RICOCHET RESOLVES
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
December 26, 2010 at 9:37am
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:
Dec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
The resolution is true. First, it is clear that the President can (and does) order the execution of people who threaten the United States. The United States does this (according to news accounts) by use of Predators firing Hellfire missiles. We have targeted “terrorists” all over the world. The United States likely uses other means as well.
Two, the President does not seem to have targeted Mr. Assange. Assange still lives. Thus, the military and CIA are woefully inept, or despite public protests by administration officials that the Wikileaks is “damaging,” the administration actually believes something else. Mr. Assange’s conduct apparently is not deemed a threat at the level of other terroristic threats. In internet world, words are more potent than bombs.
Three, there is no evidence that Wikileaks caused any damage. Indeed, if Wikileaks did not exist, it is likely the President would task some CIA office to create a Wikileaks so that we could “release” nasty things, while at the same time remaining officially polite and friendly. In spy world, people always play a double game.
Four, even if Wikileaks caused damage, the principle of the First Amendment is sacrosanct. If you know it, publish it.
Jul '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
WHEREAS, Julian Assange recently made reference to an "insurance" file of sensitive documents, which he stated would be released should he run into difficulties with criminal charges, thus attempting to influence a criminal investigation by threat;
and
WHEREAS, WikiLeaks has distributed encrypted copies of this file to sites hosted by various "supporters", who doubtless include members of terrorist groups, criminal organizations, and hostile foreign powers, without safeguards as to redaction of names, sources, and methods;
THEREFORE, WikiLeaks is nothing more than a cheap extortion racket aimed at the U.S. (and, so far, only the U.S., Assange's laughable talk about Russia aside), and is thus unworthy of defense by the fine minds gathered here at Ricochet.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
I call BS on: "the principle of the First Amendment is sacrosanct. If you know it, publish it". For sure the MSM does not, not if it hurts a Democrat. And I do not believe that was true before the Pentagon Papers.
Oct '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
"There's no such thing as free speech, and it's a good thing too." - Stanley Fish
Dec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Sally, how do you know anything in Wikileaks is actually true? Recall the Cold War and "double agents." It was common to ship out "defectors" who would share some true facts and many false and misleading facts. It was a fright to sort out false facts and avoid being misled.
Fast forward to today, explain to me how you know for certain that Wikileaks is not exactly the same kind of operation? It releases some true facts and a mass of false facts. It would confuse and confound intelligence agencies around the world for years. They all suffer from finite resources to analyze this mess.
Which is why the First Amendment is sacrosanct. The only defense that a free people has against falsehood and lies is a press that relentlessly publishes things, even so called secrets. Government should always live in fear that the press will publish its naughty thoughts and deeds.
Jun '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
... and Lord Haw Haw the British citizen who was a propagada voice for the Nazis and who was executed for treason. I think that they can all be distinguished because they were operatives of their respective government's propaganda ministries and were not attempting to publish information so much as disinformation.
You come down, I think, that Wikileaks and the NYT are both 'legitimate member(s) of the fourth estate, deserving of First Amendment protections." QED
Left unresolved in your comment: What would you do to Julian Assange that shouldn't have been done to Punch Sulzberger?
Jun '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Capt Aubrey (may I call you "Jack"?), do you think Wikipedia is an organization the way the Encyclopedia Britannica is an organization?
Nov '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
First of all, WikiLeaks is not a legitimate member of the Fourth Estate. Despite its (lying) mission statement, WikiLeaks obviously exists only to hurt America and damage its international standing. And it definitely "goes fishing" for illegal sources of information. WikiLeaks is not only illegitimate, but arguably a criminal enterprise.
Second, Pfc. Bradley "Babyface" Manning is a traitor and should be shot.
Third, Pilgrim and others have made excellent legal arguments for and against. I have nothing to add to that.
Fourth (and this is my point), I was struck by the worldwide "gut reaction" to the info dump. There was a very widespread feeling (even in the Ricochet forum) that Assange had crossed a serious line — and that he is now fair game for assassination. Normally, I am suspicious of gut reactions, but when everyone in the world seems to be figuratively holding their popcorn and gleefully waiting for Assange to get whacked, that means something. Frankly, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Assange may still be walking around, smug and happy, but someday he is going to walk down a long, dark street, and he will never be seen again, dead or alive.
Good riddance.
Dec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Harry Huntington
explain to me how you know for certain that Wikileaks is not exactly the same kind of operation?
Public disclosure of secret military operations compromises the methods, leads to the identity, and if we hear about it or not, causes the death of foreign agents engaged in defending the interests of our country abroad. We don’t do that.
The defectors analogy also falls short because their deceptions derive their plausibility from their secrecy. He may make a good spy novel hero, or become a hydra of conspiracies, but there is sufficient public information about the founder of Wikileaks to dismiss any suspicion of his artful cunning beyond his circle of tree hugging twits.
Dec '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
So how is it different from the Washington Post, New York Times, or even General Electric or Disney? How is it different from Wal-Mart? You don't think that businesses that move jobs to China aren't hurting America? You don't think that large companies that destroy commerce in small towns are not hurting America?
WikiLeaks exists to advance its point of view that America's imperialistic unipolar style is dangerous and wrong. So what? The neo-con Bush foreign policy was a disaster and Obama has done nothing to make it better. There is substantial ground to debate what actually is in America's national interest. WikiLeaks has contributed to that debate. You may disagree with its position, but that is the point of the First Amendment, free debate.
When the government conceals facts that stifles debate. If facts about a policy would embarrass the government, then there is a problem with the policy. Eisenhower was right to warn of the military industrial complex dominating America.
Nov '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Harry Huntington
So how is it different from the Washington Post, New York Times, or even General Electric or Disney? How is it different from Wal-Mart? You don't think that businesses that move jobs to China aren't hurting America? You don't think that large companies that destroy commerce in small towns are not hurting America?
You are getting totally carried away. It does not help the debate when you drop the rhetorical equivalent of a cluster bomb. We could start four or five separate threads based on that paragraph alone. Focus, man.
Jun '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Charles Gordon
Public disclosure of secret military operations compromises the methods, leads to the identity, and if we hear about it or not, causes the death of foreign agents engaged in defending the interests of our country abroad. We don’t do that.
Indisputably true.
Hypothetical - You are a PFC in the code room of the a government agency and you see a Top Secret - Crypto document that establishes that the US government is providing missle guidance technology to the Chinese in the guise of "technology sharing for communication satellites." The document proves that vehement objections of the military brass have been overidden by a directive from the WH to "just do it." You are willing to go to jail if necessary to do the right thing (as you see it), but who do you send the document to? The NYT, Wikileaks? What is the penalty for publishing it?
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Harry Huntington
So how is it different from the Washington Post, New York Times, or even General Electric or Disney? How is it different from Wal-Mart? You don't think that businesses that move jobs to China aren't hurting America? You don't think that large companies that destroy commerce in small towns are not hurting America?
You're glossing over Lady Kurobara's qualifier. She's asserting that WikiLeaks "exists only to hurt America." You've equating this with isolated acts that may, by themselves, hurt America but that arguably help America overall.
The idea that Walmart, Disney, or even (suppressing gag reflex) the New York Times are purely anti-American is a stretch.
Nov '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Harry Huntington
So how is it different from the Washington Post, New York Times, or even General Electric or Disney? How is it different from Wal-Mart? You don't think that businesses that move jobs to China aren't hurting America? You don't think that large companies that destroy commerce in small towns are not hurting America?
You imply that Wal-Mart destroys commerce in small towns. That is a liberal claim. Is it even true? What does it have to do with WikiLeaks?
Of course it hurts America when businesses move to China. But America has the highest corporate taxes and most onerous corporate regulations in the world. In a free market, what other choice do those businesses have? What does it have to do with WikiLeaks?
What the hell do GE and Disney have to do with WikiLeaks or anything in this thread?
I am not sure which end of the political spectrum you favor, Harry, but you sound like some sort of rabidly anti-business Luddite. Or something.
Aug '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Why is Wikileaks even a question for debate?
A tyrannical regime is another kettle of fish. By its nature it deservers no consideration of secrecy. The "journalist" in this case is a freedom fighter. For proof, consider what happens to him when the state catches up with him!
Sep '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Capt Aubrey (may I call you "Jack"?), do you think Wikipedia is an organization the way the Encyclopedia Britannica is an organization? · Dec 26 at 11:13am
Certainly, Sir, I was more formal in the 18th C but that was a long time ago. They are different organizations surely. As I understand wikipedia they have volunteers who attempt to verify facts and create some standards. I have no idea if there are other people associated with wikileaks beyond Assange himself. Fact checking certainly isn't applicable in the same way.
Aug '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
First Amendment protection for Assange? No. Neve
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Wylee Coyote: WHEREAS, Julian Assange recently made reference to an "insurance" file of sensitive documents, which he stated would be released should he run into difficulties with criminal charges, thus attempting to influence a criminal investigation by threat;
[...]
THEREFORE, WikiLeaks is nothing more than a cheap extortion racket aimed at the U.S. (and, so far, only the U.S., Assange's laughable talk about Russia aside), and is thus unworthy of defense by the fine minds gathered here at Ricochet. · Dec 26 at 10:20am
Given the perception that Assange is ripe for getting whacked, this seems to be prudent on his part. It would be extortion if he were demanding money, the release of terrorists, etc.
Don't get me wrong: Assange is a pathetic, anti-American nut, and Manning should get locked up for decades (at least).
But now a naive question: what's the worst disclosure that Wikileaks has published? And does it rise to the SWIFT disclosures by the NYT?
Nov '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
Pilgrim
Charles Gordon
Hypothetical - You are a PFC in the code room of the a government agency and you see a Top Secret - Crypto document that establishes that the US government is providing missle guidance technology to the Chinese in the guise of "technology sharing for communication satellites." The document proves that vehement objections of the military brass have been overidden by a directive from the WH to "just do it." You are willing to go to jail if necessary to do the right thing (as you see it), but who do you send the document to? The NYT, Wikileaks? What is the penalty for publishing it?
That is a darn good plot for a Tom Clancy novel. Of course, in your scenario, the PFC is exposing treason rather than committing treason. Whom should he alert? I see no point in going to the MSM. If a Democrat is sitting in the WH, the NYT would probably tip him off. Under the circumstances, the PFC should probably go straight to the Joint Chiefs and let them figure out a way to invoke the 25th Amendment, in order to remove a treasonous President.
May '10
Re: RICOCHET RESOLVES
There doesn't seem to be much that's wiki about WikiLeaks. From what I see, they rely on users to send them material, and they use what appear to be Wikipedia's templates. But they don't allow users to edit or publish content... it has to pass through Wikileaks' staff first, and then "they" decide whether and when to publish it. So for this reason, they seem more like a publication, albeit one with lousy formatting and no reporters.