RICOCHET RESOLVES
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Dec 26, 2010 at 12:37am
RESOLVED: Wikileaks is a legitimate member of the fourth estate, deserving of First Amendment protections.
Please VOTE INITIALLY in the comment thread before considering any points raised in the ensuing discussion.
Honorable members are reminded to switch off their mobile phones. Booing or hissing a speaker, or coughing needlessly, are both grave and pointless discourtesies.
(Credit for the resolution to Ricochet member Trace Urdan, with thanks!)
- Comment (110)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments :
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
If you are initially in favor of this resolution, "like" this comment.
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
If you are initially against this resolution, "like" this comment.
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
If you are initially undecided about this resolution, "like" this comment.
Oct '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Oops, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your comments. Please feel free to delete #3 and this one. Again, my apologies.
Edited on Dec 26, 2010 at 12:47amRe: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Mike LaRoche: Oops, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your comments. Please feel free to delete #3. Again, my apologies. · Dec 26 at 12:45am
Edited on Dec 26 at 12:46 am
No worries, how were you to know I'd keep talking?
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Perhaps we will have to assign Mr. Assange counsel.
Oct '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
My position on this matter is quite simple. The information leaked by Mr. Assange has put American lives - military and civilian - directly at risk. Thus, he is effectively an enemy combatant and should be treated accordingly. Any member of the Fourth Estate who acts as Mr. Assange has should not be surprised to find himself at risk of suffering the fate endured by the First and Second Estates after 1789.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Mr. Assange is kaput. As of right now I'm making the case (offline) that Wikileaks is guilty of subjecting innocent persons to duress, i.e., to "[r]estraint or danger, actually inflicted or impending, which is sufficient in severity or apprehension to deprive a person of free choice, destroy his volition, or obtain consent only in form." Specifically, I find that Wikileaks has violated the Espionage Act of 1917. Regardless of whether I think Mr. Assange will actually be successfully prosecuted in accordance with the Espionage Act, I believe that it has been contravened by Wikileaks anyway.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Anyone want to argue this from an Australian prosecutor's point of view?
We've got venue issues all over the place.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
After having briefly glossed over the various provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917, now codified under U.S.C. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, I think the legal case against Wikileaks, particularly against Mr. Assange, is solid.
-Section 793 deals with "Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information"
-Section 794 deals with "Gathering or Delivering Defense Information to Aid Foreign Government"
-Section 798 deals with "Disclosure of Classified Information"
I think, when one examines just these provisions and then analyzes the conduct of Assange and Wikileaks, that Assange is easily guilty of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. By doing so, he becomes disqualified for First Amendment protection.
Edited on Dec 26, 2010 at 2:44amJul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
That gives you PFC Manning cold, along with some other goodies that one has to sign before handling classified material for the DoD that should simplify the case.
Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen operating outside of the US. How to manage the jurisdictional issues? It may be necessary to charge him under foreign statutes in a foreign venue. I can't believe those discussions haven't happened.
And plan to deal with a defense attorney pointing out reckless exposure of classified data on these merged SAN SIPRNET drives, violating need to know requirements. Those arrangements were supposed to last months, not years, while the agencies sorted out the next step to assure need to know and responsible channels between agencies for this stuff.
Edited on Dec 26, 2010 at 3:12amMay '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Keith Yost at MIT's The Tech writes the following:
"Under U.S. law, we have the authority to stop [Wikileaks and its collaborators]. Members of WikiLeaks are almost certainly in violation of the Espionage Act, and when it comes to espionage, it does not matter that they are foreign citizens (see U.S. v. Zehe), nor does it matter if we violate the sovereignty of another country in abducting them (See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez)."
Edited on Dec 26, 2010 at 3:40amMay '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Sep '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
The wikileaks example is so egregious that its easy. The more interesting question is where civilized societies should draw the line of free speech. To call something journalism connotes some level of processing that wikileaks does not exhibit so is that enough of a shield? I don't think so but if I say that a journalist who writes about classified material is a criminal how do I condone that activity when its directed against a tyrannical regime?
Oct '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Julian Assange should be considered an "enemy of the state." Hunt him down dead or alive. If caught alive, he should be thrown in Guantanamo bay. Anybody or any country that gives aid and comfort to him and his supporters will be dealt harshly.
The fact that Julian Assange is still strutting around after Wikileaks had it's THIRD classified info dump only shows that nobody fears the US anymore. The US is just sitting pretty and looking helpless.
Molly Norris would not have "gone ghost" if she were in Assange's shoes.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
For those of us who can remember history further back than this news cycle:
The Pentagon Papers.
Who published those? Wikileaks?
The New York Times.
You don't want leaks? Get better security.
Oct '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
The issue really is that Wikileaks shows no inclination towards journalistic activity, and has concentrated it's efforts against the US. Perhaps if there were a significant amount of other Wikileaks activity against non-US allies, they could at least be considered "objective". That being said, it makes no difference to the act of espionage. We have much unfortunate precedent where US media have muddied the waters as, for instance, the Pentagon Papers, much of the Bush era anti terrorist activity exposure, and many others over the last 40 years. The fact that Assange is an Aussie gives him some cover, especially given that any expectation that the current administration would commit to any actual action against him is nil. In fact, unfortunately, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is, himself, likely to face nothing more than administrative actions amounting to a slap on the wrist.
Feb '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
There are many things that can be done in terms of computer security to prevent major leaks like this. There's even technology that lets the source control, remotely, whether a recipient can read the electronic document or not-- or even to tell a copy of a document to self-destruct. There are various mechanisms for this.
Of course there are always ways to circumvent it (taking a digital photo of a computer screen on which the document is being viewed legitimately, for example). But don't look for another major dump like this from the U.S. government after this fiasco.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Here in Illinois we have the perfect place for Julian Assange: Stateville. He'll make lots of interesting new friends.