality. But not all the sites are offensive, and include links to rank-and-file pornography, YouTube videos, poker sites, WikiLeaks entries and even URLs to a Queensland dentist and dog-boarding kennel.

 

"History shows that secret censorship systems, whatever their original intent, are invariably corrupted into anti-democratic behavior," WikiLeaks said in a statement. "This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring WikiLeaks."...

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/wikileaks-expos/

I'm all for free speech, but that's not the issue at hand here. I am 100% against Wikileaks. The information released is *classified*. There's no question about that. If it was public record, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the fact is this information was not intended to be seen by the public. It shouldn't matter whether the release of these documents is good, bad, or inconsequential for people's lives or American politics. The fact that the government doesn't want it to be public information should be respected.

 

If anyone in the US has a proven relationship to the release of these documents, they should be charged with sedition and executed.

 

This doesn't send a message of free speech. In fact, it's the opposite. It sends a message of inflammation and disrespect.

 

I agree that it is inflammatory and disrespectful, but so were Woodward and Bernstein disrespectful of the Nixon administration, and they published top secret information.

 

The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that takes freedom of speech seriously enough to let journalists say disrespectful, inflammatory, and hateful things—even when they are secret or potentially damaging to the government. I don't think that should be jeopardized.

 

I mean... thinking of examples... China rounds up internet reporters by the handful jailing them for "attacking the communist party in print" and Russia sweetens the tea of its unpatriotic journalists with radioactive polonium. I remember reading during the Danish cartoon controversy that it is illegal in Denmark to print anything blasphemous. You can't make fun of religion! If the U.S. were to act drastically over the wikileaks thing—making it illegal to publish state secrets or acting to punish those who did—then it would lose some of its ability to speak against those things. It would put in jeopardy its status as an example to the rest of the world for free speech and against censorship.

 

I'd be very much against that.

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...

They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

 

 

 

[C1ay]

I'm all for free speech, but that's not the issue at hand here. I am 100% against Wikileaks. The information released is *classified*. There's no question about that. If it was public record, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the fact is this information was not intended to be seen by the public.

 

That doesn't make Wikileaks publication wrong though. It was wrong for the information to be stolen and passed on. The onus for that is on the thief, not Wikileaks. BTW, just because some information is classified doesn't mean it should be. Corrupt officials will classify information to cover their *** by hiding it and that information does need to be made public.

[Mercedes Benzene]

That doesn't make Wikileaks publication wrong though. It was wrong for the information to be stolen and passed on. The onus for that is on the thief, not Wikileaks. BTW, just because some information is classified doesn't mean it should be. Corrupt officials will classify information to cover their *** by hiding it and that information does need to be made public.

 

Even if Wikileaks isn't the one *doing* the theft, it's still publicly disclosing classified material... which is wrong.

 

And I'm not saying that all classified material should be classified material, but that's not up for us to decide. The government has very right to classify what it wants, and we should not have any say in the matter. It's just like USPS. Anything that we put in the mail becomes federal "property." It is unlawful for anyone (but the intended recipient) to tamper with material that is sent through the postal system. In essence, this becomes "classified" material. Regardless of whether or not this material *should* be classified is a moot point. The rules are there.

[Jay-qu]

I see where you are coming from MB, but I still disagree. The government are ordinary people just like us, they don't deserve any sort of special treatment, we (by majority) choose them for the job and we can remove that job from them. They are making decisions for all of us and I don't see why they should be allowed to hide any reasoning for the decisions and/or actions they make/take.

 

Echoing the US?...

 

I just mean Guillard was quick to say Wikileaks actions were illegal and dangerous, like I had heard Hillary Clinton say.

[Mercedes Benzene]

...we (by majority) choose them for the job and we can remove that job from them. They are making decisions for all of us and I don't see why they should be allowed to hide any reasoning for the decisions and/or actions they make/take.

 

Exactly. We elect them because we have faith that they will act in our best interests. If that means hiding information, whose publicity has the potential to hurt us, then they should certainly have that responsibility.

 

How would you feel if your credit card information was leaked to the public? Your medical records, revealing that you have HIV? A text conversation that shows that you're talking behind your best friend's back? Or that your significant-other is cheating on you?

[Donk]

And I'm not saying that all classified material should be classified material, but that's not up for us to decide. The government has very right to classify what it wants, and we should not have any say in the matter. It's just like USPS. Anything that we put in the mail becomes federal "property." It is unlawful for anyone (but the intended recipient) to tamper with material that is sent through the postal system. In essence, this becomes "classified" material. Regardless of whether or not this material *should* be classified is a moot point. The rules are there.

Yes, the rules are there, and they are being disobeyed. They aren't there to enable the government to cover up criminal activity, or to hide embarrassing stuff from public gaze. It's illegal to do so.

 

Read these two links:

 

This one from the New York Times, this one from Associated Press

 

Notice the difference? The Associated Press version says:

U.S. officials have never publicly commented on the case, but diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks website show that diplomats in Germany and Macedonia were at pains to keep the case out of the news and the court.

 

In a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia, dated Feb. 6, 2006, then-Prime Minister Vlado Buckovski is cited as promising the U.S. ambassador he would continue to refuse local press requests to discuss the el-Masri case.

 

Buckovski goes on to ask if the ambassador could speak to his German counterpart, "suggesting that the Germans were putting pressure on the Macedonians to be more forthcoming," according to the cable, which says the ambassador refused.

 

Another cable originating from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin in 2007 cites the deputy chief of mission, John M. Koenig, as telling the German deputy national security adviser that issuing warrants for the agents "would have a negative impact on our bilateral relationship."

The NYT version simply says "He says", "he alleges"... with no mention of the leaked cables which confirm the story and show the behind-the-scenes coverup. Do you think the US government has the right to decide "yes, we screwed up, but we aren't going to admit it. We'll keep it under wraps and flush an innocent man down the toilet."

 

Or do you think that

• It was right to publicise the coverup;
  
• The CIA operatives, and their superiors who ordered the operation, should be put in the dock;
  
• El-Masri should get an apology and substantial compensation; and
  
• Whoever ordered the coverup should be brought to justice as well.

[C1ay]

Even if Wikileaks isn't the one *doing* the theft, it's still publicly disclosing classified material... which is wrong.

 

OK, you think it is wrong for a foreign citizen to publish U.S. information it has obtained, that the government wants kept from its people. Is it OK for the U.S. government to do the same thing with Cuba and North Korea via Radio Marti and Radio Pyongyang? You might argue that the information broadcasted in those efforts is not classified but then I would have to ask whose opinion you are going by, the U.S. government or the governments of those nations?

[modest]

Even if Wikileaks isn't the one *doing* the theft, it's still publicly disclosing classified material... which is wrong.

 

It isn't illegal in the US, and it is sometimes the morally right thing to do like with watergate or the pentagon papers.

 

The government has very right to classify what it wants

 

I agree. In the ordinary course of governing it is necessary to keep things secret.

 

~modest

[CraigD]

What would a “US v. Wikileaks” court case actually look like?

The information released is *classified*. There's no question about that. If it was public record, then it wouldn't be a problem, but the fact is this information was not intended to be seen by the public. It shouldn't matter whether the release of these documents is good, bad, or inconsequential for people's lives or American politics. The fact that the government doesn't want it to be public information should be respected.

 

If anyone in the US has a proven relationship to the release of these documents, they should be charged with sedition and executed.

From this and subsequent posts in this thread, MB, I gather that you believe that the wishes of officers and employees of the US government authorized to classify documents should be respected by all people, and enforced upon US citizens by penalty of criminal law.

 

This makes sense, as the US is a representational democratic republic. In general, US citizens must, under penalty of law, obey the officials we elect, via the exercise of their lawful privileges, such as the passing of laws by the US and state legislatures, the adjudication of them by the judiciaries, and the enforcements of them by the executive branches. Our most obvious remedy for laws and government actions with which we disagree is to elect different officials.

 

However, despite this logic, this position isn’t the established law. For the US government to restrain the publishing of something in the US, it must “meet a heavy burden” justifying this action in a US court. Although each instance of material to be restrained must be decided via a separate legal action, and thus prior court decisions in favor of the publisher are no guarantee of future decisions in their favor, 1971’s SCOTUS decision New York Times Co. v. United States set strong precedent that the government's “heavy burden” justifying restraining publishers must be specific and compelling.

 

The US has brought no such court case against Wikileaks. Although this may be because they have not had sufficient time to make such a case, I think it more likely that attorneys for the US government have decided that such a case can’t be successfully made.

 

I find it interesting to consider, if such a case were brought – let’s call this hypothetical case “US v. Wikileaks”, against whom it would be brought. In 1971, it was clear that the New York Times and Washington Post, US companies physically printing papers in the US, were delivering the material (the “Pentagon Papers”) that the US government sought to restrain. In the present day Wikileaks cases, no such clear single deliverer of the content can be established. Consider, for example, if a US print publisher were to seek to print the contents of wikileaks.org. The US government would seek to restrain this “end publisher”, not the provider of the documents, wikileaks, or a first hand leak source.

 

With long-distance electronic, rather than print publishing, the equivalent of a print publisher is a prospective reader’s internet service provider (Verizon, Comcast, T-mobile, Hughnet, and thousands of smaller companies). So, were the US government to follow the precedent of previous court actionws

 

The idea of requiring ISPs to block access to websites and other networked resources, however, is strongly anathema to the “information wants to be free” principles of the internet. It’s also technically difficult.

 

This doesn't send a message of free speech. In fact, it's the opposite. It sends a message of inflammation and disrespect.

There is no requirement in the US that protected speech be non-inflammatory and respectful. Inflamed, disrespectful speech is not the opposite of free speech.

[Boerseun]

What amazes me is the level of classification the US applies to what appears (to me, at least) to be no more than total and utter bullshit. "Highly Classified" is the leaked fact that the US ambassador thinks that Bob Mugabe is "the Devil", and the Morgan Tsvangirai is "spineless". I mean, come on. Why do you have to classify the obvious?

 

Why classify the fact that the US ambassador in the UK thinks that Prince Andrew is rude, cocky, unmannered and uncouth? Why be pissed off at Wikileaks (or the US ambassador for saying it, for that matter)? Won't the indignation aimed at the US be better aimed at upping Prince Andrew's social skills?

 

And the US thinking that Kim Jong Il is a fruitcake? Come on! Show me one single person in the entire world who's shocked at that particular revelation. Kim Jong Il included.