Justice Department Trying To Figure Out How To Twist US Laws To Charge Julian Assange
from the um,-wow dept
Yesterday, we noted that the Obama administration was considering legal action against Julian Assange of Wikileaks for the release of various government documents. The latest on that front is that the Justice Department is wasting valuable resources scouring the legal books to see if it can come up with some sort of ridiculous justification for charging Assange with violating the Espionage Act. It’s difficult to think of a more ridiculous and simply petty response from the feds.
First of all, Assange is not an American and not in the US. Charging him in absentia is basically a meaningless (and childish) gesture against someone it doesn’t like. Furthermore, as the Justice Department must know (it does know this, right?), the Espionage Act is generally viewed as outdated in light of more modern case law on the First Amendment. The feds’ loss in the Pentagon Papers case should make them realize what an amazing waste of taxpayer money it would be to go after Assange.
But, more to the point, such a response wouldn’t do anything to help the situation. Getting rid of Assange won’t stop the release of this kind of information. It will just mean that the next such release will come from more distributed sources. The US government’s focus on Assange and Wikileaks as an organization suggests that it doesn’t realize what it’s actually dealing with. The fact that it’s reacting this way, rather than addressing the issues raised by the leaks, suggests that it thinks these types of leaks aren’t inevitable. It’s wrong. It’s shooting the messenger, rather than realizing that the message is pretty important.
Filed Under: espionage act, free speech, julian assange, obama administration
Companies: wikileaks
Comments on “Justice Department Trying To Figure Out How To Twist US Laws To Charge Julian Assange”
Time for an anonymized P2P leak network?
Re: Re:
Ask and you shall recieve … uTorrent now allows apps … I haven’t played with them yet but expect some fun stuff to happen over the next year or so.
Re: what if...
What if it was another countries files that were stolen? Like our enemy, hmm? would the us gov care then? Or would they be giving Assange a medal?
Re: Re: what if...
Sure, someone might. Kinda like how China might give a medal to a guy whole stole secrets from us. And if he was a U.S. Citizen, we would probably charge him for treason.
Why do you people keep bringing that up? The answer is “yes”, alright?
Re: Re: Re: what if...
So would you object if a US citizen publicized something damaging to China, and China assassinated him?
Re: Re: Re:2 what if...
Yes.
WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING?
Re: Re: Re:3 what if...
I’m not getting why you think it’s OK for us to assassinate people we think are bad, and not OK for our enemies to assassinate people they think are bad.
Re: Re: Re:4 what if...
That’s not you asked. You asked if I would “object”.
It’s an adversarial situation. We’re going to do bad things to people who do bad things to us, and vice versa. Morality doesn’t really enter into it.
Re: Re: Re:5 what if...
Morality doesn’t really enter into it.
Why not? Morality enters into everything. You can’t make an immoral decision and then claim that morality doesn’t apply because it’s an adversarial situation.
Re: Re: Re:6 what if...
Um, yeah, I can. If I’m in a war, it doesn’t matter whether it’s right to kill the other guy. He’s trying to kill me, so I’m going to try to kill first. It’s just not a moral issue.
Re: Re: Re:7 what if...
OK, well you can say it’s not a moral issue, but that doesn’t make it true.
The most political fun I have had in years is watching the cockroaches scurry for another dark hole after Julian Assange kick over that rock exposing them to the light of day.
The Foggy Bottom Papers
One odd thing I’ve noticed is that there have been several stories comparing this to the Pentagon Papers, and in each one there’s commentary from someone involved with the latter who stresses that this is *completely different.*
Seems the mainstream media really resents Wikileaks, especially since they can’t ignore them.
Re: The Foggy Bottom Papers
Wikileaks is doing the job they *should* be doing, but they can’t seem to chew through the muzzles.
Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
What he started was noble, exposing the killing of innocent lives. But now he is just releasing documents for the sake that he can and want to get attention. This is latest batch of release do much more harm than good.
Re: Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
These? If you’re a mid-level State Dept. employee, maybe.
It’s interesting that people like Hillary Clinton have been citing these to reinforce points they want to make (e.g., that *everyone* is concerned about Iran.)
Re: Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
I’m with you on this one. What freedoms is he protecting with these documents? What scandals is he exposing? He’s doing nothing but leaking documents that are embarrassing now. Big whoop.
At least he’s not taking things out of context to paint people as murders this time.
Re: Re: Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
I’m with you on this one. What freedoms is he protecting with these documents? What scandals is he exposing? He’s doing nothing but leaking documents that are embarrassing now. Big whoop.
Did you ever stop to think that if the government wasn’t doing embarrassing things behind closed doors, there would be nothing to leak?
Re: Re: Re: Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
You do realize that’s just the old “if you didn’t have anything to hide, you wouldn’t need privacy argument” turned around, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
You do realize that’s just the old “if you didn’t have anything to hide, you wouldn’t need privacy argument” turned around, right?
Except that the government is supposed to be accountable to the people it allegedly represents.
Re: Re: Re:3 Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
Sure. And mostly, I believe in that. I absolutely despise closed door negotiations about domestic matters, particularly when the industry people get involved, cuz that’s how corp’s wind up writing laws in this country.
But the fact is, neither the arts of war or diplomacy work very well if completely open. And the answer, “well, they shouldn’t have done anything bad!” is just kinda stupid. War is really the process of doing bad stuff to people. Diplomacy is like negotiating a price on a car, it’s a bad thing if the dealer knows how much you’re actually willing to pay.
Re: Julian Assange is a selfish attention hogging low life
A selfish attention hogging low life? You mean like Paris Hilton?
Boy, she must be *pissed* about this. As if the Kardashians weren’t already stealing enough of the limelight.
Some Context On The Espionage Act:
First of all, it’s a law passed in 1917 under extremely controversial circumstances (the first red scare among them).
Secondly, the interesting thing about the Espionage Act is that the key qualifier for charging an individual with violating it is intent. Specifically, the person charges has to be proved to have the SPECIFIC intent to interfere with an ongoing military operation, the morale of the troops, or recruiting practices. This is where the government, should it suddenly choose to obey its own rules, is going to have a great deal of trouble.
I’ve seen no evidence that the purpose behind any Wikileaks release has been aimed at the disruption of an ongoing military operation, the morale of hte troops, or recruiting practices. That those things may happen as a secondary consequence are ABSOLUTELY IMMATERIAL to the law. Those things MUST be the specific intent of the charged, and it seems clear that Assange’s motivation for releasing this stuff is to expose wrongdoing to the world (I.E. whistleblowing) rather than being motivated by a general dislike and will to disrupt the United States Military.
Further caselaw makes this all the more difficult on the government. Brandenburg V. Ohio requires that the government prove there is “imminent lawless action” as a result of the actions of the charged (i.e. avoidance of the draft due to anti-draft publications being distributed). NYT Co. V. US establishes that the 1st Amendment is not subordinate to an Executive Order, rendering the President innocuous in attempts to censor the press. The Sedition Act was famously repealed in 1920.
In other words, the govt. has little case here to use this law to attack Assange, unless they plan on somehow proving his specific intent….
Re: Some Context On The Espionage Act:
Good point DH, but to qualify, wouldn’t he have to be a US Citizen?
Until then, isn’t it like your best friend telling all your co-workers about how you really feel about them?
Re: Re: Some Context On The Espionage Act:
“Good point DH, but to qualify, wouldn’t he have to be a US Citizen?”
I see no requirement for citizenship in the material I’ve reviewed (haven’t fully looked over the Act itself).
Honestly, enforcement of this law has generally been limited to government actions on publications themselves as opposed to individuals. For instance, the law has been used numerous times to bar publication of information, or by postmasters to refuse delivering “objectionable” material….
Re: Re: Re: Some Context On The Espionage Act:
>>For instance, the law has been used numerous times to bar publication of information, or by postmasters to refuse delivering “objectionable” material.
So then we would need a better definition of what objectionable material is because if Julian can be labeled a terrorist for performing the actions of a whistleblower for the truth, what does that make faulty intel as the basis of a false occupation (which was marketed to the people as a “war”, but was actually never voted upon by Congress)? The way I see Julian’s work is like outsourced intel gathering to find the actual basis of non-approved occupation.
In my mind, there are only two ways that this will be ultimately resolved. 1- Tell better secrets. This will probably entail usurping additional civil liberties. 2- More transparent views into the actual workings of government. Method 1 will bring on more spying capabilities, and will most likely expand the role of government and industry into people’s lives. Method 2 will mean people being honest.
Re: Re: Some Context On The Espionage Act:
it can be used to one, make sure that he never sets foot on any US soil, two, makes it illegal for any US company or any company wanting to do business in the US to also do business with him or anyone he does business with.
It would basically mean nothing cept maybe to any bank of his and such. I would say the NYT but they could still deal with him, they just wouldn’t be able to compensate him for it.
Re: Some Context On The Espionage Act:
This is where the government, should it suddenly choose to obey its own rules, is going to have a great deal of trouble.
Since when has the government ever been concerned with obeying its own laws?
Hey, does Assange know about that P2P DNS thing? Because it’d be hilarious if Wikileaks’ domain got siezed, and it popped right back up with a .p2p URL.
So how should the Govt. change things instead of shooting the messenger? Attack Iran? Send a life coach to Russia to help with their politicians?
There is nothing to do here besides lock down information. Wait, we unlocked it so that people could connect the dots, see information that by itself doesn’t mean anything but when linked with other information, shows trends or plots. What will happen to Wikileaks? Probably nothing, what will happen to the kid that gave them information? Probably a lot.
Do more harm to whom? The scumbags who populate the corrupt U.S. state? Oh wahhh, cry me a river.
Napster, Grokster, Limewire, et. al.
Great observation re: the pointlessness of shutting down Wikileaks. In a way, there’s a direct corollary in what happened w/MP3 music and Napster. After shutting it down, it wasn’t long until other more distributed models began to emerge. With the shutdown of each service, a new more elaborate and complex distributed model evolves and picks up from where the previous one left off.
The biggest frustration coming out of all of these Wikileaks releases has been how little attention has been paid to our gov’t’s frequent reprehensible behavior, versus the attention paid to Julian. It’s almost funny that in midst of reading how little we can actually trust those in charge, they further ask us to trust them when they explain how dangerous these leaks are. Ironically, the only ones likely to suffer from the leaks are those members of our gov’t whose lies and hypocrisy are being exposed.
Even more frustrating is that Wikileaks is only empowered because of our gov’t’s inability to live up to its FOIA commitments in a timely manner and the fact that the Third Estate is tripping over itself trying to be the mouthpiece for our gov’t rather than the objective group representing our citizen’s interests. Crazy.
When we look back in history, I believe 2010 will go down in infamy as the year our country did more to approach becoming a totalitarian state than almost any other time in history.
Re: Napster, Grokster, Limewire, et. al.
Futurama got it right.
We live in the time which will be referred to historically as “the stupid age”.
Re: Re: Napster, Grokster, Limewire, et. al.
At least we’re coming out of it (slowly). The trend is more people becoming more aware of exactly how stupid we’ve been and are being. I think the variety of insightful comments on this single article is pretty good evidence of that.
Since Obama claims the right to kill anyone -- even you --
this is all theater. As I may have said here, Assange runs around to television interviews, so the US claiming they can’t grab him at will is a patent lie. And as US proves daily at Gitmo, they don’t bother with even “twisting” laws when “national security” is at stake, however tenuously.
This “focus” on Wikileaks is simply trying to add credibility to an intelligence op, otherwise it looks too much like a deliberate leak. Wikileaks has a bit of the “Goldstein” role in “1984”, to support the need for all-encompassing police state.
And all the Wikileaks info adds up to arguing for an attack on Iran, nothing new there, been Israel’s goal for a decade, and that’s who may be “leaking”, since Israel has military ties and abnormal influence in the US that allows them to tap info at State Dept level.
Re: Since Obama claims the right to kill anyone -- even you --
To prove your point, let’s find something in the Wikileaks docs: http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/wikileaks-doc-us-tried-stop-accountability-abroad
Reaction sounds familiar
US government reaction to try and charge Assange is just as stupid as going after Bin Laden in the war on terror. Pandora’s box has been opened, to fix it they have to change themselves and how they behave towards the rest of the world.
Re: Reaction sounds familiar
Going after Ben Laden wasn’t stupid.
The method was wrong.
You don’t rip out the walls and go in with a hammer to kill a roach. You put out a little poison. (or diatomic earth for the green types)
To get one man you don’t send an army.
You send a sniper.
After a nice trial in absentia of course.
Hmm wonder if that is what they have in mind for Julian.
Re: Re: Reaction sounds familiar
My point was that maybe Bin Laden started a movement, but having /him/ as a main target will do nothing to stop the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Reaction sounds familiar
Oops, forgot to sign in for that comment.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reaction sounds familiar
but it’s a good case in point, AL Queda is a organization that will continue without Bin Laden, but it’s not like sniping the guy would hurt.
Re: Re: Reaction sounds familiar
>>Going after Ben Laden wasn’t stupid.
The method was wrong.
You don’t rip out the walls and go in with a hammer to kill a roach. You put out a little poison. (or diatomic earth for the green types)
Here’s the thing- going in with a wrecking crew is more costly and means more people and armament sales. Do this- make friends with special forces officers that can tell you how many times they had Ben Laffin in their sights only to be scolded by DC, asked to step down because a dead Ben Laffin would have stopped the overall occupation and narrative of faux-diplomacy from being pushed forward. It probably happens more often than you think.
Re: Reaction sounds familiar
That’s *exactly* the point Assange has made himself. His leaking of low-grade gossip is entirely deliberate. On the one hand, it deflects the most serious accusations against him (endangering troops and spies), while prompting officials to make themselves look like idiots when they switch on the hysteria about DANGER – especially when the hysteria is conspicuously unsupported by evidence.
More importantly, he realizes that his aims are served less by the content of the leaks, and more by the (widespread) existence of the leaks themselves. Here’s what Assange has to say about their effects;
There’s a great expansion of this idea here. The essence is that marginal organizations confronting the reality of leaks will start operating in less duplicitous, more socially responsible ways (e.g. not invading Iraq in response to attacks coming from Saudi Arabia), while the truly bad will turn on themselves, locking down their internal communications so severely they render themselves impotent. In either case, humanity wins.
One other thing...
Given industry’s (the banking sector being a big part of that) stranglehold…ah, I mean influence, on our gov’t, I believe we will see all sorts of action being taken here about Wikileaks. As you might be aware, they have already announced that their next release in early 2011 will be devastating to a large U.S. bank (see Forbes interview w/Adrian, http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/). It’s my contention that we will see mountains being moved in our legal system to vilify and criminalize Wikileaks before this release in order to attempt to stymie it.
This may sound conspiratorial but when considering how much money might be at stake, and the behavior of our largest corporations based on risk analysis, my bet is that either a massive technology effort to take down Wikileaks will happen or his arrest or assassination are possible fates.
Re: One other thing...
Assange seems to avoid alot of the questions in the interview.
On a personal note … Tell me its not CitiGroup he is going to leak information on. It would suck to even have the possibility of an EMI resurrection. It would ruin the brief I did last week on the future of the record industry. BOA would actually be my guess.
“my bet is that either a massive technology effort to take down Wikileaks will happen or his arrest or assassination are possible fates.”
Actually that would be worse for the US government and everyone else he has information on. It would result in all the unredacted and unreleased documents being dumped.
“It’s my contention that we will see mountains being moved in our legal system to vilify and criminalize Wikileaks before this release in order to attempt to stymie it.”
You seem not to understand how mirrors, replication, failover, backups, and copying work. You seem to have this idea that this is a server in a room they need to get access to. Its not. This is hundreds if not thousands of copies distributed on peoples home computers, in computing centers, on flash drives. Take a look at the “insurance” file from WikiLeaks on TPB. They key thing to remember is, if you loose control of a piece of information today, you can never regain control of that information EVER again.
Re: Re: One other thing...
“BOA would actually be my guess.”
Please let it be Chase….
Re: Re: Re: One other thing...
“Please let it be Chase”
It doesn’t matter as long as its not Citi. But BOA makes more sense. The whole abusing illegals, phantom fees, etc …
Re: Re: Re:2 One other thing...
If we get to vote, I vote for Citi. They tried to steal my parents’ house when it was 5 months from being paid off…
Re: Re: One other thing...
On a personal note … Tell me its not CitiGroup he is going to leak information on. It would suck to even have the possibility of an EMI resurrection. It would ruin the brief I did last week on the future of the record industry. BOA would actually be my guess.
Call me dumb, but what effect would such a leak have on all the people whose mortgages are held by the bank that is being “devastated”?
Messing with a corrupt institution is one thing, but messing with millions of people’s lives is another.
They should really just assassinate the guy. The CIA does have people who do this sort of thing, and it’s a reasonable response. He’s probably cost lives already, and if he hasn’t, he certainly seems to be trying to.
Seriously, what is the purpose of what he’s doing? He’s NOT a whistle blower, nothing that he’s released has any journalistic merit or surprising revelations. No cabinet members are going to be dismissed over any misdeeds.
Seriously, first time around, he released a bunch of war documents, which obviously comprises war efforts (and costs lives) and also revealed some Afghani informants, which probably got at least a few of them killed.
Most recently, he’s basically released a bunch of petty diplomatic bullshit and gossip, which hampers the diplomatic process. Nothing crazy illegal or awful mind you, just random bullshit. Keep in mind diplomacy is principly the process of avoiding resorting to violence. If you damage that, you increase the likelihood of violence.
I can’t find any purpose top his actions other than to just outright damage the reputation and ability to act of US. If he was a US citizen, he would be guilty of treason. He’s not, so he’s a foreign bad actor. Either way he’s an enemy of the state.
Seriously, we used to kill people for those reasons all the time.
Re: Re:
Either way he’s an enemy of the state.
Except, of course, when he is releasing information about OTHER COUNTRIES, then he is America’s best buddy. Right?
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, sometimes. Often the world is adversarial.
Re: Re:
>> Seriously, what is the purpose of what he’s doing? He’s NOT a whistle blower, nothing that he’s released has any journalistic merit or surprising revelations. No cabinet members are going to be dismissed over any misdeeds.
Gee Matt, Julian at his core is re-iterating, and showing the “market need” of the younger, new generation which is accountability, transparency of it’s elected and appointed officials.
Maybe you missed that election which was won by the people.
It’s possible that he’s a hero and will probably be a martyr which will only advance this desire of open and transparent government.
Re: Re:
Yes, there’s nothing “new” in those documents. We already knew our government was a corrupt bunch of liars, did anybody really need proof?
/sarc
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t get it, what was sarcastic about that?
Re: Re:
Uhh.. I’m honestly having a hard time figuring out if you’re just being satirical here.
But just in case you’re serious, I’d like to suggest that you look outside of “national interests” when you consider these matters. Each of us is an individual human being first, and not simply a citizen of whichever nation state.
More importantly, if the truth about our actions is what endangers lives, and there is honest concern about that, then maybe we should act in such a way that genuine transparency would *enhance* our reputations internationally, rather than tarnish them.
Re: Re: Re:
No….I’m really not being satirical.
Look, “national interest” isn’t the only concern here…….but it is a very large part of it. This man’s actions are doing a good deal of harm to fairly large number of people. Some of those people are US military, some are allies.
As far as “then maybe we should act in such a way that genuine transparency would *enhance* our reputations internationally”, I think that’s more than a little silly. War requires nasty things to be done (like assassinations, sometimes). Diplomacy, by it’s very nature requires some things to be said, some things to be unsaid.
Are you trying to say that everything the governement does should be open, all the time? Hell, I mostly agree with that myself when it comes to domestic matters, and trade agreements and such But it no way makes any sense with either military matters nor diplomatic ones. Large chunks of both those activities have to remain secret in order for them to even function.
The private who revealed this info needs to be tried for treason, for which the punishment can often be hanging. This guy, Assange, if he continues to be a problem, needs to disappear, or possibly be locked up forever under whatever pretext can be mustered. His actions are critically detrimmental. Not the govs actions, which he revealed; no, his actions of revealing somethings which shouldn’t, they are what is detrimental, and that needs to b e dealt with to the extent necessary to make it stop.
No, I am not kidding.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So basically you being an American citizen are stating that someone who is a citizen of another country (in this case the same one I am from) should be murdered by the great USA.. (or should that be the Great Satan).
Oh I’m sorry.. did I call you a name? well here’s one for you.. Look up in the dictionary Terrorist! Then look in the mirror.. Then take the dictionary and beat yourself over the head with it until you see sense.
Bloody hell… Want to know who these cables embarrass? THE US of A and its Diplomatic and Bureaucratic Corps. And IMHO Couldn’t have happened at a better time and WikiLeaks serves the purpose of its existence..
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In the future, please make sense.
I guarantee you that if the national interests of your country were seriously threatened, various means, including violent ones, would be considered for removing that threat. That’s always been true.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually Matt, no. G Thompson made perfect sense. The US government uses FUD to control the populace. If they run a website that is not liked, ICE is used to take it over. If they don’t like the person, they simply give the media press releases to copy and paste that make the person seem worse than Satan.
If the Australian government took a german national based on name only, got the wrong person, tortured them for a while then dumped them in Luxembourg (from memory), I would like to know. I would be disgusted with my government. You, however are following the government line, and asking for the public face of wikileaks to be what .. brutally murdered .. assassinated, whatever. For telling you a fact you didn’t like.
Based on that, I don’t want to be the someone that tells you the sky is blue when your government has told you it is grey.
I for one, also agree with the terrorist tag – however like many things, the US seems to have it backwards – the government is the terrorist. Any other country, it’s the people. I could go on but I assume you’re not going to listen to what I say, or consider it rationally.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The national interests of my country are indeed seriously threatened, by that terrorist nation called the US of A.
Their invasive actions have had ramifications for the safety of the other Western nations, who got sucked in by the actions of the USA.
Yes, invasive, as the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses (them thar’s weapons of mass destruction or have you conveniently forgotten about that?)
Such is the action usually portrayed by a dictatorship-regime.
Oh yes, Saddam Hussein was a despot and a dictator, but he should’ve been taken out during the SECOND Gulf war in the 90s, and it shouldn’t be a reason for invading and grabbing power in that country.
Also, I don’t think that invading the country has helped improved how Iraq is functioning now.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ok, great.
So, two questions:
1) Does your government, which is at least supposed to represent the will of your countries voters at large, feel the same as you do? I suspect they do not, or do only partially.
2) Can your government effectively persuade, dissuade or try to enforce a change in the USA’s behavior? They might have some diplomatic impact, but mostly, no.
That is what we like to call here is the US “SOL”.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yes, clearly you subscribe to the “might makes right” theory.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s less “might makes right” than “might dictates what will happen”. World is a harsh place, and government will largely do what they can get away with.
It’s like asking “well, the US has nukes, why isn’t it ok for Iran to have theM?” Well, the thing is, that’s really not the question. We have nukes, we trust what we will do with them, but don’t trust what Iran will do with them. We’re powerful enough to at least try to keep Iran from getting them, and that’s what all the yelling is about.
We probably don’t really trust China wioht nukes, either, but you see, they’re big enough to tell us to f*** off. Thus, there’s not much noise about it.
It’s not “Might makes right”. It’s “Might decides”.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
As long is it’s not “might decides, and I’m ok with whatever it decides.”
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
You get my point. Arguments why it’s allright for us to have nukes but not others are academic. “right” doesn’t really enter into it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Because our government doesn’t care about right, only about power and money. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t object.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
1) I’m not sure, it’s not exactly on the political agenda right now, but I did not vote for the bozos we currently have in power, I voted for a party that’s now in opposition. And I do know that they opposed the war in Iraq (and the Dutch involvement there), for the very same reason as I do, that it was based on a lie.
2) I have no idea whether my country can do anything to stop the US. But that does not take away the fact that I am entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, based on the facts surrounding these issues, is that the US has acted like a terrorist and a bully.
Re: Re:
“Most recently, he’s basically released a bunch of petty diplomatic bullshit and gossip, which hampers the diplomatic process. Nothing crazy illegal or awful mind you, just random bullshit.”
So he should be killed? I really don’t think I need to go much further than that.
Re: Re:
which probably got at least a few of them killed.
And you can produce proof of this?
…
[crickets]
I thought not.
What you have failed to realize…alright, one of the many things you’ve failed to realize…is that Wikileaks publication of these has nothing to do with their possession by adversaries, because they probably already had them. Weren’t you paying attention when it was mentioned that roughly 3 million people had access to these? Do you really think they’re all honest, loyal, and careful? And even if they are, do you really think that the intelligence services of major governments aren’t capable of acquiring these without their cooperation?
It’s completely absurd to think for a moment that anything important in this release wasn’t already known to any government that troubled itself to know it. No doubt some of the more competent ones knew it before some of the people the cables were intended for knew it — that’s what intelligence services get paid to do.
Re: Re: Re:
They already had access to all those battlefield reports including informants from pfc. Bradley Manning? No, no they did not.
Get your facts straight, weren’t you paying attention?
Re: Re:
@Matt,
If you’re truly curious about “the purpose of what he’s doing”, see here, where Assange describes his intent and approach explicitly. Among other things, this link explains why value lies not in the content of the leaks, but in the persistence of the leaks themselves.
Separately, do you honestly believe that the State Department has spent the last decade helping the US “avoid resorting to violence”? More to the point, aren’t you worried about the intelligence of a government that responds to an attack emanating from Saudi Arabia by invading Iraq? Do you think Bush and his self-serving advisers would have made the same decision if the environment in 2002/03 was as leaky as we know it is today?
And what about this bank dump slated for January? Do you think its contents would exist if leakiness were factored into people’s thinking *before* the mortgage fraud machine kicked into gear? If the communication that enabled the fraud never took place, do you think the crime itself would reached global-economy-wrecking proportions?
Beyond this, are you seriously focused on a handful of people who “might” get harmed while ignoring the millions and millions of people who have been absolutely harmed – hundreds of thousands to the point of actual death? Given the number of killings and bankruptcies suffered by innocents in the last decade, don’t you think a shift away from pernicious duplicity would save exponentially more lives and fortunes than the transition to more transparent governance would claim? Just remember, no one has provided hard evidence of a *single* death resulting from the last dump, and that targeted the Pentagon, not the State Department.
Indeed, if the government took your advice and (literally) shot the messenger, Assnage would become the first person to actually loose his life in this development. Do you think Assange hasn’t anticipated this by ensuring that his death triggers the release of far more material that isn’t just “petty diplomatic bullshit and gossip”? Do you honestly think that murdering this guy is the best and smartest way for an already dubious institution to respond?
So now, having thought about it, you may realize that what you just suggested was stupid, viscous, and extremely counter-productive. Unfortunately, we’re governed by people who don’t get this at all. They actually think Assange is the threat to the institutions they’re responsible for, even though he’s just released “petty gossip” while they’ve spent the last decade blowing up budgets, economies, and nations with impunity.
And that’s the point of Wikileaks: to take the lawless, murderous, and ridiculously short-sighted instincts you just displayed here, and turn them into major liabilities for the high offices that currently harbor them in abundance. That’s bad for the ethically retarded monsters who end up marginalized by their own paranoia and ignorance. It’s a huge win for the rest of humanity.
Re: Re: Re:
An assassination IS vicious. That neither makes it stupid nor counter-productive, though.
I’m sure you’re very happy to accept Assange’s explanation of why he’s done this, but I’m not. I frankly just don’t see any purpose to it. He’s one man saying “things should work this way, so I’m going to reveal all this crap, even though that might be hugely damaging.”
Well, ok, revolutions get started that way. But revolutionaries get hanged, too, and after that they’re labeled traitors (or terrorists), not revolutionaries.
Re: Re:
They should really just assassinate the guy. The CIA does have people who do this sort of thing, and it’s a reasonable response. He’s probably cost lives already, and if he hasn’t, he certainly seems to be trying to.
[citation needed]
Nothing that he’s released has any journalistic merit or surprising revelations.
Really? Did you even read the documents? You weren’t surprised by any of it? You, sir, are amazingly complacent (complicit?) regarding the inner workings of our government.
No cabinet members are going to be dismissed over any misdeeds.
That’s a given regardless of Wikileak’s involvement.
If he was a US citizen, he would be guilty of treason.
Um, no. He would be dragged into a classified material leak. His computer and every other computer the documents had touched would be repaved and everyone would have to take their classified material handling training again. The idiot who actually leaked the documents would get “wall to wall counseling”.
Seriously, we used to kill people for those reasons all the time.
Again, [citation needed]. Most convicted (or even accused) spies were deported or imprisoned. Few have actually been executed.
“The US government’s focus on Assange and Wikileaks as an organization suggests that it doesn’t realize what it’s actually dealing with.”
It also suggests that they don’t understand the ramifications of going after wikileaks. Either by seizing the domain name, arresting Assange and his crew, or both. This short sightedness on the part of the US government will only come back to haunt them in multiple ways. Removing DNS from their control, creating more distributed p2p networks, increased encryption, more p2p dns usage, more freenet users, more secret ways to communicate, more file sharing with no chance of getting caught.
All in all, the department of justice and home sec are causing everything the current administration is trying to prevent or stop.
Great day for us, crappy day for them.
I’m on a horse …
Why not just seize the domain?
They could use ICE to seize the domain. Counterfeit cables or something….
Re: Why not just seize the domain?
Ummm?!? Have you been listening at all?
Pentagon papers
Just an FYI
The pentagon paper dealt with prior restraint. As I recall, the court said you could deal with the leakers after the fact.
As to wikileaks and Assange? I would hazard a guess he is going to be found with two .22 holes in his head within a year.
And, in case you hadn’t noticed, they do shoot spies. In fact we’ve been known to do it a few times ourselves.
Re: Pentagon papers
He wasn’t the ‘spy’ in this case however. He simply supplies the medium by which the intelligence is transmitted.
The US government ‘leaks’ other country’s intelligence when it is in their best interest, how is this different, except that wikileaks cannot invoke the powers of a Nation-State to defend itself.
To blame wikileaks/Assange in this case is about the equivalent of blaming a paper/ink manufacturer responsible for supplying the resources to make leaflets dropped onto villages to incite revolt.
Re: Re: Pentagon papers
The US government leaks also just to spite someone.
*coughValerie Plame*cough*.
And they still have yet to prosecute the person responsible for endangering those American lives. (Dick Cheney)
So, the DoJ can look in their lawbooks all they want, but if they do start a trial against Assange, it’ll be a sham trial and the rest of the world knows it.
Re: Re: Pentagon papers
I love how a lot of you fail to recognize the adversarial nature of all of this. “fair” and such don’t really enter into it. Yes, we do it to other governments when we can. And sometimes those other governments execute their leakers, too.
Re: Re: Re: Pentagon papers
And sometimes those other governments execute their leakers, too.
Yes, and sometimes they stone their own people to death for adultery, and sometimes they engage in ethnic cleansing, and sometimes they execute them for being raped, and sometimes they execute them for political dissidence, and sometimes they kill them for being the “wrong” race/ethnicity/whatever.
But — allegedly — one of things that makes the United States different from all those countries is that we don’t do those things. We — supposedly — try to live up to a set of principles outlined in the Constitution and codified by law. And — hopefully — we’re not so pitifully weak that we abandon any of that merely because it’s momentarily inconvenient or because it costs some of us our lives.
Re: Re: Re:2 Pentagon papers
Well, we [i]do[/i], absolutely, assassinate people, at least abroad, who become enough of a security threat.
This is not an 80’s kids cartoon. Doing what they did doesn’t “make us no better than they are” or some crap like that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Pentagon papers
Hey Matt, what if Wikileaks reads your threats and assumes you’re going to harm it and decides to get you knocked off. That’d be OK with you, wouldn’t it. After all this isn’t some 80s kids cartoon. Here you are, after all using a registered account, suggesting someone get murdered, and thinking that’s completely OK because this person has told the truth. So tell us the truth Matt, would you be OK with Wikileaks getting you killed because you’re carrying on like an arsehat – or, like the US government, crying foul ?
Again, I suspect the latter.
Re: Re: Re:4 Pentagon papers
I gather Matt (or others who are stating similar things) should be informed for their own knowledge of a law most countries have which seeing MR Assange is Australian I will quote from the New South Wales Crimes Act as a prime example (Oh and this doesn’t care if you are a NON Australian citizen either)
Hmmmm.. oh and there are other Inchoate offences that are chargeable as well.
Luckily for US citizens, they are not able to be extradited to other countries to face charges under their constitution. Though step outside the sovereignty of the USA.. then people like myself can arrest instantly.
On another note that I don’t think anyone really understands. Wikileaks is NOT only Mr Assange, but a whole group of individuals and NGO’s. Assassinating him, or prosecuting for so called “contempt of the USA” offences is basically pointless.
Re: Re: Re:5 Pentagon papers
I’m perfectly aware that doing so would be illegal. However, that’s a different questions than whether or not it should be done.
Re: Re: Re:3 Pentagon papers
Doing what they did doesn’t “make us no better than they are” or some crap like that.
If we do the same things the “bad guys” do, then what is it that makes us better than them? Honestly confused by this one.
Re: Re: Re:4 Pentagon papers
Lots of the things, but this is missing the point. It’s not about being “better than them” it’s about winning, i.e. furthering our interests.
SOmetimes their interests are our interests, and every one is cooperatove and happy. Sometimes they’re not.
Re: Re: Re:5 Pentagon papers
So it doesn’t matter how evil or unethical we have to be, as long as we win?
Re: Re: Re:6 Pentagon papers
More specifically, I am willing to be somewhat evil in order to win.
This is splitting hairs AND getting abstract here, though. I would be willing to see Assange either disappear or wind up in jail in order prevent the damage that he, specifically, is doing to US interests. That benefit is worth that cost.
Re: Re: Re:7 Pentagon papers
OK, well I am willing to see the US pursue extradition and attempt to try him for any acutal crimes he has committed. Execution or imprisonment without trial is something any American should be ashamed of.
Re: Pentagon papers
1 – wouldn’t stop the leaks, would likely result in more of them in, as Mike and others alluded, a more widely distributed or disseminated form.
2 – martyrdom for Assange. Can’t underestimate the power of this.
3 – will provide further impetus for antagonism against the US and its citizens.
hmm... kidnapping?
I wouldn’t be surprised if he suddenly “dissapeared” terrorist-like.
Then moved via CIA-spy plane to a random hidden illegal jail.
But then, that would actually amplify the hate towards the already battered United States’s credibility.
The advancement of humanity and technology for a single life...
Apparently those in the Ivory Towers will commence on another witch hunt for Assange and eventually (as we all do) he will pass away whether at the hands of an agent, or some other hired gun, or if extremely fortunate of a more reasonable cause.
However, as a result of Wikileaks and the efforts to quell the information coming from it, more sophisticated network and distribution systems will be created and/or exposed to more people globally; “proof” aka “the raw truth” (whether needed or not) of how governments around the world operate and what they may be saying to certain parties and not to others will be exposed using their own words; centuries of privileged rulers and government suppression of the common man is being exposed on an unprecedented level and may eventually lead to changes that actually make sense for all of humanity.
If there are things that government officials don’t want others to know about when it comes to government dealings then maybe the government hasn’t been doing the right things, the right way, all along? A government by the people and for the people hasn’t existed in the US for quite some time – I personally am looking forward to the changes these leaks may bring about.
The digital revolution has begun and will be streamed, torrented, P2P networked, sneaker-netted, downloaded, Tweeted, Facebooked, shared on forums and available on YouTube! There are not enough resources available in the world to stem the tide from knocking down the sand castles of the privileged rulers who believed this could never happen.
Just saying…
10years old but maybe ill develop this, things to reqork of course is the actual encryption
and the deployment
we once envisioned for piracy a type of triple redundant virus that would do the following:
a central node would be scanned for and setup, this would hten be done twice more to stop downtime and link itself such that shuold it go down the next steps up and then the scanner goes off sets up the tertiary back up.
NOW each file also on said system would also be on one of these and setup in triplicate, and thus you get a type of ftp that cannot be stopped and changed at while to fight the man.
The Neural Network Protocol
*Each computer in the network is open on port 1000. This is a constantly streaming, one-way connection that broadcasts IP’s of computers in the network that are accepting connections on port 1000.
(1)
**** “realign” (so next byte=start of an IP address) every 10 ip’s…
(2) following 6 byte sequence byte1,byte2,byte3,byte4,ttl,x,day
–bytes 1-4 are the ip address
–TTL is the “Time To Live,” or how many hosts have forwarded this
IP address. If TTL >5 clients may either discard, or if they
can connect, set to zero.
–(X *337.5) = seconds since midnight in greenwich.
— day in hte month.
To logon the network, a computer establishing secure connections to 40 other computers in the network, using hte proceeding protocols.
——–
-Port 1001 is used to establish encrypted connections on port 1002.
Client may issue these commands on port 1001:
USER ( handle)
What's wrong US Government, scared of a wittle website?
Does the US Government really think that by prosecuting Assange, Wikileaks would stop? Are they really that dim?
I would be more sympathetic to the US’ point of view If their DoD had helped Wikileaks in censoring out the names that might endanger people. But the DoD refused, because apparently there is more profit in complaining afterwards.
Re: What's wrong US Government, scared of a wittle website?
I would be more sympathetic to the US’ point of view If their DoD had helped Wikileaks in censoring out the names that might endanger people. But the DoD refused, because apparently there is more profit in complaining afterwards.
I was thinking the same thing. Here’s the conversation string (Warning PDFs):
November 26 2010
Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed.
Letter From Assange to US Ambassador.
November 27
We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.
Letter from US Department of State.
November 28
“I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour.”
Letter from Assange
I wonder what the next release will include because the last release didn’t have anything about human rights abuse or criminal behavior. It was just embarrassing. These are pretty tall acquisitions to make.
Here’s some History Insurance
They can go and get Assange if it makes them feel better. It won’t change a thing, though, since he’s just an insane website operator. If they want to stop the leaks they’ll have to go … a bit deeper… try out a little ‘introspection’ if you will.
Platforms like Wikileaks are a dime a dozen. Disgruntled employees (former or no) are priceless.
Floor 13 analogy
These Wikileaks messes remind me of an old dos game, Floor 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_13_%28video_game%29
You play as the head of a secret branch of government whose job was to keep the prime minister in office, by any means necessary. That meant smear campaigns, stalkings, assassinations, kidnappings and infiltrating hostile organizations (and disrupting them from the inside).
Well, part of the job was to keep an eye on potential troublemakers (like Assange) and limit the damage they could cause. You could go the “easy” route and kill them outright, but that can hurt your “reputation” (or cause political backlash), and you might take a forced trip down from the 13th floor…very fast…with no parachute.
The key was to be as subtle as possible when attacking opponents and to head off potential trouble before it turns on you and destroys the PM’s reputation.
Subtlety and being able to head off trouble before it hits is something the US needs to work on A LOT! Or else they’ll just keep embarrassing themselves in front of the world. Therefore, I suggest they start training the secret police with this “ancient” game :).
Re: Floor 13 analogy
Subtlety is not a US national characteristic.
Things Go Wrong (To: Matt, #18)
Well, here’s a plausible scenario:
1. American Sniper is sent to Stockholm, smuggles in weapons, which is a crime in itself.
2. Swedish policeman gets suspicious, starts asking awkward questions.
3. American Sniper shoots Swedish policeman, and flees in panic, pursued by other Swedish policemen.
4. American Sniper runs through a door, which turns out to be a day-care center.
5. American Sniper shoots teachers, takes children hostage. Swedish police surround building.
6. American Sniper tries to call American embassy; demanding that they extract him; American embassy dithers, and eventually refuses to do anything, but the call is recorded by the telephone company. It becomes apparent that the military attache (CIA Resident) had “guilty knowledge” of the affair.
7. American Sniper becomes progressively hysterical, throws hand grenade at children, killing twenty of them.
8. Swedish police are forced to storm the building; two more Swedish policemen are killed, and ten additional children, American Sniper is captured alive.
9. Under interrogation, American Sniper gives up his entire chain of command; increasingly desperate American demands for his release are met with cold refusal.
10. Swedish investigating magistrate charges Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton in forty-two cases of aggravated murder; American ambassador is informed that he and all his staff are persona non grata, and ordered to close down the embassy forthwith. All Americans are advised for their own safety to leave Sweden, given the lynch-mob atmosphere.
This scenario is more or less what happens when you are dealing with someone like Timothy McVeigh. An American government agent, trying to carry out assassinations in Sweden, against the law, with every man’s hand against him, would, by virtue of what he was doing, become someone like Timothy McVeigh.
Re: Things Go Wrong (To: Matt, #18)
You seriously just went from targeted case of assassination, by a professional, to a guy throwing grenades into a day care center?
Aren’t these the same people who tell us daily that we shouldn’t worry about warrentless searches and wiretaps if we don’t have anything to hide.
Re: Re:
Yes, yes they are. So is that theory right in both cases, or wrong in both cases?
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong in both cases, absolutely.
The Rule of Law is enshrined in the US Constitution. To go against it so heavily now smacks of arrogance of the highest order.
Assange is doing what should be done by the NYT, The Washington Post and papers of that ilk. The fact that it falls to an Aussie to do the job of investigative journalism is insane.
I don’t care musch for Ass-ange as a pseron, but he, at least, has the courage of his convictions. The same cannot be said of the ruling elite of the USA.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, wait.
Is it both ok for the US to do all these warrantless searches (because you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide) AND is it ok for Assange to reveal all this embarrassing content about the US (cuz the US should be behaving in a way that it is impossible to embarass, even if everything is revealed)
OR
Should both individuals and the US government be allowed to have secrets.
PICK ONE
Too late.
All the docs are already online in several places. Just encrypted and named to hide what they contain. All it would take is one of the people at wikileaks (Assange is but one of dozens) and it would all come out anyways. Seriously, do the governments think people are really that stupid though? Telling us that this leak is a national security threat? The only people buying it are the far righties… and they think the world is 6000 years old.
The U.S. vampetees turned to dust after exposed to the light.
Where did I hear “Don’t go to the light!”, I think it was in some cartoon.
@ Matt
“In the future, please make sense.”
Really? That’s all you have to say after being crushed with reasoned arguments?
You’re in the wrong forum, asshat. Here’s the link you need.
http://foxnews.com
Re: @ Matt
He randomly brought up “definition of Terrorist” crap (a very nebulous term, and then made random insults.
That’s a reasoned argument?
Btw, Foxnews is like, totally awesome.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120204561.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns