Wikileaks: First Amendment Or Espionage?

[theDoctorisIn]

Feel free to run away when ask to prove your point. Usual antics of a left winger, make false claims get caught make more false claims then when it does not stop the request for proof, run away.

I repeat, give us case law that made the US invasion of Panama illegal.

I will concede that the invasion of Panama was probably not illegal.

But installing a CIA agent as military dictator and drug kingpin?

That's a different story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Feel free to run away when ask to prove your point. Usual antics of a left winger, make false claims get caught make more false claims then when it does not stop the request for proof, run away.

I repeat, give us case law that made the US invasion of Panama illegal.

I will concede that the invasion of Panama was probably not illegal.

But installing a CIA agent as military dictator and drug kingpin?

That's a different story.

Provide evidence the US "installed" him.

 

[California Girl]

Or is he protected by Free Speech/Free Press?

He isn't an American citizen, he isn't subject to US law. Case closed.

He is not protected by our first amendment. He is absolutely subject to US Law, because it was our information that he published.

He will face charges. As will that traitor Manning.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Feel free to run away when ask to prove your point. Usual antics of a left winger, make false claims get caught make more false claims then when it does not stop the request for proof, run away.

I repeat, give us case law that made the US invasion of Panama illegal.

I will concede that the invasion of Panama was probably not illegal.

But installing a CIA agent as military dictator and drug kingpin?

That's a different story.

Provide evidence the US "installed" him.

No, I don't think I want to get into this conversation. If you want evidence, google it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will concede that the invasion of Panama was probably not illegal.

But installing a CIA agent as military dictator and drug kingpin?

That's a different story.

Provide evidence the US "installed" him.

No, I don't think I want to get into this conversation. If you want evidence, google it.

Run away, like all good leftist liars do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Provide evidence the US "installed" him.

No, I don't think I want to get into this conversation. If you want evidence, google it.

Run away, like all good leftist liars do.

You can call it "running away", if it makes you feel better.

I'd call it "Not wanting to get into a 30 year old argument with a police-state fascist who believes that the government is incompetent, yet the military is infallible".

 

[Sallow]

It's a very complex case. But what it's not is espionage or an act of war. Conflating this, is probably just as bad as minimalizing it.

What it should also do..which is very constructive..is force an audit of procedure and process.

Played right, this can probably work in the favor of this country. Particularly since many of the documents in this last release shed a favorable light on policy.

 

[Sallow]

Feel free to run away when ask to prove your point. Usual antics of a left winger, make false claims get caught make more false claims then when it does not stop the request for proof, run away.

I repeat, give us case law that made the US invasion of Panama illegal.

I will concede that the invasion of Panama was probably not illegal.

But installing a CIA agent as military dictator and drug kingpin?

That's a different story.

Provide evidence the US "installed" him.

You serious?

Noriega? He comes with the same pedigree as Pinochet.

Oh gosh..

 

[California Girl]

It's a very complex case. But what it's not is espionage or an act of war. Conflating this, is probably just as bad as minimalizing it.

What it should also do..which is very constructive..is force an audit of procedure and process.

Played right, this can probably work in the favor of this country. Particularly since many of the documents in this last release shed a favorable light on policy.

The DoJ appear to disagree with you. They are looking at espionage charges against Manning and Assange - and possibly others. If I was you, I wouldn't be quite so quick to make an ass of yourself.

And... you would be smarter to look at the bigger picture and not focus on the actual information released. It is the fact that confidential information was stolen and released that is the major issue, the information itself is of no real relevance.

 

[boedicca]

It's Espionage.

Period.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I don't know about anyone else but i find it hard to believe all these documents were stolen and released by just one lowly Private. There has to be more people involved. The massive volume of information stolen couldn't have been done by one person. Something's just not right with this picture.

 

[Sallow]

It's a very complex case. But what it's not is espionage or an act of war. Conflating this, is probably just as bad as minimalizing it.

What it should also do..which is very constructive..is force an audit of procedure and process.

Played right, this can probably work in the favor of this country. Particularly since many of the documents in this last release shed a favorable light on policy.

The DoJ appear to disagree with you. They are looking at espionage charges against Manning and Assange - and possibly others. If I was you, I wouldn't be quite so quick to make an ass of yourself.

And... you would be smarter to look at the bigger picture and not focus on the actual information released. It is the fact that confidential information was stolen and released that is the major issue, the information itself is of no real relevance.

Rather an ass then a nazi apologist and sympathizer. You digusting bitch.

 

[The T]

It's a very complex case. But what it's not is espionage or an act of war. Conflating this, is probably just as bad as minimalizing it.

What it should also do..which is very constructive..is force an audit of procedure and process.

Played right, this can probably work in the favor of this country. Particularly since many of the documents in this last release shed a favorable light on policy.

The DoJ appear to disagree with you. They are looking at espionage charges against Manning and Assange - and possibly others. If I was you, I wouldn't be quite so quick to make an ass of yourself.

And... you would be smarter to look at the bigger picture and not focus on the actual information released. It is the fact that confidential information was stolen and released that is the major issue, the information itself is of no real relevance.

Rather an ass then a nazi apologist and sympathizer. You digusting bitch.

Just cannot help yourself can you?

 

[Sallow]

I don't know about anyone else but i find it hard to believe all these documents were stolen and released by just one lowly Private. There has to be more people involved. The massive volume of information stolen couldn't have been done by one person. Something's just not right with this picture.

What's not right..is that if true..there was some very serious breaches in the way servers with confidential emails are accessed.

I have had conversations with military admins who handle servers that do "weather" projections.

I was pretty amazed by what they do in terms of recoveries and failovers. This was a few years back..when they were using HPUX.

 

[Sallow]

The DoJ appear to disagree with you. They are looking at espionage charges against Manning and Assange - and possibly others. If I was you, I wouldn't be quite so quick to make an ass of yourself.

And... you would be smarter to look at the bigger picture and not focus on the actual information released. It is the fact that confidential information was stolen and released that is the major issue, the information itself is of no real relevance.

Rather an ass then a nazi apologist and sympathizer. You digusting bitch.

Just cannot help yourself can you?

Neither..it seems can you.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I think the immediate future of Pfc. Manning will pretty much clear-up how Obama's DOJ views the actions of him and Assange.

But I guess one's opinion might be shaded whether one sees Wikileaks is goring one's own ox or that of another. "Anti-War" Sen. John "reporting for duty' Kerry had no problem with Wikileaks about the U.S.'s relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan (and confidential informants) back in July when, as the Obama Administration was quick to point out, those leaks referred mostly to the Bush Administration. However he now exhibits outrage that these cables, referring to an Obama Dept. of State, that, now, puts lives at risk.

The NYTimes blows hot and cold. About the climategate e-mails that shone a rather harsh light on conspiring AGW 'scientists'; it wrote in Nov of 2009:

" The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here"

But regarding the latest Wikileaks of State Secrets, and not just American state secrets one might add, NYTimes in Nov of this year shows more tolerance regarding pilfered correspondence:

"The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match "

Go figure.

Former Asst Sec. of State Eliot Abrams has a nice take on the Wikileaks as they apply to Dictators vs Democracies though.

" Why are diplomatic cables secret at all? It's a fair question to ask as we assess the WikiLeaks disclosures and the damage they may do. Overall, there are very few surprises in these cables. Anyone who regularly reads this newspaper, follows congressional debates, or watches cable news will know that there is tension between the United States and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, that the Arabs want us to stand up to Iran, that Fatah hates Hamas, and that we are having trouble getting countries to accept the people we want to release from Guantanamo.

Huge numbers of embassy cables are labeled "unclassified" or "limited official use" and deal with mundane matters. But the WikiLeaks trove shows why the State Department insists that some must be "confidential" or "secret," a higher classification: They contain descriptions of American strategies and bargaining positions, or frank assessments of foreign leaders and regimes with which we must still work.

While British diplomatic telegrams are far better at poison-pen portraits (and are generally better written), these State Department messages do contain some admirably tough evaluations. Reading Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tell the French that "Russian democracy has disappeared and the government was an oligarchy run by the security services" is an example, and it is reassuring to know he speaks so candidly to our allies.

George W. Bush with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh (left) in the Oval Office.
The WikiLeaks cables so far released also show how U.S. ambassadors vary in quality. Ambassador James Jeffrey's analysis of Turkey's new foreign policy is sharp and well written. Ambassador Hugo Llorens's message from Honduras about the June 2009 overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya reveals how the Obama administration blundered into backing an ally of Hugo Chavez against the Honduran people's unified desire to throw the bum out.

In most cases, cables are marked secret not because the U.S. requires it but because those speaking to us—the foreign leaders across the table—do. They are not keeping secrets from us, but from two other groups: their enemies and their subjects.

Regarding their enemies, foreign leaders need secrecy for self-protection. The weak plead with us to save them, but to their enemies they also plead—that they are not enemies, that they too dislike the Americans, that they all have common interests, and so on. The WikiLeaks disclosures make that game harder now.

We find the king of Bahrain telling American officials privately that the Iranian nuclear program "must be stopped," while in public he carefully avoids any comment that might anger Iran's aggressive leaders. The ayatollahs may have suspected what the king, a Sunni, was saying in private. Now they know, and they may decide to create trouble between him and his restive Shiite-majority population. The danger and possible damage are clear.

The second and most important reason foreign leaders ask for secrecy is that they are protecting themselves from their own populations. Dictators and authoritarians don't tell their people the truths they tell us; their public speeches are meant to manipulate, not to inform. Instead of educating their citizens, as one might have to do in a democracy, they posture and preen on state-owned television stations and in state-controlled newspapers. Their approach is striking: Tell the truth to foreigners but not to your own population.

So in Yemen, for example, we see President Ali Abdullah Saleh discussing action against al Qaeda and insisting, "We'll continue to say the bombs are ours not yours." He is seeking to avoid the charge that he is cooperating with a foreign, non-Muslim power which is killing Yemenis, that he is handing his country over to the infidels.

Cables reporting on U.S.-German, U.S.-French, or U.S.-Canadian consultations are different—those governments say to their parliaments what they say to us. A leaked report of a conversation about Germany's possible indictment of CIA agents is embarrassing neither to Washington nor Berlin. U.S. and German officials discussed their respective interests, including how public opinion and elected legislators may react. In a conversation with our deputy ambassador, the German deputy national security adviser "also cited intense pressure from the Bundestag and the German media. The German federal Government must consider the 'entire political context,'" he concluded. That's how foreign policy is made in a democracy.

The juicy leaks rarely involve our democratic allies, but rather countries in which free elections, free speech and a free press don't exist. There, public affairs may be discussed candidly only in the royal palace or the U.S. Embassy—behind closed doors, to be protected in a secret cable.

So the WikiLeaks disclosures make interesting reading in London, Ottawa and Tokyo, but in the capitals of some weak and undemocratic American allies they are a very unpleasant surprise. We can easily denounce the gap between private and public discourse in such countries, and the lack of real public debate on key security issues. But when we consider the identities of some of the people they fear—the ayatollahs in Tehran, terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah, al Qaeda itself—we see that the WikiLeaks disclosures are less likely to promote more open government than to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was an assistant secretary of state from 1981 to 1989 and a deputy national security adviser from 2005 to 2009.

"

Elliott Abrams: Dictators, Democracies and WikiLeaks - WSJ.com

JM

 

[rightwinger]

Or is he protected by Free Speech/Free Press?

He isn't an American citizen, he isn't subject to US law. Case closed.

He is not protected by our first amendment. He is absolutely subject to US Law, because it was our information that he published.

He will face charges. As will that traitor Manning.

Eli or Peyton?

 

[The T]

Rather an ass then a nazi apologist and sympathizer. You digusting bitch.

Just cannot help yourself can you?

Neither..it seems can you.

Swallow? *You don't even rate*

 

[Sallow]

Just cannot help yourself can you?

Neither..it seems can you.

Swallow? *You don't even rate*

Another faggot after my jiz..

Shop elsewhere drunkie.

 

[hortysir]

He isn't an American citizen, he isn't subject to US law. Case closed.

He is not protected by our first amendment. He is absolutely subject to US Law, because it was our information that he published.

He will face charges. As will that traitor Manning.

Eli or Peyton?

Judging by who is catching the most passes, I'd say Peyton