US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'

from the uh...-what? dept

Back when Wikileaks first released some State Department cables, creating quite the uproar among government officials, the Treasury Department was clear that it would not declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization or list Julian Assange as a "Specially Designated National" on the list, because it did not meet the proper criteria. However, a document from the Air Force, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, has revealed that Assange and Wikileaks have been declared "enemies of the US" in a specific investigation into a cyber systems analyst who dared to "express support for Wikileaks" and attended a pro-Wikileaks demonstration. By designating Wikileaks an enemy of the US, the military is effectively declaring that any contact with Wikileaks or its supporters could be deemed "communicating with the enemy" -- which can be punished severely (even death). For all sorts of reasons, this seems like a ridiculous and horrific overreaction. Even if you disagree with Wikileaks or how Assange goes about what he does, having the US government declare you an "enemy to the United States" for seeking to increase transparency seems both extreme and completely out of proportion with the reality of the situation.

Meanwhile, Assange himself was able to address the UN via video, in which he lashed out at the hypocrisy of the US government, defending freedom of speech with one breath, while at the same time seeking to bring down Wikileaks.
While it's no secret that Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed the US, it's a massive leap to go from that to claiming that it is an "enemy" of the United States. Just doing so could put incredible chilling effects on all sorts of journalists. The idea that leaking relevant and newsworthy information can get you classified as such has incredibly scary implications. It broadens the definition of an "enemy of the state" to ridiculous proportions, and begs to be abused by a government that doesn't seem to handle embarrassment particularly well. Even if you think Wikileaks goes too far or that Assange himself is an egomaniac, it seems that we should all be quite worried about the implications of declaring him and the organization enemies of the state for merely leaking information that they felt was newsworthy.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:05am

    So how long until the US points a drone Assange's way? I'm thinking sooner than later. Maybe they'll get him when he's walking out of the embassy in the UK. That'd be priceless. Let me state for the record I do not want Assange droned, just sayin'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:05am

    [This comment has been censored due to fear of becoming the enemy]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:10am

    Is Wikileaks REALLY an Enemy of the State, or was it just mentioned as that in an AF document? It seems that the State Department would have the official word on that, or that there would be a list of "official enemies."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:14am

    Oh shite, I just watched the video. He is a dead man, that is a fact. So is poor Bradley. What has the Us come to?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:14am

    Before they can be declared enemy of the US, thought UN inspectors had to check for weapons of mass destruction. Maybe they can have a look around there PC's however they would probably point to Minesweaper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:15am

    Re:

    You poor naive thing you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:17am

    Re:

    Assange himself is a weapon of mass destruction. He has exposed the US government for what it is; the single most dangerous terrorist organization in the solar system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:18am

    So, Julian Assange is now like Bin Laden?

    Funny world we live in when a "journalist" gets the same treatment as a terrorist whose actions directly led to the death of many people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Zos (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:19am

    Re:

    it's come to executing american citizens via drone strike without a trial, and declaring whistleblowers and journo's who don't toe the line as "enemies of the state".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:23am

    Re: Re:

    indeed

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:31am

    'i want the truth'

    'you cant handle the truth!'

    must admit i am curious as to who is going to hold their hand up and take 'credit' for this classification of Wikileaks. it just goes to show the mentality of those in charge of what at least was, the greatest nation on the planet. something happens that deserves to be made public, after using the protection of whistle blowers as one of the original campaign subjects, then drastically penalizes those concerned when it happens. talk about taking the ball home 'cause you're better at the game than me! unbelievable really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re:

    That's a ridculous and offensive statement. How can you possibly compare anything the US does to the Saturn Defense Force and their neutrino-boson bombing of Ganymede's parliament?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:41am

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:51am

    Might as well start now

    I'll just go around and address people as "Comrade"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:55am

    "Assange is an Egomaniac"

    But then it seems to me that it takes a "big" and therefore likely flawed personality to have the boldness to do something useful in this domain.

    Where is the "reasonable" person who is doing as much for free speech as Assange has done?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's a ridculous and offensive statement. How can you possibly compare anything the US does to the Saturn Defense Force and their neutrino-boson bombing of Ganymede's parliament?

    Ahem,..
    Last time I looked neutrinos were fermions. I expect it to be the same next time too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:03am

    wikileaks printed classified US military documents that may have contributed to the death of soldiers

    thatss not free speech anymore

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Tor, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:07am

    What does this mean for american citizens who donate money in order to support Wikileaks?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:14am

    Re:

    It means you are now an enemy of the state by definition for supporting terrorists. That is, of course, assuming the US really does consider Assange and Wikileaks to be enemies of the state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Until the US declares they aren't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    Re:

    "may have contributed"

    This sounds similar to those ads where you get "up to" whatever, and we all know those ads are total bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    angrywebmaster, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    Enemy of the state? yes

    Once again people who think Wikileaks is harmless need to talk to those who know better.

    I have spoken with people who were literally waiting for the order to terminate Assange. They know just how "harmless" Wikileaks really was. Thanks to Assange people helping the United States were "disappeared" and yes, they were killed.

    Now as to the designation.

    1) Assange is NOT a United States citizen.
    2) Assange has never been in the United States to my knowledge.
    3)The Wikileaks servers are not in the United States
    4) Assange has NO rights under American law.
    5) Because of his releases, he has actively aided and abetted enemies of the United States.

    Long story short, he is considered an enemy agent or spy. He can be killed on sight if we so choose. (Won't happen with the current administration of course)

    Those of you attempting to extend United States constitutional rights to those who aren't U.S. citizens and have never been in the United States totally misunderstand the nature of national sovereignty.

    If Assange wants to avoid a visit from Mr. Hellfire, all he needs to do is go to any US embassy and turn himself in. Then he will have certain rights. (Lawyer, trial, etc)

    As to the deliberate targeting of U.S. Citizens in foreign countries, according to some lawyers I've spoken with, the answer is "It depends."

    In the cases of the two that I know of, (The names escape me), they have definitely committed treason as defined by the United States constitution. (Look it up) They took up arms against the United States Government and gave aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

    They became legitimate targets in the same way the Confederate Soldiers were legitimate targets. They could have surrendered themselves and they would have been accorded all the rights of any U.S. citizen.

    They didn't and paid the price of their decisions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:17am

    Re: Might as well start now

    Takin a big chance there "comrade."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Cypher Drachi (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:17am

    The government should give Julian Assange the last name of "Luther" so Someone else will take care of him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:18am

    Association

    Uh oh! I better go un-like them on facebook.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:19am

    Re:

    I think if anything wikileaks might have saved a few lives with there disclosures and hopefully embarrassed a few arrogant asses into thinking a tad before they try to coerce, belittle, and prod foriegn entities into "towing the company line."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Michael, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:19am

    If Assange/Wikileaks is considered an Enemy of the State for leaking classified documents, then what does that make our government when they seek unfettered access to our private data, spy on our phone conversations and online communications?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:20am

    Re:

    It means look over your shoulder for the drones early and often.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:20am

    Re:

    at may have contributed to the death of soldiers

    [ Citation needed ]

    Or, to make it more clear for you, do you have any proof? Because if you don't, then we probably won't believe you. I have yet to see any proof anywhere that he put anyone in direct danger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:21am

    You were never naive enough to believe in freedom. Were you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:21am

    Re:

    offensive

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:22am

    Re:

    there is no one so enslaved as the one who believes they are free

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:22am

    The true Enemy of the State is the State.They are the enemy not Wikileaks.US Government can lick my Dog's Dirty Ass.
    I hate our Government.Hope they get a real rude awakening this Century.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:23am

    Re:

    By that logic the government would be able to get away with anything as long as they classify the evidence and claim it's for protecting the lives of soldiers. Oh wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re:

    You can't see it, it's classified.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:27am

    Because if you're not with US, You're against US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    M Lauer, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:41am

    Assange says he's an enemy

    I don't have the quotes at hand, but Assange states in so many words that he is an enemy of the US. Look it up, in his opinion the US is the evil empire or whatever and he feels it is his job to take us down, his opinion, not mine.

    From what I recall, he is not saying that his job is to publish the information, but to achieve a destructive effect. So, when someone declares themselves to be my enemy, I think it prudent to take them at their word and not ignore it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re:

    why do you people ask for citations from the website we're currently talking about

    what do you think i'm going to cite, wikipedia?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Listen mister particle-physics-smarty-pants, everyone who's anyone in the solar terrorist world knows that neutrino-boson bombs use both bosoninions and fermiolicas or whatever you're on about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Colin, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:44am

    Re: Re:

    That's the beauty of it -- he doesn't have to prove it. It may have. Heck, it even might in the future. Dealing in those terms, he and those who think like him can do whatever they want based on hypotheticals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:51am

    Assange looks like shit. I wonder how long he can hold up living in a broom closet in that embassy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:51am

    Re:

    It means the military gets to do some extra special things to you. Once designated as a terrorist or associated forces get ready to enjoy:

    Torture
    Indefinite Military Detention (without trial, or even accusation of a specific crime)
    Summary Execution (via drone strike as already mentioned or by other means)

    Gonna be some interesting times ahead. At this point I'm not sure if our children are really gonna understand all this, but after a few days in the freezer cell I'm sure they will understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Jeremy, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:53am

    People heard the Treasury department say they would never classify Wikileaks/Assange as a terrorist organization, and they somehow thought this applied to the U.S. government? Why weren't red flags immediately raised when it was realized this message was coming from a department that has absolutely nothing to do with issues of national defense or foreign policy? Anything the Treasury Department says on this issue would by default be completely meaningless

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:55am

    Re: Re:

    it ain't funny, but you gotta laugh...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    YOU are not going to cite anything. Because what you have said is complete fantasy with no basis in fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    what?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:00am

    Re:

    Funny you should bring that up, cuz the treasury dept. can (and has) designate US citizens as terrorists. I can't remember the name of the guy they did this to off the top of my head, but I'll try to post it up later.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:01am

    Re:

    wikileaks printed classified US military documents that may have contributed to the death of soldiers

    Umm, not according to the report done by the US military.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/18/wikileaks-disclosures-caused-no-damage-to-us-lawyer /

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Tor, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:09am

    Re: Assange says he's an enemy

    I have no idea what you mean by "destructive effect". Please clarify. He certainly does not say in that video that he is an enemy of the US. Quite on the contrary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:13am

    Re:

    Actually, people better than you have attempted to prove or disprove that claim you just made. Guess what was found?

    Not a single death can be attributed to Wikileaks, Julian Assange Bradley Manning.

    So yeah, your statement is unbelievably and completely false.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Jeremy, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re:

    Then why the correlation between internal DOD documents and the treasury department? The DOD has no authority to influence the Treasury Department decisions, AFAIK. And the DOD, even individual branches of the DOD, can put out notices/bulletins/warnings to any of it's members of severe consequences for communicating with people it feels are a threat. Simply telling your personnel not to communicate with someone is not the same as declaring them a terrorist.

    This is not to say that Assange isn't being persecuted. But internal memorandum informing personnel of severe consequences for communicating with a known agent of espionage is simply not the same thing as declaring them an enemy of the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "why do you people ask for citations from the website we're currently talking about"

    People are asking for citations because you have presented your opinion as fact. They want you to prove your statement to be true, if you believe it is, by providing links to evidence and data supporting your statement.

    "Citation needed" is just the common term now for "proof or gtfo".

    "what do you think i'm going to cite, wikipedia?"

    No, but you could if you wanted to. As Wikipedia provides links to it's information, thus "citations" or "citation needed". And people can then click on said links to go back to the source for the information.

    If you have relevant information, that is verified, you can present it. Doesn't have to be from Wikipedia, it can be from any credible and verified source.

    However, the truth is you have no such citations because what you stated is false. Someone has already provided a link from a source much better than you which states there was no damage caused by the Wikileaks leaks. None whatsoever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:32am

    Re: Might as well start now

    This is more like McCarthyism than communism. I fear you might end up like Manning if you address people that way!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re:

    The cited article attributes the opinion to Manning's defense lawyer. Of course he is inclined to say things such as this, but just because he says so does not make it so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    latin angel (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:40am

    Re:

    Enemy of the people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    latin angel (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:45am

    Re: Assange says he's an enemy

    But that was the wrong reaction.

    If Assagne defines the US to be a evil empire and therefore its enemy, the US only need to convince Assagne that it is not a evil empire.

    Not make im its enemy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It helps if you actually read the article...

    Second and third paragraphs:

    'A defense lawyer for US Army private Bradley Manning argued that his client took care to disclose files that would not harm US interests and subsequent government reports have shown no major “injury” was caused.

    But prosecutors countered that the potential harm caused by the disclosures is irrelevant to the court-martial and that Manning committed a crime simply by leaking classified information without permission.'


    The government itself isn't able to prove that the leaks caused any major harm(other than making some high ranking people look less than stellar), and so find themselves having to fall back to 'it doesn't matter, because the information was classified anyway'.

    You can bet that if they had any verifiable proof of harm caused by the leaks they would be shouting it from the rooftops, as it would make their case a slam-dunk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Muhammad Salah

    http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=10022&jid=1&href=fulltext

    Real ly sucks for this guy, he was tortured as well. Don't get me wrong, I think it's all crazy, just thought I'd mention a tidbit of info that you might find useful.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:01am

    Re: Re: Re:

    internal memorandum informing personnel of severe consequences for communicating with a known agent of espionage is simply not the same thing as declaring them an enemy of the US.

    Semantics. In the same sentence he's a "known agent of espionage" but he's "not a terrorist". Yet the consequences of being either are the same for anyone that talk to him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not defending or condemining anything about that story you posted. But I will say that it has nothing to do with a branch of the US military establishing a policy of no-communications-allowed with specific organizations or individuals, and then internally prosecuting it's own associated employees/soldiers/contractors for violating said rule.

    Again, this says nothing about whether or not the military or politicians are or are not capable of horrible abuses of power in violation of law. All I'm saying is that branches of government can indeed have internal policies forbidding communication for those who it has effectively established non-disclosure-agreements with, and prosecute violations of those rules.

    That is all I see here. I see no evidence that Assange has been officially declared a terrorist or enemy of the U.S. Whether or not Assange actually is being persecuted unjustifiably is a different matter entirely (and frankly that situation existed before).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:07am

    We need a new Wikileaks...It'll take the US government at least a few years to declare that site illegal/enemy-of-the-US. Then we repeat the cycle again with another new Wikileaks...

    Don't ask me though. I live in the US and a prerequisite for hosting/founding Wikileaks is that you DON'T live in the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:08am

    Once again, Mike overreacts to the government overreacting.

    "The idea that leaking relevant and newsworthy information can get you classified as such has incredibly scary implications."

    What he leaked was classified information which he knew was classified. This isnt about transparancy or freedom of speech. Anybody who has or gets access to classified information and leaks it is an enemy.

    If your best friend told all of your secrets would you defend it as freedom of sppech or call it transparancy? No, he would become your enemy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Semantics. In the same sentence he's a "known agent of espionage" but he's "not a terrorist". Yet the consequences of being either are the same for anyone that talk to him.

    No. You say "anyone" meaning anyone in the world, but that simply is not true. When you sign a non-disclosure agreement with an entity, they generally can ask you not to talk to certain people they are in competition with. Asking DOD personnel or those granted clearances not to talk to Assange or wikileaks personnel is simply not the same thing as you are talking about. You're exaggerating in a paranoid fashion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "That is all I see here. I see no evidence that Assange has been officially declared a terrorist or enemy of the U.S. "

    Perhaps not, but considering the history of the players involved here, that isn't very comforting if you are in Assange's shoes, now is it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What about whistleblowing? Some of the leaked "secrets" to Wikileaks were just that--whistleblowing. Non-disclosure agreements can be helpful, but that doesn't mean one should ignore the illegal activities of one's organization. Whistleblowing is an effective means to stopping said activities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Faceless Minion, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:16am

    Re:

    Quite frankly, I find the words of the people with Predator drones far more meaningful then those of standard politicians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:17am

    Re:

    Your appeal to authority in an attempt to prove your point is quite cowardly. You assume that just because a person in power has deemed something as "classified" that it should be kept secret. The only acceptable reason for the government to keep information secret is to protect people from harm. (i.e. keep the identities of secret agents hidden) The documents released by wikileaks contain information about how the government functions, information which is essential to a meaningful democracy. They should never have been classified in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "[...] it can be from any credible and verified source."

    Actually, it can be from any source, you will just look like a tool if you cite Fox News for instance. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:29am

    Re:

    go move to Libya then, or perhaps Sudan or Iran. I'm sure you'd love it over there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re:

    So Public Enemy No. 1?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're making incorrect assumptions about what I said. I said 'anyone' meaning anyone in the DOD. So we are in fact talking about the same thing.

    It's also funny that you claim I'm exaggerating yet I'm using your exact words. I don't think 'exaggerating ' means what you think it means.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:40am

    Re: Re:

    You just said exactly what I've been thinking all along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:42am

    Re:

    Right! Now, where's my pitchfork?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Might as well start now

    You're confusing communism with a dictatorship. The USSR was really a dictatorship despite being called communist. They never truly embraced concept of communism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Jake, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:48am

    Re: Assange says he's an enemy

    I agree. It's a variation on the old saying that if a man says he's going to kill you, believe him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:51am

    Enemies

    Those that expose the truth are always a threat to those in power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:52am

    Bring it up!

    "US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'"

    Wikileaks has oil?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re:

    Well, it was coming off the £D printer but that got smashed due to DMCA violations.

    So it's coming via homing missile.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Hey, I'll have you know I stole that term from Public Enemy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re:

    "No man, you need MACHETE!!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:03am

    Re: Names!! (not just stick and stones)

    Nomenclature is Very important to the military and Government as a whole.


    This is not some "Oops! My bad".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re:

    Tertium non datur.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:17am

    The original article kicking off this stupidity debunks all of this.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s .html

    He was called an enemy indirectly during an investigation into an analyst for leaking information. The analyst was fired, no charges were laid. A couple prosecutors being creative with charges is not exactly what I'd call the U.S. government declaring someone an enemy of the state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you care whether or not 1% of the US population who willingly applied for clearances (and hence gave up some freedom) has to follow a rule not to talk to Wikileaks or lose their clearances + jobs? This is some heinous violation of freedom of speech/due-process/find-a-right to you? If so, your priorities are screwed up.

    You need to be clear when you're making points, or you'll come off like the idiot you came off as.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If the US citizens want protection for whistleblowers in the military, they are free and perhaps even encouraged to solicit such legislation from their elected representatives. But lets be real here, the military operates a certain way, and no one is forced to work for them. They aren't nice to people who violate their secrets, but neither is any other federal entity. The only people who were instructed not to talk to wikileaks were people who willingly forfeited the right to speak on certain subjects, that was their choice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    Has any "communist" regime? I believe it is a human impossibility to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:35am

    Jesus H. Christ on Earth, when are the large majority of you going to learn that Assange doesn't just post "Embarrassing News" on WikiLeaks. Some of you forget he releases what HE considers newsworthy. This includes Ebassador Estimated Times of Arival. He's put US Ambassadors and Ambassadors of other nations lives in danger....notice how many bombings are happening at Ebassy's throughout the Middle East? He's an enemy of the state not due to embarrassment at all, but bevause he has broken several international espionage laws put forth by the Geneva Convention. The US isn't the only country that has him on their shit-list and to say that he shouldn't be an enemy of the state for endangering US dignitaries and US soil is highly misguided and wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:35am

    Re:

    all of the above

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    what he said

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:40am

    Re:

    I declare you an enemy of the people and a friend of the state!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Assange willingly solicited leakers from the U.S. This is no different from any other spy agency in the world trying to recruit assets in a nation it wishes to gain secret information from.

    I agree with Assange's words on free speech, as I do on Obama's. If I were in charge, I would not be persecuting Assange as he's being persecuted. He was the journalist/messenger, not the leaker.

    However, Assange is a tremendously arrogant and hypocritical person. The US is hardly the most secretive nation on earth, not even close. Where are wikileaks pages from inside china's government about China's military buildup? Where are the wikileaks pages on China's abuse of it's own citizens and the systematic way it is done? Where are the pages on what is going on in Russia's government? Where's the leaking on improper elections and intimidation in Russia? Assange is deliberately targeting one of the most open nations on earth, you would have to ask him why he does this. He likely has no good answer. Certainly there are plenty of other nations with state secrets that constitute greater violations of human rights than the US has, but Assange is fixated on America.

    Ask yourself why that is. Is it perhaps because Russia and China would actually spend money/effort to kill Julian to shut him up whereas the US would just try to imprison him? To me, that seems quite likely. He's a man operating like a spy agency, without the backing of any government, and he's somehow surprised with being hung out to dry by everyone? He's probably lucky someone in Russia didn't leak anything serious on his site, or he'd certainly have been disappeared by now.

    Again, I would never persecute Assange. But if I were in charge, I would try to prevent him from ever getting secrets from my nation. If that meant telling everyone with clearances that they are forbidden from speaking to wikileaks, so be it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re:

    Does it make it right when one if your ambassadors dies because of the information he releases? Great Henry Kissinger's Ghost Batman!!!! If that information gets out in an unstable region where people are dumb enough to think ambassadors are there to force US policies on others, the very lives of those ambassador's would die for something they never did!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:50am

    If NY Times would've received those files and also made them public, would they also be the "enemy of the state"? If not, then Wikileaks shouldn't be one either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    Seegras (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:51am

    Re:

    Well, obviously those responsible for that classification are the enemy of the state themselves.

    Well, if the state is a nation of law, anyway...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Seegras (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Assange willingly solicited leakers from the U.S. This is no different from any other spy agency in the world trying to recruit assets in a nation it wishes to gain secret information from.

    I paraphrase:
    The New York Times willingly solicited whistleblowers from a company. This is no different from any other news agency in the world trying to recruit assets in a company it wishes to gain secret information from.

    You miss one crucial bit: Public. So they would solicit "spies" for the public (which, by the way, includes you)?

    I repeat here what would really work:

    Fixing the problem would be minimizing the amount of people who have access to classified material. Since they tend to over-classify, nobody can work without that classified-access, so there's a huge amount of people who need that access.

    The only rational course would be the declassify 90% of what gets classified right now, since it's not really important. And for the rest, you would not have to give 2 Million people access, but maybe only 50'000, so the chance of leaks would be very much lower.

    But bureaucracies don't really work like that, since bureaucrats get power over other bureaucrats when classifying things. So everyone classifies and thus ever more people need access to that material...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Re:

    allegedly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    Depends on what definition of communism you use.
    If you use that provided by the far right in the U.S. then almost every western country in the world is socialist and/or communist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    Yup, if you're not an apple, you must be an orange.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Bureaucratic agencies over-classify to protect jobs/positions/programs. The military has a much better history of knowing what and what not to classify, and its classified programs suffer yearly review by congress, which is not the case for your average federal agencies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Re:

    With friends like corporations, who needs enemies? =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I thought it just used magic...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Howitzer for the win... I just happen to keep one in the backyard, you know for self defense...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But Fox News is fair and bias. They told me that themselves! =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Haha, Freudian slip there. Fair and Balanced... =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I prefer to think that it may have brought world peace in the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:00am

    Re: Bring it up!

    Isn't that what's leaking? They really ought to put an oil pan under that domain...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re:

    "Each civilization contains the seeds of its own ndestruction."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:26am

    Re:

    Well Wally, I regret to inform you that some of those international laws, or better said ALL, mentioned in the Geneva Convention DO NOT apply to Julian Assange.

    Now, before you get in an uproar and further make a fool of yourself, let me explain why.

    Those laws pertain to, and ONLY to, soldiers. Julian Assange is not a soldier of any country, as such he cannot violate the protocols and what have you addressed specifically in the Geneva Convention.

    Also, he is NOT an enemy of the state. Your beliefs not withstanding. Putting information online is just that. Putting information online.

    Also, that you try and conflate attacks on U.S. Embassies in the Middle East with Wikileaks and what Assange has published is a bit much. This topic has already been discussed and covered a ridiculous amount, but most of the attacks happening lately stem from that video that was on Youtube. NOT Wikileaks/Julian Assange.

    Maybe you weren't aware of it, but a lot of countries don't like the United States. So just being an ambassador for the country while working out of a hostile country is dangerous, yet again you seem to overlook that fact to go on a further tirade and attempt to lay the danger Ambassadors and embassy staff face on a daily basis at the feet of Assange.

    Sorry, but in this case you're very much in the wrong. Now, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't try and conflate issues or misrepresent what is actually in the Geneva Convention, because it only applies to A. countries who voluntarily agreed to abide by what is stated therein and B. soldiers serving on behalf of countries who voluntarily agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention. (Also, if memory serves me correctly, I believe the U.S. DID NOT actually agree to abide by the Geneva Convention. However, we do follow some of the things set out in it, but we did not actually agree to anything in it or sign it or whatnot. Which while seemingly a small difference is a difference nonetheless and one worth pointing out, should you try and bust that nonsense out again.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re:

    Actually, I stand corrected. We did sign and eventually ratify all parts of the treaty (Geneva Convention). But again, it only pertains to certain people (namely those in war). Of which Assange isn't one. So it still doesn't matter/apply to him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: Assange says he's an enemy

    "It's a variation on the old saying that if a man says he's going to kill you, believe him."

    The US made it "If a man says he's going to kill you, make him do it in self defense."

    Or in this case, "If a man says you are an evil empire, give him a real reason to think so."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    One, it's been pointed out here that no one died due to this information being released.

    Two, in your hypothetical, there is a deeper problem then releasing embarrassing documents. Those people got that idea for a reason and declaring war on everything and classifying everyone as enemies of the state won't fix that. If our government was doing what it should have been doing, people wouldn't think that of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:48am

    Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Not sure if trolling...

    Or batshit insane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    wow angrywebmaster, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:52am

    Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    that sounds alot like an authoritarian countr-

    *hears bang at door*

    OH #-

    communication terminated for national security reasons

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    identicon
    oh i get it, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    so americas version of espionage is killing a snitch after you rob the bank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    Re:

    President Madagascar!

    Yes?

    Wikileaks is about to release some documents!



    CLASSIFY



    EVERYTHING!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Michael Becker (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    You mean like the "rights" extended to Bradley Manning?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Fuck Manning. If the charges are true, he's a traitor and a disgrace to his uniform.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Except um, what war? I haven't seen a signed declaration from Congress yet... Maybe you should revise and say in a time of conflict. But I don't know if that's the same thing and also considered treason...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    And rights under the UCMJ are very different than those afforded under Federal criminal law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re:

    You're wrong on this. Sometimes revealing classified information reveals what our intelligence capabilities are. Our adversaries come to understand that we have solid intel on their weapons program or their own intel assets. Then they cover their tracks and do their dark deeds and we end up with an unpleasant surprise. Stick with your job at Wal Mart, this shit is way past you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    identicon
    yeah ac, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    condsidering all the bad #### your country does thats no longer an excuse for you to get away with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    greenbird (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:51pm

    Re:

    may have contributed

    They also "may have contributed" to fairies coming out my ass. Although many have dug, no one yet has presented any reasonable evidence supporting either of those that I'm aware of.

    In a free and open society anything like Wikileaks would be condoned and supported. Let me explain the reasons why.

    First Wikileaks simple allows a channel for people to anonymously release information at least somewhat protected from retribution. The press use to be the channel for allowing this thus the protections for a free press in the US constitution as a check on government for it keeping it free and open. Unfortunately technology is changing the nature of how information is distributed. The main stream media is no longer the primary and exclusive means of distributing information. Because of this disruption of the gatekeeper role the main stream media has held in the past they are pushing the government to pass laws to help them slow down and/or stop the disruptive process. This pretty much negates the "free press" as being free from government interference as intended by it's constitutional protections. Add to this that even given the protections of the free press provided by the constitution the government has always had at least some limited ability to control the press. Historically they exercised this control often (likely far more often than we are aware of). How justified they were in doing this is no doubt variable and arguable. I have no doubt in many cases there would be a strong case it was justified. I also have no doubt there would be strong arguments in many cases the suppression was bordering on criminal. With Wikileaks they lose all control whether justified or not. In a free and open society, in my mind at least, the occasional release of information that would have been justifiable suppressed is far out weighed (I'll support this more below) by the suppression of information that exposes at best government inefficiencies or at worse down right criminal behavior by the government.

    Now there are occasions where the suppression of information may be justified. The case I'll make here is that if such information has made it way to Wikileaks most likely the people who could use this information for nefarious purposes already have access to it (unless of course the nefarious purpose is to expose questionable actions by the government). Those people are going to typically be far more motivated to gain access to the information. In a free and open society, although there may be a significant cost, the information leaking to Wikileaks exposes weaknesses in how information is protected. This should allow the government to fix these holes in their security. This also helps fix a governmental problem. Although, again, there may be a cost associated with this it may also allow fixing the security thus eliminating a continuing information leak or an even more costly leak later.

    The big problem with the recent documents Wikileaks published isn't that they "may have contributed to the death of soldiers" but who the government was trying to prevent from seeing those documents. First, given the obscenely piss poor security protecting those documents the information was likely already available to those who could use it to "contributed to the death of soldiers". Now obviously I have no way of supporting that assertion other than by general assertions as to the ease of which the security measures were circumvented. I will assert though that the primary person the government was trying to prevent from seeing those documents wasn't people who could use it to "contributed to the death of soldiers" but to the general public who would see many of the questionable things our government was doing. The rather scary part, other than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn't be trying to hide anything it does. Nothing functional was exposed that I'm aware of and Wikileaks tried to redact any operational information that could have put anyone in danger. And they would have been able do this much more effectively if our supposed "free and open" government had cooperated with Wikileaks in the redaction rather than working to attack them any way they could get away with. Wikileaks didn't leak the information. They just published it. But it's much easier to attack the message than to fix the source of the message they brought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First of all, your 1% is probably off, it's likely way less than 1%.

    Second, yes following a rule my boss just added to not talk to someone who is pointing out how corrupt and unethical my boss is, is in fact a heinous violation likely many rights and certainly ethics.

    The fact that talking to them could mean indefinite jail time (which would be against the law) and/or death in this circumstance only makes the 'heinous violation' that much more egregious.

    But I don't really need to mention those facts because you resorted to name calling, which means you've run out of arguments and I win. Thanks!

    Now that I've won, I'll end with the suggestion that maybe you need to be more open minded, because you are coming off as a close-minded idiot who doesn't seem to understand the topic under discussion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    identicon
    heres something, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 12:56pm

    if this had been some guy in iran showing how bad things are there he whould not be hiding in an embassy. he whould be shaking hands with every leader in the west and they whould be calling it free speech an issue of human rights and all that BS hey love to trot around. but as soon as its them then he is one of the most dangerous people in the world and anybody that even has contact with him should be killed or arrested.

    in some ways thats even more terrible. iran executes whistleblower? evil and demented. US does the same? national security issue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ... anyone know where one can get a battleship on the cheap?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Second, yes following a rule my boss just added to not talk to someone who is pointing out how corrupt and unethical my boss is, is in fact a heinous violation likely many rights and certainly ethics.

    The fact that talking to them could mean indefinite jail time (which would be against the law) and/or death in this circumstance only makes the 'heinous violation' that much more egregious.


    Did you agree to not discuss certain topics outside of work on pain of prosecution for violating federal laws when you took the job? If you agreed to such a thing, you should honor that agreement, shouldn't you? You should also expect consequences when you blow the whistle, and be willing to pay those consequences to enact positive change in the world. It's called civil disobedience for a reason, it's not "get-out-of-agreement-and-jailtime-because-ends-justify-means disobedience".

    you resorted to name calling...

    Actually no, I didn't call you anything. You read that in because you're just incapable of seeing anything in color. Black and white is fine if you want to be an extremist, but it wins you no points when dealing with reality. Enjoy your ignorance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    heres something, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    if theres anything i have learned from looking at things in grey is that its even more evil then black.

    when you try to do things like this to whistleblowers like this to shield yourself from facing the consequences of your actions then your just as much of a threat to people as you say the other guy is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    heres something, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    evil does both of those.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Three cheers for Bradley Manning! If the charges are true he is a hero, and an honor to the bloodstained and disgraced uniform of the US military.

    There I fixed it for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    identicon
    Tricky Dicky, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:34pm

    Nixon's shitlist

    Wasn't John Lennon an enemy of the US according to Nixon? These bozos do this stuff on other people's taxes... but they get theirs in the end.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Richard peacefulman, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

    Whikileaks

    It's seems odd that the issuses raised by Wikileaks are ignored even tho they expose crimes on a colossal scale! Are we too afraid to draw comparisons with the rise of the third riech? Sort the problems not the reporters!! Or get ready for the jack boots otherwise!! My father, along with millions served our country to defend the freedoms that are being stripped in the name of security!! From third world nations without our technologies of death? Stop drone attacks! Have you seen the results?? Get the baddies, don't be them!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    This again? It's already been proven that NO ONE has died from any of the information released.

    Secondly, you're going off on an insane hypothetical. Hey, Wally, what if tomorrow some guy you pissed off years ago decides to pump you full of lead when you leave your house? Are you going to stay in all day or maybe just go about your business? You don't know, he could be there, I bet you've pissed off people with your silliness.

    See how that works?

    There are tons of "unstable" regions around the world already. If they're unstable right now and as is, I doubt a little bit of mostly irrelevant information is going to make anything worse. Your hypothetical scenario notwithstanding.

    People die every day though. When you start pouring your bleeding heart out for every single death happening right at this moment, I personally might care. But this [points at your comment] is just a bit much and just an attempt to further sling mud at Julian Assange and Wikileaks. The evidence is greatly against you. When government reports are out saying "no harm has been done, no deaths can be attributed" you've effectively lost the argument and only look foolish.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes, we should just roll over and give up against authority instead of fighting to make things right in our own country. That's the gist of what you're saying, isn't it? If we always did that there wouldn't have been a Revolutionary War.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is all well and good, but does not change that they should still be free to point out criminal actions. We want people to report illegal activity. We have a right to know what the government (and by extension, the military) is doing in our name. Especially when what they are doing is explicitly illegal or downright evil.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What about the whistleblower laws that are meant to protect someone from prosecution? I'd think those would trump contract laws, since that's what they're meant to do. Staying quiet about wrongdoing is as bad as doing the deed yourself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You mean our government, not our country. Most of the country is just fine. It's the evil assholes that the bored and lazy keep putting back in power that's the problem (along with the bored and lazy that need a cattle prod in the ass).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 3:16pm

    It's a...uh...good time to be an American?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 4:07pm

    That makes me like Wikileaks all the more. I stand with Wikileaks!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re:

    "The rather scary part? Other [sic] than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn't be trying to hide anything it does."

    This is an obvious truism. What does it tell you about a society that calls the only journalist willing to mention the idea a terrorist? I'm telling ya man, scary times are ahead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 4:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The country and the government can SUCK IT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And I would argue the restriction on freedom of the press in war zones contributes to more of that than anything else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:33pm

    Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Neither. Absolutely accurate. Stop trying to apply US laws to people outside the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 5:36pm

    Re:

    The NY Times wouldn't publish information that puts people's lives at risk. They would face legal consequences if they did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 6:48pm

    Re: Re: Bring it up!

    They must have hired BP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Whikileaks

    It the basis of the stupidity that is Assange. It's about HIM, not the content. It's all about making Julian Assange the big man, not about the actual issues.

    Once you learn that, the rest is easy to deal with!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Spoken like someone too cowardly to ever have worn one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 7:14pm

    Re: Assange says he's an enemy

    I suggest you go look it up, because your memory seems highly distorted. I don't remember Assange stating any such malicious intent, only a desire to expose untruths and corruption, whether corporate or state.

    You're the one making the claims here, you have to back them up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why the US?

    1 - he had the info. you can't release what you don't have. I am sure he would have if he could have (for his ego if nothing else).

    2 - because the US Gov are Hypocrites!

    (mostly #2)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:32pm

    Re:

    Good... now don't move.

    Um - could you wave with your left hand please now? We want to be sure its you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Sometimes revealing classified information reveals what our intelligence capabilities are."

    That's a great hypothetical, but did it actually happen in this case? How about we concentrate on what info was actually released instead of making up stories to make things sound scarier than they actually are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:08pm

    Re:

    "He's put US Ambassadors and Ambassadors of other nations lives in danger....notice how many bombings are happening at Ebassy's throughout the Middle East?"

    Nice credibility-killing conflation of two completely different events there Wally. Why use facts to make your point when you can just make stuff up!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 9:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Someone said howitzer!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    "Absolutely accurate."

    ...trolling it is then.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 27th, 2012 @ 10:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    umadbro?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    icon
    drewbach (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:38pm

    Enemy of WHICH state?

    For someone who likes to talk about the law, it's funny how you didn't talk about WHICH law applies and where.

    1. Assange is not a US citizen, but he does NOT live in the US. This is a worthless argument.
    2. It's of no consequence.
    4. Valid and relevant point.
    4. Assange has no rights under US law? That's questionable as he's a non-combatant in a foreign country. The UN Charter of Human Rights applies (Right to Life, Justice etc). The jurisdictional issue is key!
    5. He has the right to aid his own interests, he may oppose the US freely - without consequences! The US does not have the right to attack him or detain him abroad. Only if he chooses to visit the US, or can be extradited after having been charged with a [valid] crime (subject to conditions).

    You seem to forget that Mr. Hellfire is AN ILLEGAL ALIEN in the UK, Sweden and Australia. You and the US would have NO RIGHTS under their laws to do anything! Did you forget this? It would be an act of WAR! Pakistan is an exception, not the rule.

    Your national sovereignty, as you refer to, means nothing in a foreign jurisdiction. The key word being "national". He has plenty of rights as it stands, you can't take away rights you have no authority to grant him.

    You obviously have no legal degree, and not enough knowledge of international law or human rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 27th, 2012 @ 11:46pm

    Re: Re:

    The NY Times wouldn't publish information that puts people's lives at risk. They would face legal consequences if they did.

    Kinda funny then, that the State Dept leaks that have caused all this trouble... were published *by the NYT* (and a few other newspapers) in conjunction with Wikileaks, with all of them redacting sensitive info.

    In other words, your suggestion that the NYT would act differently is disproved by the fact that both acted the same, because they worked together.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    icon
    Dionaea (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 12:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    So true... Some think that you're an ultra left wing socialist just for thinking it's inhumane to throw people out of a hospital because they have no insurance =.=

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    icon
    Bill W (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 12:37am

    Wow, 60's all over again

    Back in the roaring 60's my brand new wife and I were fed f'ing up with the US of A. The gom'nt was f'ing everything up, we had the "war" (Viet Nam), Nixon/Watergate, and we just figured we would emigrate to Australia which had a bounty of computer techs. We didn't go. But it is looking really good about now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    icon
    Dionaea (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 1:03am

    Re: Re: Whikileaks

    Being an asshole isn't illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    identicon
    Your_point?, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:03am

    Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Thanks to Assange people helping the United States were "disappeared" and yes, they were killed.

    And?

    Didn't the people involved understand the risks before taking such a position?

    Then he will have certain rights. (Lawyer, trial, etc)

    And yet - 1) Assange is NOT a United States citizen.

    And as a 'US Citizen' my "rights" have been ignored/violated by Judicial officials. Had said official complain about my case being "too much work" and said official would not actually take the time to read the casefile - claimed the conditions for a Default Judgement were not met.

    So, exactly, how is Assange to expect a fair and just trial when I can't get one over an under $5000 a deadbeat did not pay?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    icon
    bratwurzt (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:04am

    Re: Enemy of WHICH state?

    I'm not sure about this - but where does US constitution mentions right just for us citizens? Isn't the exact wording person?

    correct me, if I'm wrong...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:07am

    Re: Assange says he's an enemy

    M Lauer .... declares themselves to be my enemy

    Hey Mike - M Lauer is the pseudo-name for the United States!

    Best ask for a Q&A from the United States!

    (Say United States - how's Obama working out? How did Bush II work out?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    identicon
    say what?, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:11am

    Re:

    What he leaked was classified information which he knew was classified.

    And the basis for the classification was?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164.  
    icon
    bratwurzt (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    yeah, it's all government fault - forget the fact that USA is not a democracy. I'd call it monetarian polycracy, but hey - it seems monetarian prefix could be added to any -cracy or -archy out there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re:

    "The rather scary part? Other [sic] than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn't be trying to hide anything it does."

    This is an obvious truism. What does it tell you about a society that calls the only journalist willing to mention the idea a terrorist? I'm telling ya man, scary times are ahead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    Some of us wouldn't pass the physicals. Besides, some of us prefer working in the health industry (saving lives) rather than the death industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, because invading many 'innocent' countries and behaving like hypocritial bullies, and having an entire terrorist network dedicated to your destruction is nowhere near as dangerous as having Wikileaks publishing diplomatic gossip.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 7:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Whikileaks

    I dunno, ask Kim Dotcom. So when did "Felony Being a Foreign Asshole" pass in the US? Because it must only apply to foreigners or you could use it on so many deserving individuals...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Sep 28th, 2012 @ 7:42am

    Re: Wow, 60's all over again

    Just have to keep an eye out for a blue box. It should be around the US in '69...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Nixon's shitlist

    Lennon proclaimed himself to be a communist, proudly wore a Mao badge, and gleefully sang about the joys to be found "Back In The U.S.S.R.". But when he moved out of his home country, where did he go? Russia? China? No, he came to the U.S.A. What a hypocrite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171.  
    identicon
    Pseudonym, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 5:11pm

    Re:

    One key thing that you need to understand about modern governments is that they are not conspiring against anyone. They can't, because that would require some degree of cooperation, agreement, and competence.

    If I'm understanding TFA correctly, the US military has declared Assange an "enemy of the state" for the purposes of deciding who you (as a member of the military) are allowed to talk to. That's it. They can't attack Assange on the basis of this ruling, they can only prosecute anyone who works for them and talks to him.

    Everyone in the government probably has their own list of bad guys. There are many like it, but this one is theirs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 9:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    one of the communism "ideals" was a strong central bank

    just pointing that out

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 9:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enemy of the state? yes

    it cowardly to not hide behind a title and a collective personality?

    interesting

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  174.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 9:35pm

    Re: Enemy of WHICH state?

    i personnally dont talk what is right or wrong based on what a law says

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  175.  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Sep 28th, 2012 @ 9:37pm

    Re: Re:

    u mean
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  176.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fermions have no rights. That is why they are willing to suicide-bomb. The bosons are spoiled, lost blond kids who usually get stopped before they leave New Jersey.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  177.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2012 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    Yes they did, structurally speaking. It is a somewhat independent issue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  178.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    But that has been a US practice too. And a German one, after the war. Guilt by association? Seems like pushing a string, this kind of argument.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  179.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Might as well start now

    Plus, who can even speak of a central bank in a command economy such as Soviets? Seems like the concept requires a market economy of some stripe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  180.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2012 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Enemy of WHICH state?

    The US Constitution is pretty miraculously good. Unreasonably effective, indeed. You may not want to make every law sacred -- I certainly don't. But texts are powerful. We need their poetry, authority, and logic. They give cultural and institutional strength to our rightful convictions. You do worse than export the 1st Amendment, for example.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  181.  
    identicon
    american who notices they hypocrisy in america, Sep 29th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

    julian assange the hero

    most people dont know that the us government is the only government besides israel that starts wars and 1.7 million german pow soldiers were killed by eisenhauer his true name not eisenhower he was ashamed to be german and also ww2 was started by FDR our first dictator welfare starting president see when other countries speak the truth the jewnited states of america cannot handle that so they will cause wars to please the jews of israel well its not assanges fault for talking if you dont like it dont complain to others about your freedom of speech then want to kill another because you disagree

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  182.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2012 @ 6:04am

    Assange and Wikileaks have been declared "enemies of the US"

    No, not united states, NEOCONS

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This