It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
He isn't a criminal in any sense when it comes to whistleblowing. That's just pure BS on your post.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
You state it as a fact that he is a criminal. Show me where he is charged and convicted? He did not steal or illegally obtain classified information. Wikileaks only publishes the leaks. Not to mention that whistleblowing is legally protected.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
You state it as a fact that he is a criminal. Show me where he is charged and convicted? He did not steal or illegally obtain classified information. Wikileaks only publishes the leaks. Not to mention that whistleblowing is legally protected.
Meaning if MR. Assange wanted to claim whiteblower status, he is required to submit his information to the US Federal Government. Instead, he printed the information and released it to the public with absolutely no intention of using the whistel blower statutes.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
So where are those charges you keep talking about? Also whistleblower protection extents to media too. It doesn't say you have to submit your info to US government. Also wikileaks isn't US only exclusive site that only publishes US leaked documents in 'vendetta' against the government. Besides that whole line about taliban going after people named in the documents, you got any source for that?
Definition
Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it.[2] There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality.[3]
External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward.[4]
Under most U.S. federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower, the federal employee must have reason to believe his or her employer has violated some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.
In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, U.S. courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.[5] However, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) held that the First Amendment free speech guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
The possession and release of classified information is a Felony in this country. He illegaly obtained classfiied information from a person who was not authorized to have it. He is a criminal for possessing, and then releasing the information.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
Assagne and Wikileaks is not whistleblowers. They are media and the whistleblower is the guy who already is in jail. Wrongfully I might add. There is no charges and never will be. If they could press charges they would've done so already long ago.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
Assagne and Wikileaks is not whistleblowers. They are media and the whistleblower is the guy who already is in jail. Wrongfully I might add. There is no charges and never will be. If they could press charges they would've done so already long ago.
Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.
The violence may just be beginning. According to Agha Lali, the deputy head of Kandahar’s provincial council, threatening letters have been delivered to 70 elders in Panjwaii district.
Taliban deals harshly with those it suspects of working against it: the ruthless guerrillas have assassinated scores, if not hundreds, of tribal elders and Afghans of all ages for their alleged cooperation with the coalition. In one particularly gruesome case a few months ago, according to the intelligence officer, the Taliban discovered that a group of recent high-school graduates in Ghazni province had been feeding information to the Americans. The youths were arrested, and around 10 of them were hanged. The Taliban is also shutting down cell-phone networks after dark in an effort to prevent villagers from alerting coalition forces to the insurgents’ locations.
Lamo, who currently works as a journalist and security expert, says that the situation was anything but ordinary. He states, "People confess federal crimes to me every day and I don't turn them in. But those cases didn't have this kind of national security risk."
He says that Manning's initial leaks might have been justified. He says, "Certainly, releasing the gun cam footage would have been something I would have done in his place."
This discharge was in no way related to his leaking activities, but Lamo did not wish to divulge the reason, out of respect for Manning's family.
He says that Manning basically was "disillusioned with the system, had internet access, and saw a solution that was far easier" than pursuing channels within the government.
Lamo says the point where Manning crossed the line was when he leaked the diplomatic cables. According to Lamo, "He described them as not particularly damning, but he just wanted to release it regardless. He talked about creating chaos in the U.S. foreign policy."
As much as Lamo says he hates the abuse and overuse of the word "nation security", he says that the leak constituted a real threat. He points out that the diplomatic cable contained conversations that would likely be taken out of context, much like what would happen if your full email record was leaked and all your friends, family, and coworkers found out what you were really saying about them. Lamo states, "On a scale of nations [the creation of] a hostile environment can cost lives."
Lamo says he has repeatedly likened Manning's activities to "a kid playing with a rifle, shooting shells in the air", commenting "sooner or later someone is going to get hurt"