US Claims Wikileaks Is Breaking The Law

reply to post by wcitizen

But that is the point. This kind of case came up one time before, during the Nixon adminstration, where a person aquired and released classified documents to the press directly. The government sued the New York Times, and it got argued all of the way up to the Supreme Court. The decision there was a blow to the US federal government, stating it could not punish the New York times, as it would violate the freedom of speech and of the press. It was further stated, that the only person or persons who it could go after and prosicute was the person who took the papers in the first place. That is a standing decision and one that is valid. The only people that the US federal government are those that supplied the original documents to Wikileaks and only those people.

Originally posted by bussoboy
reply to post by acrux

 

Think of this as a dot - I get the impression from the US goverment statement that they seem to be implying that they should be able to grab any person from any country in the world if they want them because they have broken a United States law.

They already do, but they just kidnap the instead in some cases.

articles.latimes.com...

Judge in Italy convicts 23 Americans in 2003 CIA kidnapping of Egyptian cleric

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by wcitizen

 

But that is the point. This kind of case came up one time before, during the Nixon adminstration, where a person aquired and released classified documents to the press directly. The government sued the New York Times, and it got argued all of the way up to the Supreme Court. The decision there was a blow to the US federal government, stating it could not punish the New York times, as it would violate the freedom of speech and of the press. It was further stated, that the only person or persons who it could go after and prosicute was the person who took the papers in the first place. That is a standing decision and one that is valid. The only people that the US federal government are those that supplied the original documents to Wikileaks and only those people.

Yes, that's the point as far as the US is concerned, so the NYT is protected.

second

reply to post by wcitizen


And as far as the US supreme court is concerned, so is Wikileaks.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by wcitizen

 

And as far as the US supreme court is concerned, so is Wikileaks.

Right, I hadn't grasped that was the point you were making. I see your point, even though Wikileaks wouldn't be affected by US legislation, because it's not a US organisation, the government is still wrong in saying they are breaking the law. Thanks for clarifying that.

Of course they are breaking the law. You think it's kosher to release secret documents? What if I published your banking data and your contact info and the school your kids go to and transcripts of your bedroom conversations with your wife/husband? Would that be OK with you?

Any nation would see this as a violation. There are treaties that forbid these acts amongst nations. If you like wikileaks, great. If you don't, great.. either way they are breaking national and international law and what they are doing would amount to a declaration of war if a nation did it.

Originally posted by Fiberx
Of course they are breaking the law. You think it's kosher to release secret documents? What if I published your banking data and your contact info and the school your kids go to and transcripts of your bedroom conversations with your wife/husband? Would that be OK with you?

Any nation would see this as a violation. There are treaties that forbid these acts amongst nations. If you like wikileaks, great. If you don't, great.. either way they are breaking national and international law and what they are doing would amount to a declaration of war if a nation did it.

There's a huge difference between someone publishing my private banking data, my contact info, etc. I am NOT a public servant, employed by the public, paid by the public to act in their best inerests. Wikileaks is NOT exposing private personal conversations between family members. They are exposing conversatons made by public officials, as part of their work, who are supposed to be acting in the absolute best interests of the people of the country they represent, and who are supposed to act with the utmost integrity.

My calling the President a criminal in my private bedroom coversation with my spouse does NOT harm the people of my country. If my country's representatives are lying to the country, or are deliberately acting AGAINST their best interests, then that is a crime which should be exposed.

It is ridiculous to compare the two.

Re your point about treaties that forbid Israel from building settlements in Palestine, there are treaties expressly and explicitly forbidding torture ------- but the same people you are defending break all such treaties without a second of remorse.

Is this even a reference to assange and wikileak as people are purporting? the original document has it as such "As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action.. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing."

(with that part underlined) Doesn't this seem to mean manning or assange? manning is accused of providing the material. not assange. am i reading this entirely wrong? because i can't seem to read it *ANY* other way and everyone seems to be reading it as threat on wikileak when it seems to be more of a threat on manning to me.

Killing millions of innocent does'nt?