"This stuff"? You're kidding, right? Blowing the whistle on some perceived problem usually relates to a specific problem or set of problems. Not a mass data dump of everything you can lay your hands on. And, as I said, there are procedures for reporting those problems. Maybe it'll come out in his trial that he did indeed try to use those procedures. I haven't heard anyone yet say that, though.
It may be espionage. It's still not treason. As for Assange, absolutely nothing should happen to him. Freedom of the press, and like it or not, Wikileaks is the press, is paramount. Get rid of it, as so many politicians are trying to do, and this country isn't worth protecting anymore.
It's a fine line. If convicted of either it's possible he could be executed either way. What he did was wrong. Assange? You're full of it. You like what he's doing so you defend it. It's the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case. You have free speech but there are limits and they've crossed the line.
Why can't Wikileaks get something really cool like the government's secret UFO files? O2C I have to disagree with you. Stealing property is theft and it is a crime. So is knowingly receiving stolen property. These files were the property of the US government. They were stolen and Assange knowingly received the goods.
Never gonna happen. Just because something is wrong does not make it a crime. Personally, I disagree with what he's doing, but agree that he has done nothing illegal. Rapeoid charges notwithstanding.
Then so has every news outlet that's reported on them, right? What about when the NYT published those leaked Pentagon papers years ago? why weren't they chared with anything?
I cant see why so many people think outing these secrets is so bad. It shows up useless cunts and divisive, belligerent idiots for exactly the people they are. Id love to see this trend hit every government and every organisation/company. The more truth thats out there the better, the more secretive people are allowed to be the worse.
Which would be valid if he'd yelled fire in a crowded theater. Here he's yelling "the emperor has no clothes! None of the emperors have any clothes!" and getting calls from within this government (and the apparently despicable Canadian government) for his assassination, without due process, arrest, trial by jury, conviction, or even charges filed - which they can't, because it will fall afoul of the first amendment. This is censorship of the highest order and must be opposed with all vigor. It is not the responsibility or obligation of the press to keep the governments' secrets for it.
Here that whistling noise? It's the sound of the point going over your head. Ignore the fact that some stupid person(s) is calling for his head without due process. It's irrelevant to whether or not he (the military member) did something wrong. Assange also knowingly received that, basically stolen, material and is therefore an accessory to that. That he also knowingly encouraged the behavior in the first place makes him an accomplice to either treason (IMO) or espionage (if we want to limit it to what I think your definition is.) You say it's a valuable element of free speech. Nonsense. As I've said, there are already outlets in place working within the system for whistleblowers to do their stuff. This doesn't even qualify as that. It's some punk kid, violating the oath he took to his country, trying to gain notoriety and fame and some punk middle-aged Larry Flynt wannabe accomodating him for the same reasons (and, obviously, to score chicks with tales of his "going after the man.")
So what is the difference between this and the release of the Pentagon Papers....other than the fact that those were classified as Top Secret, whereas, last I heard, the stuff being released by Wikileaks are not?
Hear that flushing sound? It's your freedoms circling the drain. Absolutely not. The rule of law is the cornerstone of our way of life. Ignore that people in power are trying to violate it? I think not. Of course he did, but you don't seem to understand that *that* isn't relevant. How do you know it was Assange? It could have been anyone at Wikileaks that actually received the material. Evidence, beyond the nature of the site, which is the same as any other news organization with a an anonymous tip line? You really hate the first amendment, except when it suits you. I really thought you were better than that, but I guess not. The publication is, yes. Far from it. Which has less than nothing to do with the publication of the cables. Irrelevant.
The really amazing thing is that Wikileaks isn't even publishing the cables first; they're waiting for other news organizations to do so. Only 960 cables have been released, and only after consultation with at least 5 (more now, I think) other news organizations as to what to redact. Hell, they even went to the US Embassy in London looking for guidance on what to redact (of course they weren't given any).
Well, Bock, it looks like you may be getting your wish for the complete destruction of the first amendment: Joe Lieberman is calling for prosecution against the New York Times as well. How much longer, I wonder, until talking about the cables is made a crime in this country?
I'm not that well read-up on the Pentagon papers, actually. Are the two of you somehow arguing that there's absolutely no way the government can hold any secrets, though?
By definition, the embassy can't say whether anything presented to them is secret or not. Can you imagine walking up to the CIA with a diagram of an H-bomb (for example) and asking if it's real? What do you think the answer is going to be?
