[Winstonm]

The issue of investigative reporting and Wikileaks is a valid one, and Wikileaks does publish leaked film footage and information that is not classified as top secret - for the classified information Wikileaks uses partner newpapers who have editors and editorial experience and who redact what they think is too sensitive to release.

At least, this is how I understand the structure of Wikileaks.

[Winstonm]

This, also, seems an odd position for the U.S. Justice department to take:

Quote

In a filing related to the detention of whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, the Justice Department argued that being a whistleblower and leaking information to the media was a “greater threat to society” than when a spy sells that information to a single foreign country.

Giving information to the New York Times is worse than selling it to North Korean - quaint point of view.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on the information.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2011-January-18, 18:09, said:

The issue of investigative reporting and Wikileaks is a valid one, and Wikileaks does publish leaked film footage and information that is not classified as top secret - for the classified information Wikileaks uses partner newpapers who have editors and editorial experience and who redact what they think is too sensitive to release.

At least, this is how I understand the structure of Wikileaks.

NO


This is a gross error.

It releases data unfiltered.

"Assange has acknowledged that the practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the Web site to have "blood on our hands."[64"

[blackshoe]

And apparently he doesn't care.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-18, 23:40, said:

And apparently he doesn't care.

yet

[Winstonm]

This is the wikipedia description of the State Department cables release.

Quote

On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers from Spain (El País), France (Le Monde), Germany (Der Spiegel), the United Kingdom (The Guardian), and the United States (The New York Times) started to simultaneously publish the first 220 of 251,287 leaked confidential—but not top secret—diplomatic cables from 274 US embassies around the world, dated from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. WikiLeaks plans to release the entirety of the cables in phases over several months.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2011-January-18, 22:07, said:

NO


This is a gross error.

It releases data unfiltered.

"Assange has acknowledged that the practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the Web site to have "blood on our hands."[64"

Source? Definitions?

For what it is worth, here are some ideas used in a Glenn Greenwald argument and the sources:

Quote

The New York Times' Scott Shane on Sunday exposed the lies being told about WikiLeaks' alleged "indiscriminate document dump" by making clear how indistinguishable its disclosures are from the world's leading newspapers (including his own); read the first three paragraphs on this page from Shane's article.

The Washington Times' neoconservative reporter Eli Lake last night wrote: "I oppose the application of the espionage statute to Assange because the same kind of prosecution would make me a criminal too." Leading newspaper editors and television producers in Australia have banded together in a letter to the Australian Prime Minister defending WikiLeaks, which reads:


In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.

It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.

[kenberg]

To me, the issues are pretty identifiable:
Did he violate American law?
Does the U.S. have jurisdiction?
If the answers are yes, then ask: Is he subject to extradition?

I don't find great relevance in whether he was engaged in journalism or just having fun thumbing his nose at us. I don't care whether he sold the material, or he gave it away, to whom he gave it away, or if he published it himself. Presumably we cannot have it be legal to give it to the Times because they are really responsible but illegal to give it to the Enquirer because they are not responsible. I don't really care if he is an idealist or a nut (often that's the same thing anyway). Grabbing this material and giving it out is legal or it is illegal. Which it is should determine what we do. If the law is unsatisfactory we can change it, but not retroactively.


The case is legally complex I am sure.

[awm]

Suppose we had the following series of events...

Chinese government official is unhappy with something his government is doing, leaks some memos to NY Times reporter (who is a US citizen) electronically. NY Times reporter publishes the memos. Chinese government complains that this reveals classified internal government information which they would prefer to keep secret, and that it portrays the Chinese government in a bad light. USA extradites NY Times reporter to China, where he is tried according to Chinese law and put to death.

See anything wrong with this? I expect that Americans (of all political persuasions) would be outraged!!!

Yet if we substitute "Chinese" with "American" and "NY Times" with "Wikileaks" and "US citizen" with "Australian citizen" we seem to have quite possibly the case with Julian Assange.

[y66]

awm, on 2011-January-19, 21:07, said:

Suppose we had the following series of events...

Chinese government official is unhappy with something his government is doing, leaks some memos to NY Times reporter (who is a US citizen) electronically. NY Times reporter publishes the memos. Chinese government complains that this reveals classified internal government information which they would prefer to keep secret, and that it portrays the Chinese government in a bad light. USA extradites NY Times reporter to China, where he is tried according to Chinese law and put to death.

See anything wrong with this? I expect that Americans (of all political persuasions) would be outraged!!!

Yet if we substitute "Chinese" with "American" and "NY Times" with "Wikileaks" and "US citizen" with "Australian citizen" we seem to have quite possibly the case with Julian Assange.

Indeed.

[pdmunro]

Julian Assange, of Wikileaks, and Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, answer questions from the audience at the Frontline Club, October 25, 2010.

Chaired by Elizabeth Palmer, CBS News correspondent.

http://fora.tv/2010/..._Talk_WikiLeaks

[kenberg]

awm, on 2011-January-19, 21:07, said:

Suppose we had the following series of events...

Chinese government official is unhappy with something his government is doing, leaks some memos to NY Times reporter (who is a US citizen) electronically. NY Times reporter publishes the memos. Chinese government complains that this reveals classified internal government information which they would prefer to keep secret, and that it portrays the Chinese government in a bad light. USA extradites NY Times reporter to China, where he is tried according to Chinese law and put to death.

See anything wrong with this? I expect that Americans (of all political persuasions) would be outraged!!!

Yet if we substitute "Chinese" with "American" and "NY Times" with "Wikileaks" and "US citizen" with "Australian citizen" we seem to have quite possibly the case with Julian Assange.

I have thought some along these lines. Would it not depend on the extent to which the Chinese government official was acting as an agent of the NYTimes reporter? If the reporter approached the official and offered him payment to abscond with secret Chinese document and to turn those documents over to him, I believe the Chinese government would treat them both as a spies and, to the extent this version of events was accepted as true, I think many Americans would say that a reporter who does not wish to be treated as a spy should not engage in espionage. I believe that responsible newspapers take this view also.

I don't know just what arrangement was made between Assange and his source(s). I think it will be an important subject of dispute if this ever gets to trial. There is a continuum where at one end someone receives stolen property with no knowledge that it is stolen and at the other end someone hires someone expressly to go in and do the stealing. This will probably fall somewhere between, but I am guessing (and I admit that it is only a guess) this will fall closer to the hiring someone to steal end of this continuum.

[Winstonm]

How could Julian Assange have found and instigated a "pay for information" quid pro quo with Private Bradley Manning, when the Wikileaks' software is designed to prevent anyone from knowing the identity of the leaker, including Wikileaks themselves?

I would think it virtually impossible to establish a pay for information relationship with the website - the agreements would have to be made in person prior to the leaking to the website.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2011-January-20, 18:16, said:

How could Julian Assange have found and instigated a "pay for information" quid pro quo with Private Bradley Manning, when the Wikileaks' software is designed to prevent anyone from knowing the identity of the leaker, including Wikileaks themselves?

I would think it virtually impossible to establish a pay for information relationship with the website - the agreements would have to be made in person prior to the leaking to the website.

A fair response. I confess I know little of the Wikileaks software. Nothing, in fact. It's possible that he will get away with it. I prefer not, but it may well happen. I don't always get my way. As I said, there is a continuum and this no doubt will fall somewhere between "My goodness, these were secret cables, who wouldda thought" and "Here is some cash and there will be more later when you bring the results". We will perhaps find out just where it fits and what laws apply.

If a guy sends me your password to your bank account and I drain it, my guess is that he and I are both criminals, even if we are from Australia. If he cracks your computer and sends me all your email messages, and I publish them, my guess is that he and I are both guilty of invasion of privacy. This time it is, of course, the government that got its records stolen, not a private party. So it's different. But, to me, not all that much different.

I think what he did was wrong, I won't be changing my mind about that, an attitude we may share. The lawyers can sort out whether it was illegal. Details will probably be important.

[Winstonm]

I am not a particular "fan" of Wikileaks - but I do recognize that it is perhaps a necessary evil of our times as the antagonistic press I grew up with no longer exists. It has been replaced by the willing and complicit press.

I blame lack of competition, mainly, (yes, in this I am strongly in favor of free markets) but the fallacy in my opinion of the new conservative is confusing monopolistic accumulation ability with free market. The fact that there are now a handful of massive corporations who own and distribute the news is no free market. It was and still is necessary for government to intervene to protect free market competition - by limiting the ability of congolmerates to absorb smaller outlets.

By all this I am saying that if our free press were adequately doing its job, there never would have been a Wikileaks, and Julian Assange would have been a nameless computer geek working for Der Spiegel or Paris Match.

[kenberg]

I recognize the need for vigorous watchdogging of the government. I also agree that media corporations are a real problem. I think that you may be romanticizing the past glories of newspapers a bit, but whatever the past was we need a vigorous press.

It's tough to make good law regarding press freedom. Certainly they get to state any views that they please, and I suppose they get to look in detail at a public person's private life although a little restraint would probably not threaten democracy. Printing secret documents is a tougher call. No doubt some things are stamped secret to hide mistakes or bad behavior. Wikileaks seems to largely be exposing candid conversations. Someone describes Qaddafi's nurse as voluptuous and loses his job? In the modern world we all have to learn how to speak ever so carefully.


Checking with Wikipedia, I find that it was Henry Stimson who said "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail". (I had always thought it was Calvin Coolidge.) Wik further tells me that by WWII he had changed his mind. For better or worse, that view now seems extremely quaint.

Added: Rob Pegoraro was musing in the Post today about Eric Schmidt of Google and supplies a quote:

Quote

In October, attendees at a forum organized by the Atlantic Monthly heard him [Schmidt] testify to how much Google could learn about its users with their permission: "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."

At least they don't broadcast it!

[Aberlour10]

kenberg, on 2011-January-19, 20:33, said:

To me, the issues are pretty identifiable:
Did he violate American law?
Does the U.S. have jurisdiction?
If the answers are yes, then ask: Is he subject to extradition?

The first two points: The US justice is looking intensively (NYT) for reasoning of this violation, I am pretty sure they will find it, even if they have to root out long forgotten acts from 1906 or 1917 etc. Where there's a political will, there is a legal way.
So the answers are YES!

Is he subject to extradition from english/swedish point of legal view? In normal case we could say surely NO! but...where there's political will....

Let us assume, that Wikileaks has published any single US document, but exclusively secret cables from China, Iran, Russia or N Korea. The same people in US goverment and medias who want to see Assange in US prison would make him to Great Fighter for Freedom, Liberty and Democracy and these who wish him simply a bullet, would probably propose him for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

[awm]

The case does seem to have interesting consequences for how international law works.

My impression was that traditionally, if I've never been to country A (and I'm not a citizen of country A either), then I can't be extradited to country A for trial when they accuse me of a crime. Certainly if what I'm accused of doing is also criminal in my country of residence (or citizenship) I can be put on trial there, but not extradited to some foreign land. Thus Iran couldn't demand the extradition of the Danish cartoonists, the Chinese can't demand the extradition of US newspaper reporters who violate Chinese censorship laws, and the US can't demand the extradition of Julian Assange.

Except... the US has fairly consistently tried to apply its laws outside its borders (and it's only gotten worse since the "war on terror" began). I'd expect that citizens of foreign countries don't think much of this particular US policy... certainly I would be quite uncomfortable if foreign regimes applied this kind of logic to US citizens living within US borders.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-18, 23:40, said:

And apparently he doesn't care.

Or, more likely, Assange has a more nuanced view of the subject...

Consider the following analogy:

When doctors administer a Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccination, there is about a one in a million chance that the recipient will suffer an extremely severe allergic reaction. This is a known fact. And yet, Doctors continue to administer vaccinations.

Are we right to conclude that the Doctors don't care about these deathes?