Wikileaks and Julian Assange

[Hans Talhoffer]

Well, he hasn't revealed it to a specific foreign power, but to the world. And isn't that good when said information reveals highly immoral actions by the leadership? They SHOULD be held accountable for their actions, right? The leadership I mean... And what's more, they are not above the law, are they? The leadership I mean.

So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

What treason?

David.

The endangerment of American lives, assets and interests isn't enough for you?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

where is the content of the material mentioned as a mitigating factor in the secrets act?

I don't know if it would/will count as a mitigating factor, but I do think that one should make a distinction between somebody giving away information like sensitive technology, encryption keys, troop movements etc. to a foreign power that has a military interest in it or if one chooses to illegally publish classified evidence of crimes one's own country committed.

So you're happy to watch traitors simply renounce their citizenship and get off scot free, is that it?

Bradley Manning hasn't renounced his citizenship and Julian Assange never had it. I don't even know what you are talking about.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?

It weakens the accusation of treason, especially considering that one of those powers was the United States itself.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

I don't know if it would/will count as a mitigating factor, but I do think that one should make a distinction between somebody giving away information like sensitive technology, encryption keys, troop movements etc. to a foreign power that has a military interest in it or if one chooses to illegally publish classified evidence of crimes one's own country committed.

Wikileaks has published tonnes of material of sensitive military and diplomatic material. Its been around longer than the recent diplomatic tapes fiasco, all though that is bad enough.

Bradley Manning hasn't renounced his citizenship and Julian Assange never had it. I don't even know what you are talking about.

I'm talking about your bizarre assertion that only American citizens are liable to criminal prosecution. Go to Mexico and commit a crime, being an American citizen rather than a Mexican won't make you immune to prosecution there, so why shoul it here?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

It weakens the accusation of treason, especially considering that one of those powers was the United States itself.

The secrets belong to the US in the first place. You can't reveal secrets to the people who owned them in the first place! *lol* What parallel universe do you come from?

 

[Anonymous man]

So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?

Nope. It certainly is not. Revealing it to the public is fine, should said information reveal immoral or illegal behavior. Of course location of military bases, passwords or other access information to governmental databases and such is one thing, but I see no problem letting the public know when their leaders have misbehaved severely, broken the people's trust and abused their power.
I say such information should be leaked. And lo, it is what WL has revealed. Severe misconduct by leaders from many nations. I see no problem whatsoever with that. It's what the press is FOR. As opposed to gossiping about what celebrity couple is having relationship issues.

I am of the impression that you want a strong government where it's constituent parts are above and beyond the reach of the people and the law. Is this correct?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

Nope. It certainly is not. Revealing it to the public is fine, should said information reveal immoral or illegal behavior. Of course location of military bases, passwords or other access information to governmental databases and such is one thing, but I see no problem letting the public know when their leaders have misbehaved severely, broken the people's trust and abused their power.
I say such information should be leaked. And lo, it is what WL has revealed. Severe misconduct by leaders from many nations. I see no problem whatsoever with that. It's what the press is FOR. As opposed to gossiping about what celebrity couple is having relationship issues.

I am of the impression that you want a strong government where it's constituent parts are above and beyond the reach of the people and the law. Is this correct?

What I want, is people who reveal national secrets than endanger the lives of our troops arrested, given a fair trial, convicted then shot as the traitors they are.

 

[Anonymous man]

What I want, is people who reveal national secrets than endanger the lives of our troops arrested, given a fair trial, convicted then shot as the traitors they are.

He's not American, do you think you should have authority to pick him up and shoot him? He has not betrayed anyone, has he? He has revealed information he received about a foreign power. Should what you say then extend to other countries picking up American citizens and shooting them? What would that entail for Americans who have revealed information about China, Russia or North Korea? You had better turn them over to be executed if you really think Assange should be shot over this.
I can think of a few people who would then be picked up and shot for their crimes by western countries as well.

Furthermore, Assange only runs a website publishing information others publish. Should then journalists be shot for revealing information they receive or otherwise acquire? If so, surely Woodward should be shot over WaterGate and Nixon remain seated?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

He's not American, do you think you should have authority to pick him up and shoot him? He has not betrayed anyone, has he? He has revealed information he received about a foreign power. Should what you say then extend to other countries picking up American citizens and shooting them? What would that entail for Americans who have revealed information about China, Russia or North Korea? You had better turn them over to be executed if you really think Assange should be shot over this.
I can think of a few people who would then be picked up and shot for their crimes by western countries as well.

Furthermore, Assange only runs a website publishing information others publish. Should then journalists be shot for revealing information they receive or otherwise acquire? If so, surely Woodward should be shot over WaterGate and Nixon remain seated?

I could care less about people revealing information about foreign powers, but he revealed American classified information... that makes him a traitor to America!

People revealing information about China, Russia and N. Korea to America are chalk and cheese, since they aren't revealing information to a foreign power.

 

[Staccato]

I could care less about people revealing information about foreign powers, but he revealed American classified information... that makes him a traitor to America!

You cannot, ipso facto, be a traitor to something you never swore allegiance to.

Sorry to burst your bubble O'Reilly, but the world is not under the jurisdiction of America.

 

[Anonymous man]

I could care less about people revealing information about foreign powers, but he revealed American classified information... that makes him a traitor to America!

People revealing information about China, Russia and N. Korea to America are chalk and cheese, since they aren't revealing information to a foreign power.

So you're OK with people revealing information to other countries, so long as the information revealed is not American. But if someone - whoever - reveals information about the US this person should be shot, regardless of nationality?

And you don't find this hypocritical at all?

 

[Staccato]

So you're OK with people revealing information to other countries, so long as the information revealed is not American. But if someone - whoever - reveals information about the US this person should be shot, regardless of nationality?

And you don't find this hypocritical at all?

The outdated lie of American exceptionalism is a pernicious disease that leads to a suspension of consistent judgement or application of justice.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

You cannot, ipso facto, be a traitor to something you never swore allegiance to.

Sorry to burst your bubble O'Reilly, but the world is not under the jurisdiction of America.

Tell it to William Wallace.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

So you're OK with people revealing information to other countries, so long as the information revealed is not American. But if someone - whoever - reveals information about the US this person should be shot, regardless of nationality?

And you don't find this hypocritical at all?

Not hypocritical at all. Revealing American secrets to other countries is treason against America. Is this really that hard a concept?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not hypocritical at all. Revealing American secrets to other countries is treason against America. Is this really that hard a concept

It's not an accurate concept. As Staccato said, you can't be treasonous towards that which you have no allegiance.

 

[Anonymous man]

Not hypocritical at all. Revealing American secrets to other countries is treason against America. Is this really that hard a concept?

No. It is simply abuse of words. I cannot betray a thief I see in the streets if I report him to the police unless I swore allegiance to that thief. I - as a non-US citizen cannot commit treason against the US because I have never sworn allegiance to the US. It's pretty basic stuff really.

Regardless, let's for the sake of argument say your definition is right even though it isn't.
Then a person who reveals negative information about any country is a traitor to that country. Following your line of reasoning then said country should get this person and be free to execute him or her for treason should they see fit to do so. Or do you mean that if say an Australian reveals information about North Korea North Korea should not be allowed to execute him, but should the US have information about IT be revealed then this Australian citizen should be up for grabs and execution by the US government?

This seems to be your reasoning. Why do you think the US has such a special position as to be able to grab a hold of anyone they see fit and kill them if they so desire while no other nation should have the same privilege? Or would Mr. Assange not have committed treason according to you if he had given the information only to his own government and not to the public as he did?

 

[Anonymous man]

Tell it to William Wallace.

So, you think this is the dark ages? Sorry to disappoint you. It's 2010, and Australia is not occupied by the US. So not only is he outside US jurisdiction, he also - unlike WW - has not killed anyone or waged war against anyone. Plus I'd like to think society has evolved a little since the days of feudalism.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

So, you think this is the dark ages? Sorry to disappoint you. It's 2010, and Australia is not occupied by the US. So not only is he outside US jurisdiction, he also - unlike WW - has not killed anyone or waged war against anyone. Plus I'd like to think society has evolved a little since the days of feudalism.

1. At the time of Wallace, Scotland and England both were hereditary Monarchies, not Feudalisms.
2. They weren't Australian state secrets he was exposing, they were American.
3. He has made information public that can directly lead to death to American troops and destruction of American interests. The fact that he personally doesn't pull the trigger doesn't make him any less responsible. Think about the inteligence officer in a conventional war. She might never personally harm a fly. That doesn't make her any less legitimate a target.

 

[Anonymous man]

1. At the time of Wallace, Scotland and England both were hereditary Monarchies, not Feudalisms.
2. They weren't Australian state secrets he was exposing, they were American.
3. He has made information public that can directly lead to death to American troops and destruction of American interests. The fact that he personally doesn't pull the trigger doesn't make him any less responsible. Think about the inteligence officer in a conventional war. She might never personally harm a fly. That doesn't make her any less legitimate a target.

As for number 1: Hair-splitting!
Yes, he was Australian, NOT American, so it is NOT treason. And my question remains: Should anyone revealing sensitive information be given to the country whose information they revealed to be tried and executed?

If not, why only people who reveal information about US' misdeeds? Why is it so bad that WikiLeaks has provided inforamtion which gives us - the public - insight into the deceits and treachery of those who would govern us? Surely the leaders should be held accountable to the people whom they govern?