Saudi King urged the United States to attack Iran

myp · Dec 1, 2010

...And they are back up. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you try to block him- information will get out. They switched their dns to sweden- goodbye to some American business. Of course there is sensitive information, but there should always be a distrust of government and so long as people within government find certain things immoral, they will continue to leak things- and that is a good thing. Assange should not be "stopped"- he is exercising his 1st amendment rights. No one is saying there should be a microphone next to the President, but what Assange is doing is completely legitimate. The government has for far too long meddled and kept secrets that have hurt our people. And it is beyond just military strategy. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "They who would trade liberty for security soon have none and deserve neither."

David · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
...And they are back up. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you try to block him- information will get out. They switched their dns to sweden- goodbye to some American business. Of course there is sensitive information, but there should always be a distrust of government and so long as people within government find certain things immoral, they will continue to leak things- and that is a good thing. Assange should not be "stopped"- he is exercising his 1st amendment rights. No one is saying there should be a microphone next to the President, but what Assange is doing is completely legitimate. The government has for far too long meddled and kept secrets that have hurt our people. And it is beyond just military strategy. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "They who would trade liberty for security soon have none and deserve neither."

Releasing classified economic, diplomatic and military intel isn't free speech, it's espionage and needs to be treated as such before people start dying.

myp · Dec 1, 2010

David said:
Releasing classified economic, diplomatic and military intel isn't free speech, it's espionage and needs to be treated as such before people start dying.

So should we just let the government keep any secrets they want from the people? If you just place that trust in government freely, they could potentially conspire against everyone and by your wisdom we should never question that. Sorry, but that isn't the world I want to live in.

Countries spy on one another or try to hack each other's systems a lot. Countries have also historically liked keeping tabs on their people and sometimes even spying on them as well. Despite this, when a person tries to do that for the sake of letting the people know the truth of government, it is horrible?

From a real perspective, when there is a demand for info, people will always try to get it.

obtuseobserver · Dec 1, 2010

David said:
Releasing classified economic, diplomatic and military intel isn't free speech, it's espionage and needs to be treated as such before people start dying.

absolutely goddamn right

................................................

obtuseobserver · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
So should we just let the government keep any secrets they want from the people?

This is not a zero sum game. It isn't no trasnsparency v complete transparency.

Classified documents are classified for a reason. As David points out the potential for people to get hurt is real.

Leaking sensitive documents that jeopardize relations with other states and their leaders serves absolutely no public purpose other than satisfying morbid curiosty while the measure of harm can approach catastrophic.

More, should documents given to us by other states be leaked how likely do you think they'll be to share information in the future? Does this serve a public purpose?

The current state of the law in the US is up in the air. The theft of documents is certainly illegal if the docs fall into specific catagories. However, publishing them is probably not. The rule in anglo-american law is no prior restraint (no censoring). That said, it may still be illegal to have published.

Let's go to non-government.... think it should be ok to publish the recipe for coca-cola? KFC's original recipe (ok scrath that one - that should be public), any number of advanced manufacturing processes? Everyone's banking records (all acounts, with whom, how much etc).

myp said:
If you just place that trust in government freely, they could potentially conspire against everyone and by your wisdom we should never question that. Sorry, but that isn't the world I want to live in.

They could conspire to turn us all into penguins too and we have just as much evidence of that as we do of your concerns. The fact is that Bill Clinton couldn't keep an oval office hummer secret. Do you reeally think some plot on a grand scale could be kept secret?

No one is saying we shouldn't question government. We are saying that some state secrets are secret for good reason and they need to stay that way.

myp said:
Countries spy on one another or try to hack each other's systems a lot. Countries have also historically liked keeping tabs on their people and sometimes even spying on them as well. Despite this, when a person tries to do that for the sake of letting the people know the truth of government, it is horrible?

Illegal too.

myp said:
From a real perspective, when there is a demand for info, people will always try to get it.

True. Doesn't make it good, right or legal and in fact it could be bad, wrong and criminal.

Following your logic... why not post up detailed schematics of our nuclear weapons, nuclear propulsion systems, the locations of all of our Trident subs, the names of our spies and their locations, all the data compiled tracking down terrorists, all the investigation materials as compile in a criminal investigation. Does any of that sound wise to you?

myp · Dec 1, 2010

It is important to remember that WikiLeaks does not steal the information, but instead gets it from anonymous sources- presumably people who are actually working in these organizations and feel it is a moral obligation to share the knowledge.

@obtuseobserver You say that should government be planning some mass conspiracy that it would come out- so who decides what qualifies as such corrupt/mischievous behavior? It is a matter of opinion- possibly the people who read the stories of American soldiers and mistreatments in Iraq or of Saudi Arabia's intentions towards Iran see it as a bad government secret.

I don't think anyone is expecting WikiLeaks to get nuclear info, military plans, etc. and even if they do, I'm not sure they'd publish them. Seeking to abolish all risks through security can be a very dangerous thing (and impossible).

That aside though, something to think about is how people would have responded to this had the mass media come out with a story like this. Would it be considered treasonous or would it merely be investigative journalism?

logicjohn · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
So should we just let the government keep any secrets they want from the people? If you just place that trust in government freely, they could potentially conspire against everyone and by your wisdom we should never question that. Sorry, but that isn't the world I want to live in.

Countries spy on one another or try to hack each other's systems a lot. Countries have also historically liked keeping tabs on their people and sometimes even spying on them as well. Despite this, when a person tries to do that for the sake of letting the people know the truth of government, it is horrible?

From a real perspective, when there is a demand for info, people will always try to get it.

Apparently you have absolutely no idea how diplomacy works.

It is based entirely on trust. And looking in a historical context, it is a very sensitive issue. Fun Fact: The North Koreans walked away from a meeting once because one of their table flags had fallen down from a cup that held the flag of every nation. Something like this could bring down entire peace summits.

There is a reason that day to day communications in our government are guarded closer than nuclear weapons performance. A government cannot function without this kind of privacy.

This revealed private conversations between other nations.

In the end it makes us look weak and foolish. It harms our relations with other countries. People will and likely have died as a result of these reports.

All of this being said, the bottom line is that Wikileaks can still ultimately not blamed for this. Other companies also released the information when given and that's the way it's supposed to work. The military should have not made such information available so readily and should not give out such high security clearances like candy.

Did you know that a lot of this material was snuck onto Lady Gaga cds? rather disturbing how easy it was.

obtuseobserver · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
It is important to remember that WikiLeaks does not steal the information, but instead gets it from anonymous sources- presumably people who are actually working in these organizations and feel it is a moral obligation to share the knowledge.

That is entirely beside the point and I noted directly that publishing was probably not illegal under American law.

What I was noting is that publishing this data is extremely dangerous.

A moral obligation to share classified documents and reveal embarassing comments? For what moral purpose would one feel compelled to share information of this kind?

myp said:
@obtuseobserver You say that should government be planning some mass conspiracy that it would come out- so who decides what qualifies as such corrupt/mischievous behavior?

In the present case the people who leaked to WikiLeaks.

Would you like to rely on that method or perhaps FOIA instead?

myp said:
It is a matter of opinion-

Of course it is. But not all opinions hold much water. Are you of the opinion that leaking sesitive and classified information is a good thing? How about my opinion that the government is plotting to turn us into penguins. Well, at least the left handed people and they suck anyway.

myp said:
I don't think anyone is expecting WikiLeaks to get nuclear info, military plans, etc. and even if they do, I'm not sure they'd publish them. Seeking to abolish all risks through security can be a very dangerous thing (and impossible).

Why not? That falls plenty short of some grand government conspiracy that you suggested we could prevent through the use of WikiLeaks.

I didn't say anything about "all." In fact I made conspicuous note that this is not a zero sum game.

myp said:
That aside though, something to think about is how people would have responded to this had the mass media come out with a story like this. Would it be considered treasonous or would it merely be investigative journalism?

Disagree. The point is that the information was published not who published.

Besides, WikiLeaks is approaching that status in terms of readership.

David · Dec 1, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
This is not a zero sum game. It isn't no trasnsparency v complete transparency.

Classified documents are classified for a reason. As David points out the potential for people to get hurt is real.

Leaking sensitive documents that jeopardize relations with other states and their leaders serves absolutely no public purpose other than satisfying morbid curiosty while the measure of harm can approach catastrophic.

More, should documents given to us by other states be leaked how likely do you think they'll be to share information in the future? Does this serve a public purpose?

The current state of the law in the US is up in the air. The theft of documents is certainly illegal if the docs fall into specific catagories. However, publishing them is probably not. The rule in anglo-american law is no prior restraint (no censoring). That said, it may still be illegal to have published.

Let's go to non-government.... think it should be ok to publish the recipe for coca-cola? KFC's original recipe (ok scrath that one - that should be public), any number of advanced manufacturing processes? Everyone's banking records (all acounts, with whom, how much etc).

They could conspire to turn us all into penguins too and we have just as much evidence of that as we do of your concerns. The fact is that Bill Clinton couldn't keep an oval office hummer secret. Do you reeally think some plot on a grand scale could be kept secret?

No one is saying we shouldn't question government. We are saying that some state secrets are secret for good reason and they need to stay that way.

Illegal too.

True. Doesn't make it good, right or legal and in fact it could be bad, wrong and criminal.

Following your logic... why not post up detailed schematics of our nuclear weapons, nuclear propulsion systems, the locations of all of our Trident subs, the names of our spies and their locations, all the data compiled tracking down terrorists, all the investigation materials as compile in a criminal investigation. Does any of that sound wise to you?

I was going to say this (or something like) until I found that you beat me.

Also, we agree?!

:giggle:

myp · Dec 1, 2010

logicjohn said:
Apparently you have absolutely no idea how diplomacy works.

It is based entirely on trust. And looking in a historical context, it is a very sensitive issue. Fun Fact: The North Koreans walked away from a meeting once because one of their table flags had fallen down from a cup that held the flag of every nation. Something like this could bring down entire peace summits.

There is a reason that day to day communications in our government are guarded closer than nuclear weapons performance. A government cannot function without this kind of privacy.

This revealed private conversations between other nations.

In the end it makes us look weak and foolish. It harms our relations with other countries. People will and likely have died as a result of these reports.

All of this being said, the bottom line is that Wikileaks can ultimately not blamed for this. The military should have not made such information available so readily and should not give out such high security clearances like candy.

Did you know that a lot of this material was snuck onto Lady Gaga cds? rather disturbing how easy it was.

Please don't tell me what I do and do not know. I understand there are serious implications here, but it is also important to realize the negative implications of chasing down someone for practicing their 1st amendment rights.

Of course the people who leaked it could legally lose their jobs over it- that's why they did it anonymously. In the end though, it is not all about the state- it is not all about nationalism. The people who leaked the info realized that and felt they should've done what they did. The state isn't always right so that is not a sound argument here.

Maybe the state can learn from this by improving their security as you suggested. Even then though, that does not make them right and it is a sensitive issue on both sides- not just one. And I see you think WikiLeaks can't be blamed- that is what I am arguing here for anyway, so we agree.

David · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
Of course the people who leaked it could legally lose their jobs over it

Talk about an understatement. Following the law literally, the leak can be executed for treason and espionage. I doubt that the gov't would actually go that far over this but it'd be foolish to ignore just how bad this crime really is.

logicjohn · Dec 1, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
That is entirely beside the point and I noted directly that publishing was probably not illegal under American law.

It is ironic that our AG is doing all he can to build a case against Wikileaks while completely ignoring the fact that the New York times also published information.

If George Bush was president, I guarantee you we would already be having grand juries and subpoenas.

myp · Dec 1, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
That is entirely beside the point and I noted directly that publishing was probably not illegal under American law.

What I was noting is that publishing this data is extremely dangerous.

A moral obligation to share classified documents and reveal embarassing comments? For what moral purpose would one feel compelled to share information of this kind?

In the present case the people who leaked to WikiLeaks.

Would you like to rely on that method or perhaps FOIA instead?

Of course it is. But not all opinions hold much water. Are you of the opinion that leaking sesitive and classified information is a good thing? How about my opinion that the government is plotting to turn us into penguins. Well, at least the left handed people and they suck anyway.

Why not? That falls plenty short of some grand government conspiracy that you suggested we could prevent through the use of WikiLeaks.

I didn't say anything about "all." In fact I made conspicuous note that this is not a zero sum game.

Disagree. The point is that the information was published not who published.

Besides, WikiLeaks is approaching that status in terms of readership.

On the moral obligation- perhaps not the Iran issue, but others such as the military one in the last big leaks certainly could be seen as such. I understand your point though and personally I see this as a very sensitive issue on boths sides of the argument, not just one. I think generally you do too (correct me if I'm wrong). As for the FOIA- the problem there is that something of that nature could easily be denied as a national security conflict, etc. The government has turned its shoulder on crimes committed by friends before, so there would be no surprise if they try to hide their own as well.

myp · Dec 1, 2010

David said:
Talk about an understatement. Following the law literally, the leak can be executed for treason and espionage. I doubt that the gov't would actually go that far over this but it'd be foolish to ignore just how bad this crime really is.

Lol, you get my point- they'd be legally liable. I'm responding to 3 people here; trying to keep things short.

obtuseobserver · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
but it is also important to realize the negative implications of chasing down someone for practicing their 1st amendment rights.

The publisher is not American nor did he publish in America not does he necessarily have any first amendment protection for having published.

Further, those who gave him the information he published could well have broken the law. It is not inconceivable that given WikiLeaks propensity to publish stolen material it may fall under criminal conspiracy laws in the US. (though that's speculating on a hypothesis in terms of the substantive law I still doubt their would be any US jurisdiction over the cat)

myp said:
The people who leaked the info realized that and felt they should've done what they did.

And so did the 9/11 Hijackers. What one feels is not at issue. I feel happy when the Packers kick Favre's ass but it wouldn't justify leaking the Viking playbook to the press, the Packers or WikiLeaks.

You've still not addressed my question. What morally compelling reason would justify revealing this information?

myp said:
The state isn't always right so that is not a sound argument here.

Neither is the notion that the theif felt morally compelled to commit the crime and further it by offering the information for publication.

myp said:
Maybe the state can learn from this by improving their security as you suggested. Even then though, that does not make them right and it is a sensitive issue on both sides- not just one. And I see you think WikiLeaks can't be blamed- that is what I am arguing here for anyway, so we agree.

No. That perhaps the state will be more vigilant at catching theives stealing classified information is not a decent reason to justify publishing this stuff. Its even less so when the state does put in place many procedures to prevent this.

If I stole your car (that had the Club on the stearing wheel, a bootm and an ignition cutoff) would you think, "hmmmm. Oh well, at least I'll protect my car better next time"? Or would you ybe pissed at the thief?

obtuseobserver · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
On the moral obligation- perhaps not the Iran issue, but others such as the military one in the last big leaks certainly could be seen as such.

clarify?

myp said:
I understand your point though and personally I see this as a very sensitive issue on boths sides of the argument, not just one.

I'm only complaining about classified and sensitive data. Not "everything." Most things should be publishable. But that's not what WikiLeaks is looking for.

myp said:
I think generally you do too (correct me if I'm wrong). As for the FOIA- the problem there is that something of that nature could easily be denied as a national security conflict, etc.

And for very good reason. State secrets are meant to be secret. Not published on WikiLeaks.

myp said:
The government has turned its shoulder on crimes committed by friends before, so there would be no surprise if they try to hide their own as well.

OK. But that's not what is going on here.

myp · Dec 1, 2010

When I was referring to 1st amendment rights I was thinking about anyone over at WikiLeaks and even just in general. As for the morally compelling reason- there are people who feel it is the right of the public to know certain things. The Saudi comment is not a good example, I admit, but things like the previous WikiLeaks release on American soldier comments on the Iraq war certainly may fall under that category.

As for the "thief" feeling morally compelled to steal information- well that depends on whether you think that information actually belongs to anyone and even if you do, if it belongs to just the state. In some matters the answer is yes, in others no. The whole "thief" argument relies on assuming that that information belongs to the state- that the state can actually own that information. The people who leaked this info almost certainly believe the state doesn't own it. That is different than a tangible like the car.

As for government covering up crimes, I know that is not what WikiLeaks published this time, but it very well could be another time and that information could very well come out in the same manner that time as well. Just because people leaked it doesn't mean it was bad. Different example and probably not relevant here, but I'm just saying.

A good piece that I just ran across that about sums up our different viewpoints and the future of this sort of thing: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets

obtuseobserver · Dec 1, 2010

myp said:
When I was referring to 1st amendment rights I was thinking about anyone over at WikiLeaks and even just in general.

I was suggesting that if this all went down in the US I'm not sure it would have first amendment protection. Probably would for publishing... almost certainly not for the leaker/thief.

myp said:
As for the morally compelling reason- there are people who feel it is the right of the public to know certain things.

I understood that. But that's not a morally compelling reason. That's you telling me that some people feel morally compelled. Yes, some people do. So what? What morally compelling reason is there for leaking this information?

myp said:
The Saudi comment is not a good example, I admit, but things like the previous WikiLeaks release on American soldier comments on the Iraq war certainly may fall under that category.

I certainly may be trying to turn you into a penguin.

Why?

Soldiers may be ordered to remain silent on issues for a very wide array of reasons mostly having to do with not getting themselves or others killed.

Let's look at this from the other side. Why is it immoral to keep those released soldier comments secret?

What morally compelling need is there to disclose? What morally compelling need do you (all of us) have to know?

myp said:
As for the "thief" feeling morally compelled to steal information- well that depends on whether you think that information actually belongs to anyone and even if you do, if it belongs to just the state.

I don't think there is much of a debate to be had about the ownership of the documents nor that taking them likely constitutes a crime.

Morality is not fungible. Theft is theft regardless of the party from whom the material is stolen. The identity of the victim does not justify the crime. The act and intent of the thief does.

So, while the leaker may feel that the information is not owned by the state that honest belief is a mistaken belief. The thief's mistake of fact is no defense. He knows the documents are not his. Taking them is a theft despite his dubious moral opinions.

myp said:
In some matters the answer is yes, in others no. The whole "thief" argument relies on assuming that that information belongs to the state-

No. It relies on the information not being the thief's. Whether the thief does or does not know the owner is immaterial. He knows he is not the owner.

Do you think stealing government cars is theft? They belong to the state. What if the thief didn't know the car belonged to the state?

myp said:
that the state can actually own that information. The people who leaked this info almost certainly believe the state doesn't own it. That is different than a tangible like the car.

No it isn't. Schematics for nuclear propulsion systems are merely recordings of information. Stealing such plans and stealing a car are both theft.... even if one copied the plans onto one's own paper or cpu such they only exist in electronic form.

Patents, trademarks etc are all intellectual propert. That you cannot drive a patent doesn't mean that it connot be stolen.

The thief who stole the state's car still stole a car even if he didn't think the state owned it. He knew he didn't own it.

myp said:
As for government covering up crimes, I know that is not what WikiLeaks published this time,

then this doesn't much matter

myp said:
Just because people leaked it doesn't mean it was bad. Different example and probably not relevant here, but I'm just saying.

The issue isn't leaks. The issue is WHAT was leaked. That's why I said this isn't a zero sum game. Some material should not be leaked. That's been my point. Determing what fits "some" may be a challenge. However, I offered quite a few examples of what would clearly fit "some."

myp said:
A good piece that I just ran across that about sums up our different viewpoints and the future of this sort of thing: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets

I quit reading that pile of crap rag some time ago

I did some fact checking on a few articles over a few months... I was stunned at how bad they were

WillypHD · Dec 2, 2010

This debate has deff heated up while I've been gone.

Bottom line;

If Jullian Assange cannot be prosecuted for publishing the classified information we need to make an example of Pvt Manning, and tighten our security belts, review our methods for securing classified documents. No one should be able to just run off with hundreds of thousands of classified government documents, it is a huge threat to our national security.

myp · Dec 6, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
The issue isn't leaks. The issue is WHAT was leaked. That's why I said this isn't a zero sum game. Some material should not be leaked. That's been my point. Determing what fits "some" may be a challenge. However, I offered quite a few examples of what would clearly fit "some."

Agreed. That is the challenge and whether the law should deal with those differently or not is part of it.

Saudi King urged the United States to attack Iran

Similar threads