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 Xcathdra
Personally speaking I think Assange should be arrested and charged under the espionage act as well as conspiracy, and the bulk of the people think he is a hero.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly I have explained many times what charges Assange should face, as well as links to websites that discuss potential charges from the US Government as well as the Swedes for his sex charges. For some strange reason you and several other choose to ignore those facts which contradict your viewpoints, including information from Assange himself.
On a more serious note I think some reading material, of top secret or higher caliber, needs to get out to expose the global massive corruption in regards to black projects of the military-industrial complex and the big pharma monopolies in medicine.
I will reiterate - Info is leaked to the Guardian newspaper, and Assange threatens to sue if they release the info. A company played the exact same game Assange did, and Assange gets pissed. The hypocrisy in Assanges actions... is staggering.
Originally posted by aptness
For instance, “charges Assange should face.” Should... according to you. This is your opinion. “Potential charges.” That’s all they are. Assange hasn’t even been charged by the US government, and he hasn’t been convicted of anything, in Sweden or in the United States.
Originally posted by aptness
My viewpoint, as I’ve explained, is that no private citizen is guilty of espionage by passively receiving and freely and publicly publishing classified information of the sort that Wikileaks has. This is my viewpoint. Assange is only relevant to my viewpoint in that he is being accused of something which I do not believe to be a crime.
Originally posted by aptness
Oh, and I’m still waiting on your opinion on why Assange should be charged with espionage, and Dana Priest, The Washington Post, Bob Woodward and The New York Times shouldn’t.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
My opinions and thoughts are just that, and at no point did I pass it off as a matter of fact that he would be charged.
The Supreme Court held that the Governments arguemnt, based solely on embarrasment, did not qualify under prior restraint.
New York Times V. US is the case. Feel free to read it.
There is a difference in the comparison you are trying to make with this question. Assange and wikileaks have received classified information under the guise of whistleblowing. The problem is they stepped outside that box by releasing other information that was not evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
I think any papers who printed the classified info should be held accountible for it, but again thats me (and Ihave stated this many times as well in other posts).
Now, questions for you. Ive noticed that in almost all arguments we have, you shift the conversation back to my personal dislike of Assange while ignoring the info and facrs present.
People do not have an adequate understading of the problems wikileaks is causing
Originally posted by aptness
Well that helps to clear things up. For a moment there it seemed like you were accusing people who don’t agree with your opinion of what should happen to Assange — or as you called it “the facts” — as being ignorant of the facts and blind followers of Assange.
Originally posted by aptness
I’m glad you recognize your side of the argument has a heavy burden to meet.
Originally posted by aptness
Prior restraint? New York Times v. US? Xcathdra we’re not dealing with a prior restraint case. The US didn’t file a restraining order to stop the documents from being published by any media outlet, as far as I’m aware. And in any event, wasn’t the decision of the case 6-3 in favor of the New York Times, and other media outlets, to publish the Pentagon papers?
Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.[3]
Originally posted by aptness
Dana Priest and The Washington Times published Top Secret America, a series of articles detailing the booming of the post-9/11 security apparatus of the United States. In it they published the names and locations of facilities where US agencies and contractors do top secret work, what kind of work they do and in many cases, how much the contractors were paid for that work. And among other things, published the number of people in the US currently with top secret clearances. This wasn’t done with the purpose of informing the public about criminal wrongdoing either.
An online database at TopSecretAmerica.com, as well as the articles to be published, were made available to government officials several months prior to the publications of the report. Each data point at the website was substantiated by at least two public records. The government was requested to advise of any specific concerns, but at that time, none were offered.[2]
Originally posted by aptness
Your distinction based on the claim that it is permissible to publish the information if it’s done with the purposes of whistleblowing doesn’t apply to the examples I asked you to comment on then. But that’s not really surprising since you apparently believe these journalists and their respective newspapers to be criminals:
Originally posted by aptness
Let me ask you a question then: if AboveTopSecret.com hosts the cablegate documents is it too breaking the law? If a member quotes a classified cable on ATS, is AboveTopSecret liable? Is the member liable? Is the other member who reads it and, not having authorization to access the document, liable for not ‘returning’ the documents, as per the language of the espionage act?
Originally posted by aptness
Because that’s what you’ve been doing. I don’t find Assange to be a particularly likable person, but I do not need to like anyone for me to defend what I believe is their fundamental rights.
Originally posted by aptness
That’s the argument the government made under your beloved New York Times v. United States. How did that turn out for the government again?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is where I get the hypocrisy part from him
It has everything to do with wikileaks because everyone claims they are immune from prosecution because they are "media".
Your answer is here:
An online database at TopSecretAmerica.com, as well as the articles to be published, were made available to government officials several months prior to the publications of the report. Each data point at the website was substantiated by at least two public records. The government was requested to advise of any specific concerns, but at that time, none were offered.[2]
Also, the book is not the actual classified reports. Big difference.
Based on your scenario Yes, they could be held liable since they know the information was illegally obtained and released. Placing it on this site, which is not a media outlet, for the sole purpose of distribution would be against the law. Does that mean the Government will press charges? Good question?
Just because they have not pressed charges, does not mean they cant. Espionage act aside, it still falls under Federal Law when dealing with the possession and distribution of classified information. Assuming abovetopsecret.com is based in the United States, the Government could make the argument for prior restraint.
Originally posted by aptness
Fundamental right to what? and why does assanges "fundamental rights" trump mine, or yours, or the military personell? He is not even a US citizen, so I am not sure what fundamental rights you are referring to. Where does an Austrailian get the gall to play fancy free off our National security?
The argument people are making is Manning is a whistleblower.
Originally posted by aptness
I can understand why this matters to you, but whether Assange is an hypocrite or not is completely inconsequential to the question of he is breaking any laws by publishing the information given to him. And this, exclusively, is why I’m interested and participate in this discussion.
Originally posted by aptness
For someone who accuses others of being Assange followers you do focus a lot on what Assange personally does or how he acts.
Originally posted by aptness
I never said there was an absolute immunity. And I don’t say Wikileaks is immune (in this instance) because they are ‘media.’ It is my position that quite frankly it doesn’t even matter — media or private citizens, according to the Constitution have an equal footing when it comes to freedom of speech.
Originally posted by aptness
In fact, it could be argued that journalists or members of the media have more restrictions than private citizens when it comes to publishing information, since there are laws and ethics covering journalists specifically.
Originally posted by aptness
Wikileaks willingly offered to show the material to US authorities and help them redact sensitive information. The US authorities denied to help. Not Wikileaks’ problem.
Originally posted by aptness
Not according to the language in the espionage act. But wait, we aren’t going by a strict interpretation of the language anymore?
Originally posted by aptness
My scenario? Based on my scenario neither ATS nor, obviously, the members are liable for it.
Originally posted by aptness
ATS is based in Arizona. Hey, if you feel so strongly about this why not advocate ATS and the members that quoted the cables, to be held accountable? I certainly would love see you make the case here
Originally posted by aptness
Are you saying you owe more allegiance to the Chinese government now than you would if you were Chinese? Because it’s exactly the same comparison.
Originally posted by aptness
Well, maybe ‘people’ are, but I’m not. In fact, and I’ve stated as much, if Manning is the source then he is guilty. Wikileaks and Assange, on the other hand, is a completely question and I don’t find your — and others’ — argument convincing.
Originally posted by aptness
But I don’t have to, this is a discussion forum after all.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
What do you think would happen if your next door neighbor is writing a book, and his son makes a copy of it and sneaks it to you. You decide to go ahead and publish the book and claim the info contained in it as yours.
Its no different that what wikileaks and Assange have done.
I am saying that as a US citizen, I take exception to the fact an Austrailian is jeopradizing US National Security because he has an ego he needs stroked. Next time you read one of his interviews, or watch it on tv, pay close attention to the manner in which he answers questions. You will find that when he is confronted with a question about his potential wrong doing, its delfected, it becomes someone else's problem.
Fair enough.. Let me ask you this though. Assange came up out of nowhere with wikileaks back in 2007. What makes you think he is trustworthy? What makes you think the documents he is releasing are in fact real, and not edited / changed / tweaked/ etc?
If Assange announced tomorrow their is life on the moon of kurnasastan, it will be believed without question, just as people have done with his accusation on Bank of America, and Rupert Murdoch.
Edit: As an afterthought I am curious how Assange would react if the 2000 plus sites who have all the info released them over Assanges objections. Mass lawsuit, or a tempter tantrum that would rival a 2 year olds?
Originally posted by aptness
The difference being that when Wikileaks published the information they published it implicit understanding that the information contained was the US government’s, not Wikileaks’ or Assange’s. And I don’t have to pay Wikileaks to access the information.
[Assange] had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released
Originally posted by aptness
Not to mention that in your hypothetical we are dealing with private citizens exclusively, there is no government information or interaction. And, also, in your hypothetical we’d be dealing with a civil case not a criminal one, assuming, as is the case in your hypothetical, that the guy published the information given to him by a third party and didn’t stole it himself.
Originally posted by aptness
I understand your feelings, but because you “take exception” doesn’t make Assange or Wikileaks’ actions criminal. That’s what we’re talking here. At least that’s the focus of my comments.
Originally posted by aptness
I can’t know for sure. Neither of us can. So I have to assess it by what happens. Has anyone demonstrated the information Wikileaks posted was fake or altered? Has anyone sued Wikileaks for posting false information even?
Originally posted by aptness
I understand what you are saying and your concern, but how is that different than what we have to do when the government publishes or shows us information? We have to determine it by ourselves, or, hopefully, through the work of investigative journalists, for example.
Originally posted by aptness
So in regards to that I guess my earlier point still stands. Has anyone demonstrated anything Wikileaks has posted to have been faked or altered by Wikileaks? I admit that I haven’t been up to date on that front, but as far as I’m aware the answer is no.
Originally posted by aptness
Honestly I couldn’t care less, but if he attempted something like that, he would get no sympathy from me, nor do I think his claims had any merit.
Originally posted by aptness
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Let me ask you a question then: if AboveTopSecret.com hosts the cablegate documents is it too breaking the law? If a member quotes a classified cable on ATS, is AboveTopSecret liable? Is the member liable? Is the other member who reads it and, not having authorization to access the document, liable for not ‘returning’ the documents, as per the language of the espionage act?
Based on your scenario Yes, they could be held liable since they know the information was illegally obtained and released. Placing it on this site, which is not a media outlet, for the sole purpose of distribution would be against the law. Does that mean the Government will press charges? Good question?
Just because they have not pressed charges, does not mean they cant. Espionage act aside, it still falls under Federal Law when dealing with the possession and distribution of classified information. Assuming abovetopsecret.com is based in the United States, the Government could make the argument for prior restraint.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
As I said, not all the documents he released show criminal wrongdoing, so how is he not in violation of the espionage act or in violation of possessing classified information?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by aptness
That’s the argument the government made under your beloved New York Times v. United States. How did that turn out for the government again?
Uhm, no. Please read the case. The Government attempted to use prior restraint based on embarassment. Had the Government made an argument that the info could be potentially damaging to military operations (which they did not) there is a good chance the Government would of won since it would meet the burden set forth on using prior restraint.
The argument people are making is Manning is a whistleblower. Here is the problem:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 53 > § 1034 - Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions
Manning did not follow proper prcedure to qualify as a whistle blower. By extension, since his actions were not legal in the first place, any attempt to argue a defense is going to be a mute point. Any outlet that received those documents and published them could theoretically face charges, but we know it wont happen for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Explain to me why Assange has 4 insurance files now, and continually lies about the release of said info?
WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange revealed that he has damaging "insurance files" on Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp media empire that he will release if something happens to him or to WikiLeaks.
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.
One of the files identified this weekend by The Sunday Times — called the “insurance” file — has been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters, from America to Australia.
Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.
"More than a year ago WikiLeaks claimed to have the computer hard drive of a Bank of America executive," Silvestri said.
"Aside from the claims themselves, we have no evidence that supports this assertion. We are unaware of any new claims by WikiLeaks that pertain specifically to Bank of America."
Assange teased Forbes in the interview published Monday, saying the information he was preparing to release "could take down a bank or two."
Julian Assange apparently has a back-up plan if WikiLeaks gets taken down.
The secretive Australian who has been in hiding to avoid rape charges in Sweden, as well as any shadowy assassins who may want to rub him out, had a massive "doomsday file" posted online which may contain all of the leaked documents in unredacted form.