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.

 

Wikileaks: Julian Assange Will Charge Sarah Palin & Mike Huckabee with "Incitements To Kill

page: 11
28
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

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.


Thanks for the straight-forward answer but I disagree with your opinion(s). I cannot call him a hero yet but I hope he lives up to his promises and if he does one can only imagine the excitement it will/would bring. Technically he is not a spy in the classic sense, unless you want to call him a multiple agent since he has spied on many diplomatic cables mostly with lowely confidential stuff.

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 don't have to go into details because all the long term CTs already know this, and if you don't know, chances are you will learn later anyway!




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


You can find the same info I posted from sites other than wired.com for starters.

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.

I always find it interesting that when people cannot accept facts, they resort to attacking the poster and sources of information, which seems to be your standard response. I do apologize that I use facts and reference my information when posting and countering your arguments. If its too much for you I can use smaller words.

Ive made my argument and supported it with facts which you continually ignore. Its going to be one of those I told you so moments. You guys should really open your eyes and look at the larger picture.

Blind loyalty is dangerous



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Thats the part I have issues with. He makes these claims yet never follows through with them. His actions completely contradict the contradictions.

The most recent is the Swiss bank financial information. What the hell is the point of that? How is that even related to his stated goals? He is now up to 4 insurance type files, and he keeps dangling that carrot. He says he will give mannings defense 50k, yet has failed to do so.

As far as the Top secrete or higher goes, I can agree with that somewhat. Im sure there is info that is classified that is only that way through stupidity. However, as far as the rest goes, who are we to assume we should have access to it? People make assumptions without understanding the ramifications.

The information that is Top secret or higher has to come from a source, whther it be human or electronic. Information that is Top secrete or higher is generally that way for a reason. Not everyone in a foeriegn government / military has access to all information. If we obtain information on a potential military invasion, and that classified info we received is released to the public, we just jeopradized the sources life, if not ended it because only a few people would have access to it.

So we lose the source and the info = less reliable intelligence.

I mean honestly speaking why release personal banking info from Switzerland? Once again Assange has insinuated why in interviews in the last week, yet turns around in the same interview and says he has not looked at the info yet.

I just find it hard to accept that Assange is acting in the best intrests of whomever with what he does. When he threatened to sue the Guardian Newspaper he lost what was left of his miniscule moral argument.

Here is issue.

Assange gets all of his info from "sources". He then shops the info around the media outlets. The Guardian receives their info from Assange with the stipulation its not released until a certain time. A person who worked for wikileaks also leaked all of the files to the Guardian. Because the Guardian received it from a secondary source, their argument was they were no longer bound by the agreement with Assange. Assange then threatens to sue the Guardian, citing he owned the information, and would suffer economic loss.

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.

Which again goes back to my argument that he feels he is above the law, and that it should apply to everyone else except him. He did the same thing when the information about the rape case was released, demanding an investigation.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I just dont understand how people fail to see what he is all about.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hmmm. So Julian Assange releases vital information that endangers foreign operatives and possibly causes the death of people who help the US and he wants to have Palin and Huckabee charged. This makes total sense. Deflect attention much?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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.

I applaud your phrasing because it’s actually very honest.

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

So basically, you declare your opinion of what should happen to Assange to be fact, declare him to be guilty of all potential charges, and everyone of us that disagree with you is ignoring facts and are “blind loyalists” of Assange. How presumptuous.

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.

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.


edit on 19-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





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.


yes... or whom the watchers...

kx



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





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.


He is playing the media for maximum affect and exposure.. That is not hyprocrisy that is playing the game..

kx



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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.


I have always stated what laws he possibly violated, and I have stated why I think he should be charged. 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. We have had this argument now in several threads on the same topic, any particular reason you keep trying to drag it back up?

The US investigation is ongoing, so we shall see what if anything comes from it.


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.


And you would be incorrect in that statement. Again, for the 5 millionth time read up on the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court held that the Governments arguemnt, based solely on embarrasment, did not qualify under prior restraint. The Supreme court did not grant any type of immunity to the press. The 2 reporters invovled in those publishings were charged and it went to court. The PA screwed up part of his case, resulting in the charges being dropped.

New York Times V. US is the case. Feel free to read it.


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.


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. The info released can be used by our enemies and will have (already has) adverse fallout from it.

The 2 MIT students who assisted manning with the encryption software are under investigation, and its not clear if they were a source for wikileaks, or if they were employed by wikileaks. If they were employed, then wikileaks cannot make the argument they just received the info because they actively assisted in its theft and transfer by providing the encrpytion software.

Taking one step back from the espionage charge, you still have possession and distribution of classified material, which is a Felony. The Supreme Court ruling was clear on that point in that it did not grant immunity to the media (which people keep stating media has immunity) that would allow them to print the information and not be charged for it.

You will find a lot of media personalities have gone to jail for contempt of court for refusing to identify their sources. 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).

The term is Journalistic Integrity, and it is something that Assange does not have.


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.

Assange threatened to sue the Guardian because a source leaked all the wiki documents to them, and the Guiardian wanted to publish them. Assange threatened to sue basing his argument on Financial grounds and that he also owned the leaked information.

How can you ignore such a blatant example of what this guy is all about?

Why is it ok for Assange to leak info, yet he gets pissed when the swedish lawsuit info was leaked?

Explain to me why swedish bank accounts are anyones business other than the owners of the accounts?

Explain to me why Assange has 4 insurance files now, and continually lies about the release of said info?

Assuming you took the time to read all available evidence, how can you continue to defend a person whose stated goals change from interview to interview?

How can you defend a person who knowingly manipulates the media with his lawyer by invoking gitmo, death sentence, treason? Its such a blatant lie and is intended to play off peoples emotions and political views.

What purpose does releasing all this information do aside from making Assange rich?

I am sure you would be pissed if I ran your information throught the system and posted your SSN / DL / Address / Phone Numbers / Place of Employment / Your banking information / House information / family information.

Without a full understanding of the information at hand that places things into context, all Assange has is speculation based on his contradictory moral / ethical beliefs.

Whats sad is people demand the Federal Government be held accountible, while not raising one finger to actually hold them accountible?

and finally why do people who support wikileaks think they are entitled to classified information? What does it matter to you and your daily life if an Ambassador thinks the French Preisdent is a pompous ass? For people who invoke the Constitution all the time in this area I will remind you of this:

* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)
* - The President is the Chief Diplomat
* - Congress approves treaties signed between countries
* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)
* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)

oh, and this
* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)

You and every other American has access to classified information through the person you sent to Washington to represent your itnrests.

Most of the arguments I see ignore the fact that actions people find "criminal" arent always criminal and fall within the authority of the President or Congress as spelled out in the Constitution. Can you show me where in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence etc where it states no information will be withheld from the people?




People do not have an adequate understading of the problems wikileaks is causing



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


No im not talking about that. I am talking about Assanges arguments that he owns the leaked information and was willing to sue a company because someone else also leaked the info to them.

In other words, according to Assange, its ok for him to publish leaked information, but not others. By asking for donations he is essentially charging people for this information, and this is backed up by his constant request for donations.

To me there are 2 seperate issues - Wikileaks and Assange / US Government and certain actions they take.

Ive stated in other posts that the Government should be held responsible. The manner in which Assange releases that info undercuts any accountiability he is supposedly pushing.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

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.

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.



The Supreme Court held that the Governments arguemnt, based solely on embarrasment, did not qualify under prior restraint.

I’m glad you recognize your side of the argument has a heavy burden to meet.


New York Times V. US is the case. Feel free to read it.

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?



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.

Bob Woodward published a book about inner workings of the Obama administration, the discussions about tactics and methods to use in the wars by said administration officials, and published the codenames of some secret programs. This wasn’t with the purpose of informing the public about criminal wrongdoing.

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.

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:

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).

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?



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.

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.



People do not have an adequate understading of the problems wikileaks is causing

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?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

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.


I was not going after any one person at all. When I use the term Facts, it is what it is. Its a fact that classified information was leaked to wikileaks. Its a fact that wikileaks released those documents to the world. Its a fact Assange is in charge of wikileaks and its a fact by his own admission that he claims the files belong to him and its a fact that he threatened to sue the gaurdian because...... they received leaked files.

This is where I get the hypocrisy part from him, as well as the info from the swedish case that was leaked. He is all about leaking everyone else information, but by God no one better leak his info.



Originally posted by aptness
I’m glad you recognize your side of the argument has a heavy burden to meet.


My position has never changed, and has always been about the Government needing to meet their burden to prove they have probable cause that a crime was committed, how it was committed, by whom, where and why.


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?



It has everything to do with wikileaks because everyone claims they are immune from prosecution because they are "media".

During the Vietnam war a classfied report was leaked to media outlets that highlighted the Governments bungeling of the war. The Nixon administration attempted to stop the paper from printing that report. When the paper said it was going forward, it went to the courts. The US Supreme Court said prior restraint cannot be applied in a case where the only reason is embarrasment. It can be applied if other factors exist. The reason the Government didnt file for it is because wikileaks is not based in the US and as such is not subjected to that particular law because of the way it is worded. The other legal argument is it does not apply because they are not a media outlet, so the law wouldnt apply anyways to them..

In that same ruling, the Supreme Court never granted immunity from prosecution to media outlets who published classified info. The part you are referring to, NYT winning the case, was based on the prior restraint argument, and only that argument (embarrasment). The 2 reporters were charged for publishing the info, and as I said the PA screwed up part of his case which resulted in the charges being dismissed.

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.


Your answer is here:

Top Secret America


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]


At the bottom of that page it talks about some of the issues administraition officals had with the book. Also, the book is not the actual classified reports. Big difference.



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:


Its called responsible journalism, and in case you did not notice there were several papers who opted not to release certain information because they felt it contained to specific information. The Guardian on the otherhand will publish whatever.

I am a huge supporter of the media. They mind the peoples business when dealing with the Government. However, there are some areas that are classified for a reason. I dont know how to get you to understand how these documents work. If the FBI, CIA and NSA all have information on one topic, they all 3 do reports. A complete report will be done that refrences bits from all 3 sources so each agnecy can protect their sources.

If that report is leaked, it only paints a partial picture, because the remaining information resides with the respective agencies. Compartmentalized information is the term, along with need to know. It would be like the media getting a hold of a booking sheet that shows the person was booked in on a 24 hour hold for killing a person. Without the PC statment to put it into context, people draw a conclusion, which is usually incorrect. In this case the person defended themselves, but the investigation still needs to be done to verify that fact.



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?


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
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.


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?

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 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.

Assange and wikileaks on the other hand, since they have identified themselves as "owning" the information as well as identified themselves as the distriution point of that info, have violated Federal Law. His nationality is going to be irrelevant since he is illegally in possession of US government property, and charging and extradition would be allowed under treaties we have. He also is not in compliance of the whistleblower statutes either so I am not entirely sure, if charged, what argument he is going to make. Especially since the US Government has issued repeated cease and desist orders which he ignored.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is where I get the hypocrisy part from him

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.

For someone who accuses others of being Assange followers you do focus a lot on what Assange personally does or how he acts.



It has everything to do with wikileaks because everyone claims they are immune from prosecution because they are "media".

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.

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.



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]

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.



Also, the book is not the actual classified reports. Big difference.

Not according to the language in the espionage act. But wait, we aren’t going by a strict interpretation of the language anymore?



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?

My scenario? Based on my scenario neither ATS nor, obviously, the members are liable for it.



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.

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
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?

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.



The argument people are making is Manning is a whistleblower.

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.

But I don’t have to, this is a discussion forum after all.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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.


It does matter since it goes to frame of mind. Its revealing in terms of his thought process, which is coming across as he is untouchable and everyone else is subordinate to him. When dealing with a person who thinks they are above the law is problematic, as he likes to point out in regards to our Presidency.

It shows the possibility of an underlying psychiatric issue. No I am not saying he is crazy or anything like that, but his sense of moral right and wrong is unique in terms that when he commits the same infraction he accuses others of, its not important.


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.


In this case, as I have stated before, Assange is not reporting the news, he is making the news. His personal action spill into wikileaks and his actions. There is no seperation between Julian Assange, Private individual and Julian Assange, CEO of wikileaks. Since he makes no distinction its imperative to understand his personal habbits as it reflects in his business habits.



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.


Except when your actions / words places another person in apprehension. You still cannot walk into a movie theatre and yell fire. The Constitution also places the powers of diplomacy, treaties and day to day government operations in the hands of the PResident and Congress, who act on behalf of the people. So again, even with the 1st amendment argument, you are still not entitled to calssified information.


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.


The perception of more restrictions comes from journalistic integrity and ethics in reporting. Any information they report that is wrong, and they know its wrong, can cost them the trust oif the public, as well as slander / lible lawsuits. For example we can pick any moment in US history and we will find where an administration lied or omitted info that cost them.



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.


Wikileaks actually demanded that the US Government supply them with people, who would be paid by the US Government, to assist in screening documents in order to redact information. Nothing like committing a crime and demanding the person you robbed to help you load their items in your truck.

There is a huge difference between wikileaks and Woodwards book. Woodward placed the information in an area the FEderal Government could access and raise their objections. Chances are if the objections were reasonable, then woodward would of not placed the info, or masked the info before going to publish.

Assange on the other hand was indifferent. He wanted help redacting documents, but he still planned on releasing all of them regardless of Government objections.



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?


See my answer above - The law says as a private person you cannot kill another human. The law also says that as a Police Officer, I can give you verbal commands, up to and including ordering you to use deadly force if the order is legal. Both laws are pretty direct in their wording and how the laws are applied.



Originally posted by aptness
My scenario? Based on my scenario neither ATS nor, obviously, the members are liable for it.


Then you run the risk of being charged with possession of classified information. As we have argued before, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the scenario you gave, the knowledge is present that the information was illegally obtained and distributed and would most likely not allow for an affirmative defense if charged.

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.



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


I see someone has a mouth full of wise ass tonight


Well for starters I am not empowered to enforce Federal Law. I will leave that to the DOJ and their alphabet arms. Secondly the government already monitors this site for the obvious reasons and they dont need my help in doing so.

Contrary to how people portray my views at times, I am not a Government cheerleader in any sense of the imagination. I think the goal of holding Government accountible for its actions is a noble goal, since it is what the founders intended. That being said there are ways to hold them accountible, and the manner Assange chose is not even in the ballpark. The goal behind accountibility is change in behavior. All Assange has managed to do is bury the story under drama.




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.


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.

The information you have is classified - The info was leaked to us, not my problem
The info you are posting jeopradizes people lives - Our releases do not put anyone in danger
There are potential charges against you in Sweden for sex crimes - They wanted it / they are CIA operatives / they are doing it on purpose / they agreed to it.
Palin and huckabee should be charged with inciting whatever - My comments and release of classified information placed no one in danger
You are facing sex charges in sweden - Its the US Government trying to get revenge on me.

He accuses the US of making false accusations, yet he has no issues when he lies. If Assange has proof that the US is behind the trumped up charges, then release that info and put the whole thing to rest. I cant see him doing that though because it would cut into his media attention.


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.


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? He has comiited crimes in the past, as he accuses the US Government of doing, so what makes him different?

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.

There are people out there who truely want the info to make changes. The bulk of the people, in my opinion, could care less about change . They are more intrested in the information they are not suppose to have. So their arguments are empty and self serving in terms they could care less about change and care more about "being in the know".

Its no different than media making their customary if you have kids in the room they should look away as our next segment contains graphic material. At that moment in time, in every household with kids and that channel, you can feel the earth shift as millions of kids scramble to watch the segment.

"Those who know, don't talk - those who talk don't know"

Assange is stupid but hes not. Assange knows full well that anything he posts cannot be challeneed by the US Government, because they will have to explain why Assanges info is wrong, which will continue to do damage because they will have to release more info to counter any claims. Its almost like the movie Valkerye, except in this case he is attempting to use the Federal Government to make his argument for him.


Originally posted by aptness
But I don’t have to, this is a discussion forum after all.


I guess.. The only thing we are missing is the soap opera lead in and end credit music.



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?

Also if other sites did that, ignored Assanges threats of a lawsuit, would people still continue to support assange and wikileaks, or would they support the new site that gave them the info assange held over their head?
edit on 19-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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.

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.

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.



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.

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.




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?

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?



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.

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.

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.



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?

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.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

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.


That contradicts Assanges statement when he threatened to sue the Guardian. He specifically cited that the info was his and he would be financialy hurt if the info were released in the manner the gaurdian wanted. So which is it?

Assange threatens to sue The Gaurdian


[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.


The setup is the same. An item is stolen and given to someone else. Its not a civil case as you suggest, it would be criminal, since the item was stolen by a person who did not own the item, and it would be receiveing stolen property by the person who accepoted it.



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.


And its what I have been arguing, that his actions are criminal. If you owned a house outright, and you live in the middle of BFE, you can torch your house and burn it to the ground. If a person other than the owner did that, it would be arson.




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?


No idea if anyone has filed a suit against him, and I dont think there is standing unless its the US Government. Unless a private individual can prove that the release of the documents by assange contrinuted directly to any damage that might have occured.

Your answer is concerning. Blind loyalty to a person no one really knows or understands is dangerous. Its one thing to take what he has and says and look into it. I am referring to those people who have so much hatred towards the Government, that they dont challenge or research anything Assange says or does, they jsut accept it as gospel.


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.


Which no one is doing with the leaked information. They are taking it at face value. Also, I voted and participated in my Government, and if they lie, we have recourse to vote them out. Assange does not have any of that, and all things being equal, the Devil you know beats the dEvil you dont.



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.


This right here is the bulk of my argument. The only way we can confirm that wikileaks is publishing authentic, accurate unmolested documents is if the Government confirms the releases are accurate, and that is not going to happen. People are placing blind trust into a person who has alterior motives, namely money as we are finding out, which is no different that what Assange accuses the Government of doing.

Personally speaking if I am going to get screwed over, I prefer it be by my Government, where I have some legal recourse, and not some snotty twit from Austrailia who demands people be held acountible for their actions, while doing the complete opposite himself.



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.


He has already done it though... Read the article I linked at the top of the page about his threatened lawsuit.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

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.


Thats a gray area! It has been said that only theft of classified material is criminal, in other words how and why that material left the governments possession and fell to the general public. To get a job that involves dealing with classified material means you must sign a non-disclosure agreement and if you violate the terms&conditions it is grounds for job dismisal, fines, jail and some say even death.

Once the material has been made public, it is silly to assume that the government will go after anyone else other than the initial theif(s).


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?


He might be in violation of possessing classified information but they cannot level espionage act charges against him because he did not steal the documents himself, rather they were provided to him by others. You have to actually try to steal material to be guilty of espionage!



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.


Those that provided the material to wiki-leaks and provided they worked for the government and provided they had signed non-disclosure agreements makes them liable for charges. I think its pretty clear cut and no I don't feel like reading the national security act of 1947 for details...because we all know governments are a joke!

Some information needs to get out but at the same time sources should be protected. I don't want to see innocent people getting injured and/or killed for lowely confidential stuff which everyone and their dog already knows about anyway.

edit on 20-1-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Explain to me why Assange has 4 insurance files now, and continually lies about the release of said info?


Again you state this yet refuse to back it up, or perhaps you missed my direct question in my first post in this thread 2 pages back.

Could you please qualify the 'continual lies' with some quotes or references.

Many thanks.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Julian Assange: WikiLeaks Has 'Insurance Files' On Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.


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.


WikiLeaks Ready to Release Giant 'Insurance' File if Shut Down


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.


Bank of America rejects conjecture that it is WikiLeaks' next target


"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: WikiLeaks 'insurance' file could unleash secrets should website get taken down




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.


Here are the big 4
1. Insurance file - Poison pill - to release all documents in unredacted form
2. Insurance file - Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp
3. Insurance file - BP and Gauntonomo Bay
4. Insurance file - Bank of America

The info is not hard to find, and is all there in Assanges own words. People really should pay more attention to what he is doing and what he says. You will see he continually contradicts himself and his goals.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree wtih all you have stated, except you are overlooking one tiny tidbit - Existance of a conspiracy.

If the 2 MIT students are linked to wikileaks as being employed in any form, then wikileaks participation would fall under espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, etc etc etc.

Until that info comes out either way, its speculation.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I have obviously not made myself clear enough. You stated that JA/Wikileaks have lied about a schedule for releasing information they claim to have.
For this to be true, there must be a promise to release a specific piece of info by a specific date which is not fulfilled.
Nothing in your post demonstrates this as so, unless I am missing something.
It appears that you have become lost in your own bias and cannot make distinctions between facts and your story about those facts.




top topics



 
28
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join