Assange Op Ed in The Australian newspaper

[Dr Grump]

Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths | The Australian

snip -

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully.

Er, the bold part - isn't that something you righties are always screaming on about? Sounds like you are on the same page as him.

snip
WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

For years I've been on US messageboards and the Cons are always whining about the bias of the MSM. Yet here is Assange not only reporting a story but giving you the means to the see the original docs the story is based on. And this is a bad thing?

Snip
People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies.

Jillian - there goes your anti war theory. In fact, seems like you and him are on the same page...

Snip...LOL
"You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

Snip
US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

There goes that theory...

 

[jillian]

Are he and I on the same page About war? Well, probably about Iraq. But somehow I think he and I would disagree about how Israel should have handled Cast Lead....

However, I think his pretense at being a journalist is a bit late in the game since he has repeatedly said he is *not* a journo. I also think releasing gossip-filled docs purely out of spite serves no public purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement.

I think the person who stole the documents should be charged with treason. But I think Assange should be charged with espionage. Let a jury sort it out.

Finally, I think there is a value to our ability to have candid conversations with diplomats around the world. I think he did a great deal of harm in that regard.

And yes, I know you disagree with me on all of the above.

 

[Dr Grump]

Are he and I on the same page About war? Well, probably about Iraq. But somehow I think he and I would disagree about how Israel should have handled Cast Lead....

However, I think his pretense at being a journalist is a bit late in the game since he has repeatedly said he is *not* a journo. I also think releasing gossip-filled docs purely out of spite serves no public purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement.

I think the person who stole the documents should be charged with treason. But I think Assange should be charged with espionage. Let a jury sort it out.

Finally, I think there is a value to our ability to have candid conversations with diplomats around the world. I think he did a great deal of harm in that regard.

And yes, I know you disagree with me on all of the above.

Please tell me which definitions of espionage he comes under...take your time...

es·pi·o·nage

–noun
1.
the act or practice of spying.
2.
the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political secrets of other nations.
3.
the use of spies by a corporation or the like to acquire the plans, technical knowledge, etc., of a competitor: industrial espionage.

Why is it out of spite? Long bow to draw on that one, J. Did you read the link? The whole link? What makes you think it spite? He believes govts should be more transparent. So do I...

 

[Revere]

The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.

 

[Dr Grump]

The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.

Glad you are for freedom of speech and all....

 

[Revere]

The free market seems to be dealing with him nicely.

Glad you are for freedom of speech and all....

Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.

His domain names and merchant accounts are being cut off.

Works so far.

 

[Dr Grump]

Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.

His domain names and merchant accounts are being cut off.

Works so far.

Not for long..they are being set up again...

They are in the public domain as fas as I'm concerned.

how about addressing the points I made in the OP, or is that too far of a stretch for you?

 

[Revere]

Freedom of speech is not the same as trafficking stolen property.

His domain names and merchant accounts are being cut off.

Works so far.

Not for long..they are being set up again...

They are in the public domain as fas as I'm concerned.

how about addressing the points I made in the OP, or is that too far of a stretch for you?

No, if you host them or provide merchant services, i.e. credit card payments to them, you can cut them off. And that's what's happening.

Nothing "public domain" about that.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, if you host them or provide merchant services, i.e. credit card payments to them, you can cut them off. And that's what's happening.

Nothing "public domain" about that.

which has what to do with anything? People criticised Google for not taking a stand against the Chinese Govt for censorship. This is no different....

 

[Revere]

Assange will have to answer for how he came by that stolen material.

In the meantime, the free market is dealing with his sites.

 

[California Girl]

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/what-is-espionage.html

Espionage is a process which involves agents or technical means to obtain information which is not normally publically available. lt may also involve seeking to influence decision makers and opinion-formers to benefit the interests of a foreign power.

 

[Revere]

I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?

 

[Ravi]

He is an asshole and probably a narcissist.

 

[jillian]

Please tell me which definitions of espionage he comes under...take your time...

es·pi·o·nage

–noun
1.
the act or practice of spying.
2.
the use of spies by a government to discover the military and political secrets of other nations.
3.
the use of spies by a corporation or the like to acquire the plans, technical knowledge, etc., of a competitor: industrial espionage.

Why is it out of spite? Long bow to draw on that one, J. Did you read the link? The whole link? What makes you think it spite? He believes govts should be more transparent. So do I...

I wouldn't go by those general definitions of espionage... I would look at the definition as it is set forth in the criminal law since that is what controls in this circumstance:

it is a crime to disclose classified information under the Espionage Act of 1917 (see 18 U.S. Code § 793, paragraph e). The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Schenck vs. United States (1919). The Court ruled that "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent." The First Amendment does not protect espionage.

ttp://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act

whether you agree or disagree that the above *should* be the law, it *is* the law. Like I said, charge him and let a jury sort it out after they hear all of the evidence.

why do i think it was spiteful? because no good can come of it. he isn't a whistle blower...

had he disclosed that the last admin was lying about WMD's... *THAT* would have been useful.

This? Designed to destroy our ability to conduct diplomacy? Why? Because he wanted to embarrass the U.S., imo.

 

[California Girl]

I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?

But he is guilty of espionage.

 

[Dr Grump]

[q

it is a crime to disclose classified information under the Espionage Act of 1917 (see 18 U.S. Code § 793, paragraph e). The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Schenck vs. United States (1919). The Court ruled that "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent." The First Amendment does not protect espionage.

ttp://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act
.

Even by your definition he is not guilty. If you believe so, which parts are covered by his acts?

 

[Dr Grump]

I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?

But he is guilty of espionage.

Not that I can see...even by J's definition

 

[jillian]

[q

it is a crime to disclose classified information under the Espionage Act of 1917 (see 18 U.S. Code § 793, paragraph e). The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Schenck vs. United States (1919). The Court ruled that "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent." The First Amendment does not protect espionage.

ttp://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act
.

Even by your definition he is not guilty. If you believe so, which parts are covered by his acts?

he disclosed classified information. no?

 

[Dr Grump]

[q



ttp://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act
.

Even by your definition he is not guilty. If you believe so, which parts are covered by his acts?

he disclosed classified information. no?

it seems with the caveat of "become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent" according to the case law your quoted. He hasn't done that IMO...the bolded words are the important ones,,

 

[California Girl]

I never said he was guilty of espionage, but that's not the end-all of his culpability, now, is it?

But he is guilty of espionage.

Not that I can see...even by J's definition

Whether you see it or not is not really the point. The point is how our DoJ sees it. He knowingly disseminated stolen classified information. It is vital to our national security that we are able to communicate with other countries without them being concerned that it will end up on the front page of the world's newspapers. You get that right?