fresh warrant of arrest for Wikileak's creator

lawtonfogle said:

U.S. Gov. does something horrible to make 3 terrorist suicide bomb the U.S., but they hide it. Someone comes along and shows this to everyone to see what the U.S. Gov. is doing. The terrorist bomb and kill others. Who is at fault for the deaths?

The terrorist?
The U.S. Gov.?
The guy who uncovered the secret?

Click to expand...

Depends on why the terrorist bombed. Assuming he attacked a location revealed by the leaks, or attacked someone specifically because they were mentioned in the leaks (perhaps because they're passing information to the US) then it would be a mix of all 3. However, the main two to be a fault for these attacks would be the terrorist and the guy who uncovered the secret.

SithDoughnut said:

Depends on why the terrorist bombed. Assuming he attacked a location revealed by the leaks, or attacked someone specifically because they were mentioned in the leaks (perhaps because they're passing information to the US) then it would be a mix of all 3. However, the main two to be a fault for these attacks would be the terrorist and the guy who uncovered the secret.

Click to expand...

I would say that if you are going to blame anyone else besides the terrorist, the one who incited the terrorist with some act, not the one who revealed it, is to be blamed.

To considered a related example, Politician Bob is making great strides fixing the government, but Average Citizen Joe discovers Politician Bob is actually abusing his children at home very badly (like we won't talk about it badly). He brings this forward, and Politician Bob ends up in prison. The public end up blaming Average Citizen Joe for Politician Bob not being able to help anymore, though in reality, it was Politician Bob's own actions that impeded his ability to help. Average Citizen Joe is only a scape goat so that Politician Bob does not have to be viewed as negatively as he otherwise would be.

Publishing embarrassing things about Western governments? I have no problem with that. Publishing names of Afghans that helped Allied forces and thus making them targets?

Not ok. A little journalistic integrity is in order.

lawtonfogle said:

I would say that if you are going to blame anyone else besides the terrorist, the one who incited the terrorist with some act, not the one who revealed it, is to be blamed.

To considered a related example, Politician Bob is making great strides fixing the government, but Average Citizen Joe discovers Politician Bob is actually abusing his children at home very badly (like we won't talk about it badly). He brings this forward, and Politician Bob ends up in prison. The public end up blaming Average Citizen Joe for Politician Bob not being able to help anymore, though in reality, it was Politician Bob's own actions that impeded his ability to help. Average Citizen Joe is only a scape goat so that Politician Bob does not have to be viewed as negatively as he otherwise would be.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but I worry that Wikileaks will potentially reveal too much and actually put people's lives in danger. That's what I was thinking when I answered your question.

A different analogy to illustrate my point: Jim has been in North Korea, feeding information about the governments actions to various intelligence agencies. His actions have allowed the US to have a better idea of what North Korea is doing. The government, obviously, has been keeping both Jim's identity and what he says strictly confidential. Another guy, Trevor, working for the US government, decides to leak massive amounts of information on to the internet via such sites as Wikileaks. Wikileaks releases everything, censoring nothing. Obviously, this makes the headlines, and world governments are rapidly going through everything which has been leaked. This includes the North Korean government, who soon find out what Jim has been doing and promptly arrest and execute him.

Now, in this scenario, how is Trevor not at least partially to blame? He knew what the documents contained, he knew that they were confidential, yet he chose to release Jim's name to the world anyway. This resulted in Jim getting killed.

callmeMurph said:

Question - Has Wikileaks done anything illegal? They published documents that someone else stole. Is that illegal? Are they protected by the 1st amendment?

I think what they did was good for the most part but I'm wondering ff the U.S. government follows the law can they realistically prosecute Wikileaks?

Click to expand...

Since Wikileaks is international, this is far more complex.

Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses why the government doesn’t have a right to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for releasing government documents.
YouTube - Understanding Free Speech

"One giant leap towards tyranny."

Couldn't agree more.