Reality check: DUers that do NOT approve of what WikiLeaks is doing check-in thread

.
.
.
PLEASE allow those who do NOT approve to have this thread as THEIR forum.
.
.
.
Not my viewpoint, but I really do want to hear all sides of the issue --
without shouting down or bullying what will almost certainly be a minority
perspective on DU.
.
.
.

But some of it I don't think they should release.

Example: Releasing the information on a member within the Chinese government that has been cooperating on getting word out about human rights in China. People like that get killed when they're finally discovered. *
* Source television out of Russia

It is not illegal for diplomats to conduct diplomacy in secret, and for good reason. If people in America want to mandate that all diplomacy be conducted in the open, we have elections for that purpose. I do not support one unaccountable person subverting the will of the American electorate and unilaterally setting US secrecy policy.

On the other hand, I also don't think that it is illegal for journalists to publish material they come across. I wish people would stop pretending all those opposed to what Wikileaks is doing necessarily think what they are doing is illegal.

I really think Assange is going to get people killed doing this shit. My bet is, the first WikiLeaks casualty is going to be Morgan Tscangirai, the guy in Zimbabwe who Robert Mugabe is going to shoot because of a WikiLeaks post.

For example, a reporter for the New York Times is obviously a journalist. And obviously they would be protected by the first amendment, even if they did exactly what Assange was doing.

Now Assange is not a reporter for the New York Times. But how do we draw that line in a well-defined way? Between a reporter for a newspaper and Assange? I don't know if it is possible. Free speech principles would counsel that any such line should probably be drawn in advance. But if the line were to say "you must be an employee of some news company," then Assange would just start a news organization. That's usually the problem in free speech situations -- the line drawing (or lack of ability to draw a meaningful line).

Now, if Assange actually conspired to get Manning to leak the information, that would be a different story, and he might be able to be charged for conspiring to commit espionage. Since we don't know all the facts, I'm not ready to say conclusively that what Assange did was legal. But it does seem problematic to me in general to make publishing such information illegal, from a free speech standpoint -- even though I do not approve of them doing it.

come to find out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/241595

trying to stop them these days? Oh yes, and they've been torturing people for decades, some have been tortured to death.

Journalists have to weigh the good they can do against the bad.

So far the score is:

Wikileaks ~ no one harmed except some bad guys in Kenya and Iceland and Switzerland and a few really bad guys are a bit embarrassed as they will never be held accountable.


The Bad Guys Wikileaks is exposing ~ Untold numbers of people killed and still dying, starving, millions displaced from their homes, tens of thousands maimed and traumatized, untold numbers of unborn babies, deformed and disabled.


IF, and there is not reason why it should happen if the Pentagon will be responsible and cooperate with Wikileaks, but IF anyone does get hurt, Wikileaks would have to be around for centuries to do the kind of harm NOT having a Free Press has done.

or their release to the public. I believe our government classifies too much data but I don't believe this is the correct or moral way to address that situation.

We don't need someone releasing information which could endanger or further inflame people around the world who could take out their anger against US citizens abroad. I don't trust a loose cannon to decide what information could result in retaliation against my Marine son or innocents.

There is no context. There is no investigation. There is no research. There is no verification.

Simply posting leaked information is not "journalism". It's laziness.

I support transparency, but it should be responsible.

What is very telling for me is that Assange was facing some charges for irresponsible behaviour on his part, and he immediately tried to hide behind the "conspiracy theory" to avoid responsibility for his irresponsible actions.

After reading the charges and victim statements, I can't say that his actions were "criminal" under law but they were certainly irresponsible. Considering these irresponsible acts are the acts of a man hoping to restore responsibility to government, it doesn't help his case in my eyes. Further considering that he is an anarchist who was disappointed that his earlier releases hadn't prompted the anti-government revolutions that he had hoped - I'm pretty much convinced that he's an idiot.

I don't agree with how Wikileaks is managing the Assange issue - I think they, as a whole, should be working harder to release more documents faster. The case has been thoroughly made by now that no harm is coming to any significant American interests, and the crimes being exposed are of vital interest to people all over the world interested in justice and legal government, whatever their political inclination.

And the people who wildly scream "Treason! Assassinate him now!" terrify me. They need a few thousand more targets to take the focus off of Assange.

reserving judgement until they hit those fucking banks

n/t

Manning went after nothing in particular, just took because he could. Then sent it to WikiLeaks....why there? Assange sits on the info like a king guarding his money, dribbling it out politically. This isn't whistle blowing, it's playing with the worlds diplomacy.