Another Wikileaks release

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Treason?

The US can't sue Wikileaks and/or Assange on treason grounds.

[CaptainCrunch]

Nope but they have the soldier who leaked documents, the U.S is going to take it out on him.

[Delthefunky]

Can anyone get on the war logs site? Or know of an alternative?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

Can anyone get on the war logs site? Or know of an alternative?

Try sniffing threw this site

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/22/w...ased-to-media/

[HPLovecraft]

Another leaked cable, cited by the French newspaper Le Monde but not yet published, presents Canadian diplomacy in a sharply positive light.

The 2009 memo is said to offer a U.S. diplomat’s description of how a Canadian ambassador to Tunisia boldly condemned the practice of torture, even as his counterparts from France, Spain and Italy remained silent.

“The Ambassador of Canada, supported by the UK, is clear: the Tunisian denials on torture are ‘bull####,’ ” the U.S. cable indicates, according to Le Monde.

The cable quotes the unnamed Canadian diplomat as having “direct evidence of abuse and torture practiced for months,” the newspaper said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...eaks-memo?bn=1

A few more Canadian tidbits, but nothing major yet.

[Cowperson]

Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, sources familiar with the inquiry said Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Cowperson

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, sources familiar with the inquiry said Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Cowperson

Interesting, and it treads on dangerous ground.

"How do you prove that a particular cable about secret negotiations with Russia was dangerous to national security? You have to disclose more classified information to explain to the jury the damage brought about by the disclosure," he said.

[ . . . ]

Perhaps the most significant issue is the Constitution's protection of people's right to speak freely and to exchange ideas.

"If the government were to prosecute the person who received and disseminated the classified information - as opposed to the individual who leaked it from within the government - mainstream media would express the concern that they could face prosecution for reporting information they routinely receive from government insiders," Wainstein said.

Fundamentally, Weiss said, the WikiLeaks case "is not about the disclosure of troop movements to al-Qaeda or giving the recipe for the plutonium bomb to North Korea. This is the widespread publication of information that is important in determining the future policy of the United States, that could be very important for people in assessing how well our government is doing its job. It's a good example of the problems created by the First Amendment clashing with criminal law, the law protecting national defense information."

[Phaneuf3]

"How do you prove that a particular cable about secret negotiations with Russia was dangerous to national security? You have to disclose more classified information to explain to the jury the damage brought about by the disclosure," he said.

Jury? LOL!
Like a case like this would ever see a jury...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

The US can't sue Wikileaks and/or Assange on treason grounds.

Do you 'sue' people for Treason? I thought it was more of a 'disappear them' type of process.

[CaptainCrunch]

Any law, or anything can be altered if you apply a national security tag to it.

I have freedom of speech ahem "National security states that you can't talk about this"

you can't prosecute me for these leaks "National security tag"

In this day and age of wars on terror, heightened travel paranoia and heightened security, governments can decide to protect their self interests over civillian rights, and its more then likely that the supreme court will agree. The old saying is that laws can't be a national suicide pact.

[User Name]

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...ate-secrets/1/

Looks like the American Banks are next on his hitlist... also mentions he has info on BP / oil companies / pharmaceutical etc.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by User Name

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...ate-secrets/1/

Looks like the American Banks are next on his hitlist... also mentions he has info on BP / oil companies / pharmaceutical etc.

Still seems like this guy has a axe to grind with the U.S./

And I'm pretty sure that those American Banks and these other companies are probably going to use the courts to shut this guy down and sue him into oblivion.

If I'm not mistaken leaking confidential company work documents is equivalent to theft at a high value.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you 'sue' people for Treason? I thought it was more of a 'disappear them' type of process.

Poor choice of words on my part. I would guess you "charge" them.

But nonetheless your point is valid. If it was a lesser known figure I think a covert capture would actually cross the minds of some US House members.

As it is, I think he's too high profile for the US to act. So we're left with a handful of mentally awol House members who are littering the public discourse with their silly ideas.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Still seems like this guy has a axe to grind with the U.S./

And I'm pretty sure that those American Banks and these other companies are probably going to use the courts to shut this guy down and sue him into oblivion.

If I'm not mistaken leaking confidential company work documents is equivalent to theft at a high value.

You know what, I dont think having an axe to grind with the US right now is unreasonable.

Between the Banks deplorably stupid business practices over the last few years that have cost the US nearly a Trillion dollars and affected the rest of the world very negatively, and the American Government's penchant for spending money to bail the idiots out he might have a cause to be upset with the USA.

Then there is the starting of a war on a premise that was shaky at best, the war on terror that has been one unending disaster after another that has done very little but cost the American citizens countless dollars and civil liberties.

Maybe more people should have an axe to grind with the US.

I'm certainly not all that happy about the current state of American affairs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

You know what, I dont think having an axe to grind with the US right now is unreasonable.

Between the Banks deplorably stupid business practices over the last few years that have cost the US nearly a Trillion dollars and affected the rest of the world very negatively, and the American Government's penchant for spending money to bail the idiots out he might have a cause to be upset with the USA.

Then there is the starting of a war on a premise that was shaky at best, the war on terror that has been one unending disaster after another that has done very little but cost the American citizens countless dollars and civil liberties.

Maybe more people should have an axe to grind with the US.

I'm certainly not all that happy about the current state of American affairs.

I don't disagree with your premise. But this guy is casting an awfully wide net, and he's pretty much focused on one government.

Yes the American business misconduct during this crisis was deplorable.

The war on terror is being fought the wrong way and focusing on the wrong spots at time.

Up until the surge in Iraq, and the surge thats happening in Afghanistan these were not well run wars. Correction, Iraq was well run until they moved from the actual war fighting stage to the tamping down resistance stage.

America's conduct has not been exemplary, and continues to struggle.

I don't even really have an axe to grind with wikileaks even though I think that a lot of the documents that he is releasing are open to really wrong interpretation, and in a lot of cases can be really harmful.

I have an axe to grind with the leakers, I think they're traitors and scum.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Poor choice of words on my part. I would guess you "charge" them.

But nonetheless your point is valid. If it was a lesser known figure I think a covert capture would actually cross the minds of some US House members.

As it is, I think he's too high profile for the US to act. So we're left with a handful of mentally awol House members who are littering the public discourse with their silly ideas.

Your right, he's way to high profile to dissapear, and I doubt that the house members are stupid enough to be discussing that. If they were they've been reading to many Tom Clancy novels.

I think at this point, for the U.S. government the damage is done. While the documents released about Canada were interesting they weren't unexpected.

Judd told U.S. officials that a videotaped recording of a tearful Omar Khadr at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay would trigger "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" and "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty."

- Judd said that CSIS was not encouraged by progress in Afghanistan, due in part to President Hamid Karzai's "weak leadership, widespread corruption, the lack of will to press ahead on counter-narcotics, limited Afghan security force capability (particularly the police) and, most recently, the Sarpoza prison break."

- Judd told the Americans that "he and his colleagues are 'very, very worried' about Iran." CSIS had talked recently to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security after that agency requested its own "channel of communication to Canada," he said. The Iranians had agreed to "help" on Afghan issues, including sharing information regarding potential attacks. But Judd told the Americans "we have not figured out what they are up to," adding that it was clear the Iranians wanted the NATO military force in Afghanistan to slowly "bleed."

- Judd said CSIS had "responded to recent, non-specific intelligence on possible terror operations by 'vigorously harassing' known Hezbollah members in Canada." CSIS felt no attack was in the offing but Hezbollah members and their lawyers were considering using recent court rulings to hamper the work of the intelligence agency.

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadians...117/story.html

However releasing documents about banks and other major corporations might be wikileaks downfall as he's now dealing in stolen work papers, something that courts tend to take a really dim view of. One of those banks might end up owning Wikileaks.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't disagree with your premise. But this guy is casting an awfully wide net, and he's pretty much focused on one government.

Yes the American business misconduct during this crisis was deplorable.

The war on terror is being fought the wrong way and focusing on the wrong spots at time.

Up until the surge in Iraq, and the surge thats happening in Afghanistan these were not well run wars. Correction, Iraq was well run until they moved from the actual war fighting stage to the tamping down resistance stage.

America's conduct has not been exemplary, and continues to struggle.

I don't even really have an axe to grind with wikileaks even though I think that a lot of the documents that he is releasing are open to really wrong interpretation, and in a lot of cases can be really harmful.

I have an axe to grind with the leakers, I think they're traitors and scum.

Alright, but I'm going to disagree with about the wikileaks people.

I dont think they're traitors and scum, because I dont think they've actually done anything thats hurt anybody, just shown how shoddily people are running things and getting away with it.

Is this the best way of doing it? Probably not, but the options are pretty limited.

I'm not a huge fan of the whole way Wikileaks goes about their business, to me it just seems like throwing as much against the wall as possible in hoped that some of it sticks.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

However releasing documents about banks and other major corporations might be wikileaks downfall as he's now dealing in stolen work papers, something that courts tend to take a really dim view of. One of those banks might end up owning Wikileaks.

Yeah well, I'm actually really interested in this as finance is kinda my bag. However, I would wager that based on how badly the Banks have been handling their own business they are probably very concerned about some of the information that might be released here. If there is evidence of their incompetence I dont think they're going to have to worry about owning anyone.

Dont forget, they're around right now because the Government said so, they're only going to get propped up for so long, and one would hope that if there is documentation showing that the mess they are in is their own fault maybe some of that money should be going back to where it came from.

Some of this Wikileaks crap makes me feel like we're living in the movie 'Idiocracy.'

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

Alright, but I'm going to disagree with about the wikileaks people.

I dont think they're traitors and scum, because I dont think they've actually done anything thats hurt anybody, just shown how shoddily people are running things and getting away with it.

Is this the best way of doing it? Probably not, but the options are pretty limited.

I'm not a huge fan of the whole way Wikileaks goes about their business, to me it just seems like throwing as much against the wall as possible in hoped that some of it sticks.

The soldier who leaked documents is a traitor and scum, he broke his oath, and he broke his security clearance. Its pretty cut and dried. He's not a hero or a a bastien of freedom. He's an insult.

Wikileaks is doing what they're doing, and they're releasing documents that can do serious harm, not just to governments but to individuals who have been put into harms way for the mere crime of working with American forces in Iraq or afghanistan.

I've said before that people that want absolute transparency or openess by their government are living a pipe dream, and the exposure of these diplomatic cables are going to cause a diplomatic hail storm, and people don't understand that this is how diplomatic efforts are run. These guys are obviously diplomats but they're also spies to an effect and analysts.

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah well, I'm actually really interested in this as finance is kinda my bag. However, I would wager that based on how badly the Banks have been handling their own business they are probably very concerned about some of the information that might be released here. If there is evidence of their incompetence I dont think they're going to have to worry about owning anyone.

Dont forget, they're around right now because the Government said so, they're only going to get propped up for so long, and one would hope that if there is documentation showing that the mess they are in is their own fault maybe some of that money should be going back to where it came from.

Some of this Wikileaks crap makes me feel like we're living in the movie 'Idiocracy.'

Oh I'm very interested in the banking and pharmacy industry leaks. I'm also interested in the reaction because these companies are far more sue happy then any government is, and by releasing stolen confidential work documents Assauge puts himself into a very vulnerable position, and I'd like to see his get a little bit burned as well.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The soldier who leaked documents is a traitor and scum, he broke his oath, and he broke his security clearance. Its pretty cut and dried. He's not a hero or a a bastien of freedom. He's an insult.

Out of curiosity, then: if you're a soldier and you have clearly seen illegal acts perpetrated by your country, what do you do?

Do you send an email to Rumsfeld saying that there is torture at Abu Ghraib and that you think he should look into it, and that if he has any further questions he shouldn't hesitate to contact you?

[CaptainCrunch]

I absolutely move up the chain of command. The military also has what basically work out to ombudsman positions. But I don't ever leak to an outside source or the media or the press.

I have a right not to follow illegal orders, I have a duty to report illegal or questionable items up the chain of command.

I don't have the right to break my service oath or my security clearance by dumping documents to wikileaks.