Wikileaks - OK or should be shut down?

Response to comment [from other]:  "Heroes or villains?"

Villains

[Wikileaks and the sabotage of U.S. diplomacy by Michelle Mulkin]  "...Key passage on the anti-American agenda driving the leaks, the transnationalist left’s use of the “hypocrisy” card, and the cowardly, selective publication of our diplomatic communications versus other nations:

The aim, transparently, is to embarrass the target, but since that’s too petty a reason to justify so vicious a tactic, the exposure is unfailingly dressed up as some sort of high-minded attempt to make the target “live by his principles.” If you take this argument seriously, any confidential communication between government officials should be fair game for leaking so long as it somehow contradicts or questions, however glancingly, state policy. (Hypocrisy!) But of course, they’re not limiting publication to only those documents that undermine official State Department positions; as noted above in the context of Turkey’s foreign minister, a lot of this stuff will simply be bits of intelligence about various international actors and speculation about their motives. Nothing “hypocritical” about it — but mighty embarrassing. In fact, there’s nothing “hypocritical” about arguably the biggest revelation thus far, the report of North Korea shipping missiles to Iran. That sort of cooperation goes straight back to Bush’s “axis of evil” speech; theories about collaboration between the two are a staple of proliferation analyses. There’s no U.S. government “lie” that needs to be exposed there, in other words. It’s simply a case of Wikileaks trying to weaken America’s hand by revealing some of the cards that it’s holding. (emphasis added)

Two other points. One: Note that they don’t say they wouldn’t have published the documents if the crucial hypocrisy component was missing. On the contrary, in their sonorous meditation about George Washington, [the Guardian editors] suggest that they would have done so anyway even though the damage to U.S. interests would have been greatly diminished. That’s further evidence that it’s confidentiality itself that they object to, not hypocrisy, and it follows Simon Jenkins’s lead in ignoring the usual balancing act when weighing the merits of a leak between the sensitivity of the information and the public’s interest in knowing about it. Wikileaks would have you believe that confidential government communications are so inherently anti-democratic that exposing them is virtually always in the public interest, no matter what collateral damage might result. No country in the world has ever followed that standard and no country ever will. (emphasis added) Two: To the extent that they do take the hypocrisy standard seriously, does that mean that less democratic nations aren’t fair game for leaks because, hey, at least they’re living by their principles? Wikileaks’s lack of interest to date in revealing state secrets of, say, China is mighty conspicuous given that cracking Beijing’s culture of secrecy would be a far greater intel coup than publishing U.S. diplomatic cables and might even have major political repercussions for the Chinese regime. But then, China isn’t “hypocritical,” you see. And of course China also isn’t likely to tolerate damaging leaks like this the way liberal western nations are…" Full text

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Wikileaks is the best thing that ever happened to our foreign policy."

People's lives will be in danger (Jn 10:10). Nations must know that they can trust America.

"...The letter from State Department legal adviser Harold Koh was released as U.S. diplomats around the world are scrambling to warn foreign governments about what might be in the secret documents that are believed to contain highly sensitive assessments about world leaders, their policies and America's attempts to lobby them.

In the letter, Koh said the publication of some 250,000 secret diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, which is expected on Sunday, will "place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals," "place at risk on-going military operations," and "place at risk on-going cooperation between countries."

"They were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action," he said. Koh said WikiLeaks should not publish the documents, return them to the U.S. government and destroy any copies it may have in its possession or in computer databases..." Full text: US asks WikiLeaks to halt document release

"The last 50 years indicate that democratic movement can't trust America."

What do you think of American in general? What are your thoughts on American exceptionalism? Do you want our country to succeed?

[John Bolton calls for strong response after recent WikiLeaks release by Jeff Winkler] "...The website, said Bolton, is specifically designed to harm the information-gathering efforts by U.S. officials and hinted that WikiLeaks should be designated a foreign terrorist organization.

“[WikiLeaks] is an anti-American organization. It’s intended to impair America’s abilities to protect its interest around the world and we should treat it that way,” said Bolton on Fox.

Bolton said that WikiLeaks has targeted U.S. efforts to protect itself and the organization as well as individuals involved should be confronted directly.

Earlier Monday, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Rep. Pete King, New York Republican, said WikiLeaks should be designated a terrorist organization after the most recent leak.

“This leak is an outrage. It’s going to cause incalculable damage to American diplomatic efforts around the world,” said Bolton. “People who talk to American diplomats, typically do so under the assumption that what they say will be held confidential. Reading some of these conversations in the world’s major newspapers is simply going to dry up information.

The former ambassador, who has said he is considering a possible 2012 presidential run, also zeroed in on Americans who were behind the leaks, like arrested PFC Bradley Manning, who is accused of giving WikiLeaks many of the now-published documents.

“I think it’s time we stop being a well-bred doormat, said Bolton. “I think any American that was involved in leaking this information to WikiLeaks aught to be charged with Treason.”

Bolton said the U.S.’s “cyber-warfare capabilities need practice and I think they ought to practice on WikiLeaks.” Full text

Response to comment [from a Satanist]:  [What do you think of American in general?] "We're a big country with very big problems." [What are your thoughts on American exceptionalism?] "It's a dangerous myth and a fraud." [Do you want our country to succeed?] "In what?"

In its leadership role around the world? What do you think of the American soldier in general?

[Sarah Palin Facebook] "...[T]he latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?

The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?

We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task..." Full text

Response to comment [from a Satanist]:  "If you can think for yourself and not quote the ghostwritten comments of some Alaskan idiot, then we can have an actual conversation."

Why do you believe Sarah Palin has a ghost writers?  I'm not saying you are wrong. 

What about her (or her adviser's) point on the Obama administration dropping the ball with the leaks.  As of today, the administration does not seem to be coming down hard on Assange.  Do you think this is an act of war? 

"...because her first book was ghost written. Pretty big clue."

That means that she has a ghost writer on Facebook?

"I don't see how this is the administration's fault or what they could've done to prevent this..."

That's what Palin's (or her advisor's) post discusses:  "His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?"

You do not agree?   No action should have been taken before the additional leaks?  This is national security that we are talking about. 

"Assange isn't an American citizen, so I'm not even sure what rights we have to go after him."

Apparently, they're going to start looking into it. It would be nice think of our nation (not "the world") once in a while. We are a sovereign nation. We have every right to protect ourselves from enemies without asking for a "world opinion".

[Suddenly, Obama administration looking into criminal charges for Wikileaks] "Why is this round of leaks any different than previous leaks about the military? It seems that the release of the diplomatic cables, unlike the earlier releases which identified hundreds of informants in Afghanistan and exposed them to mortal danger, embarrasses Obama administration officials. Apparently it’s fine to blow military operations and the cover of those in a war zone who help the US, but when you make Hillary Clinton blush, well, look out.

Can the DoJ get an indictment? The axiom holds that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but convictions are another matter. In this case, though, the indictment seems pretty straightforward. At least some of the material released by Wikileaks is covered by laws protecting classified information, and those laws have been upheld in the past against First Amendment challenges. On the other hand, Assange may have a defense against selective prosecution, since the US government never prosecuted newspapers and reporters in the US that published national-security secrets, most notably the New York Times and the Washington Post. In those cases, though, the papers didn’t publish the documents verbatim and kept the details — especially on personnel — out of print.
At least an indictment would start the ball rolling on arresting or capturing Assange and his Wikileaks team to stop any further damage to American security. Waiting until this moment to start pursuing an indictment is a demonstration of impotence and incompetency..." Suddenly, Obama administration looking into criminal charges for Wikileaks by Ed Morrissey

"At the risk of getting hijacked by your silliness: yes, I think it's likely. Most of her policy wonkish comments on Facebook are too articulate for me to believe she's personally writing them."

Could be. 

"The media gets to run with information and disclose it..."

They are not free to release classified information.

"...[W]ho really is at fault here?"

Manning, Assange and WikiLeaks.

[Prosecute WikiLeaks, then reform our espionage laws by Jeffrey H. Smith] "...First, we should seek to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks. There can be little doubt that his actions violate 18 USC 793 (e), which prohibits anyone with "unauthorized possession" of information relating to the national defense that could harm the United States or help an enemy from willfully communicating that information to someone not authorized to receive it or from willfully retaining the information after the U.S. government has demanded that it be returned. For years, lawyers have debated whether that language could be used to prosecute a newspaper that prints classified information. No legitimate journalist or newspaper has ever been prosecuted under this statute. But it is hard to argue, based on the available facts, that Assange deserves the same treatment as a responsible news organization that carefully considers the views of the government before deciding what, if any, classified information to publish. The Constitution protects the media, but it surely does not protect those who wantonly do great harm.

Second, we should figure out how someone was able to provide the documents to WikiLeaks in the first place and make sure it doesn't happen again. An Army private is reportedly being held on accusations of leaking the documents. On Sunday, the Pentagon announced sensible steps to close the barn door - albeit it too late. After Sept. 11, 2001, there was a great push to share information more widely so government agents could "connect the dots." When tightening up the system to prevent more leaks, great care must be taken not to reconstruct "stovepipes" of information that are inaccessible to those who need it. Technology is available that can enable a distributed system that promotes sharing but also has controls, such as permissioning and auditing functions, that provide accountability and security. The administration and Congress must make this a higher priority.

Third, we should modernize the espionage statutes, the law under which leaks are prosecuted. Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) have rightly begun to look at them. The espionage laws date to World War I, and although they have served us well, the WikiLeaks case calls into serious question whether they are adequate to deal with the modern digital world.

Fourth, those with authorized access to classified information must show greater discipline in how it is handled. Too much information is classified or over-classified..." Full text

Rick Santorum calls him a terrorist: "We haven’t gone after this guy, we haven’t tried to prosecute him, we haven’t gotten our allies to go out and lock this guy up and bring him up on terrorism charges," Santorum said of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. "What he’s doing is terrorism, in my opinion." Full text

"SD, if you're not going to think/write for yourself, just say so and I won't bother responding to your posts. Deal?"

Ad hominem. I agree with Santorum.  I will not agree with Holder when he asks the "world" what their thoughts are about American security and sovereignty.

[I agree with Santorum/try Assange] "No surprise there. That said, Mr. Santorum seemed interested in getting noticed..."

Putin agrees with you.

Assange is anti-American. He would like to destroy this country. Real lives are put at risk because of him. Does this matter to you, Satanist? Jn 10:10.

If we asked, Australia would hand him over.

W.H. [and zoo22] hopes you miss... "...The Boston Globe not letting President Obama off easy for the WikiLeaks release of private State Department conversations.

The Globe’s editorial board writes: “All in all, the WikiLeaks documents represent a serious breach of security. The Obama administration is right to condemn WikiLeaks, but it should also accept some blame itself..." Full text

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Then what?"

Timely question. Never let a serious crisis go to waste: "The Pentagon is leading the investigation and it remains unclear whether any additional charges would be brought in the military or civilian justice systems..." Full text: WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act by Ellen Nakashima and Jerry Markon

There he goes again. Let's just take a "world" vote.

"...Even if they can get someone to turn Assange over they can't try him in a civilian court because the stare decisis regarding the First Amendment will spring him....[A]nd if they try to do it in a military tribunal the Press at large will be all over the Obama Administration because of the implications it will have for them..."

We can do without the Interpol "worldwide wanted list".

What next? Reopen the Hall of Justice? This is a U.S. problem regardless of what Clinton says.

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Lots of irrelevant verbiage here, but the historical fact remains that since WWII, the US found itself supporting dictator after dictator, and opposing democratic movement after democratic movement, all in its Cold War frenzy, and after that in its geopolitical machinations (mostly involving oil)..."

You think we are primarily motivated by oil. I do not.

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "These neocon christians are a hoot...the patriot [act] has made kindling out of what few rights we have left..."

Do you have the same critique for Clinton?

"President Clinton issued Executive Order 12951,6 making public some 860,000 satellite images taken from 1960 to 1972." Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues by Richard A. Best Jr. and Jennifer K. Elsea

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "[Interpol] Hey....don't turn up your nose at it. This is probably the only way anyone is going to "get" him......and it shows our allies are still willing to "handle" things for us....somewhat."

We don't need to be part of an international police force or world court. We need a strong America that carries a big stick.

I'd rather send you out to get this guy.

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "[President Clinton issued Executive Order 12951,6/satellite images] Good thing for geography, I guess. I somehow doubt the pictures have enough resolution to violate anyone's privacy."

If it's issued by Clinton it's a good thing but if it's issued by Bush it's a bad thing?

Response to comment [from a Satanist]:  "And it's that kind of totalitarian mentality that explains why this country is so screwed up."

We want God's rule and reign (Re 22:20). You want what your father wants, Satanist (Jn 8:44).

[Babylon Is Fallen Revelation 18:9-24 by John MacArthur] "...[T]hrough chapter [Re] 16 we went with those judgments. The seals and the trumpets and the bowls, and really chapter 19 could have followed chapter 16, the last bowl judgment and Christ returns. But injected is chapter 17 and 18 to describe the condition of the world at the end that is being judged. He backs up in chapter 17 and describes the final form of world religion, and chapter 18, the final form of world government. This is the form the world is in that is being judged in the time of the end. Now remember chapter 17 described Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and the Abominations of the Earth which describes the final world religious system that will be destroyed by the Antichrist as he demands all the world to worship him. And so when you get into chapter 18, there is no world religion anymore except Antichrist, his power, his kingdom, his throne and his worship. So chapter 18 then describes the final world government of Antichrist in which he alone is worshiped in which he rules the world with the power of Satan and all his demons. It is this government, this world empire that will be devastated by the final judgments, the final trumpet judgments and then all the bowl judgments and then the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So in this chapter then John is giving us a final vision of the world system and the city which is its capital city, namely the city of Babylon..." Full text: Babylon Is Fallen Revelation 18:9-24 by John MacArthur

Response to comment [from a Satanist]:  "...I don't know if you can't read, are stubbornly thick, or what, but I'm not a Satanist."

What has changed?  Are you getting that warm fuzzy felling for the holidays?    Jer 4:14

"...What my father wants for Christmas is a book and a DVD."

Jewish, Christian, Satanist, atheist?

"...I haven't used "Satanist" as an identifier for a while now, so either your reading comprehension is as lousy as the posts you write yourself or you're just being deliberately clueless..."

Or, Satan is still your father (Jn 8:44).

"Any time you want to get back on topic, let me know."

Back to the bat cave...doo...ooo...ooo...ooo...eew...ooo...doo...ooo...ooo...ooo...eew...ooo...

[Weekly Standard By Matthew Continetti] "Everybody knows Assange is the mastermind behind WikiLeaks. But at this writing no charges against him have been filed and no requests for extradition have been issued.

A similar situation confronts Gotham City in Dark Knight. In the movie, a mob banker has fled to Hong Kong. He is outside the reach of American law, and the Chinese refuse to extradite him. Gotham's D.A., Harvey Dent, turns to the Caped Crusader because "Batman has no jurisdiction." And sure enough, Batman captures the mob banker and returns—renders?—him to the Gotham authorities.

The theme of The Dark Knight is that in certain situations, such as dealing with anarchists and terrorists, the polis must break with liberal principles in order to defend liberal society. To stop the WikiLeaks nonsense and keep America safe, President Obama will have to be a superhero. And he may have to go beyond liberal pieties..."

Could we agree on this? I'm happy as long as Michelle is not the one wearing tights.

 

[From Joel Rosenberg's Blog] He was asked: "'...[D]o you believe that Luke 12:2-3 could be referring to all the documents released through WikiLeaks?' I was asked this last week by a gentleman who attended a Q&A session I was doing at First Baptist Church of Naples.

ANSWER: At first glance, the question seemed humorous to the audience and to me. After all, the notion that release of some 250,000 sensitive and classified U.S. government cables and related documents - exposing U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and security secrets - might have been foretold by Bible prophecy is not one I had heard raised before. But in fairness to the gentlemen who was asking the question, I opened to the passage in question and read Luke 12:2-3.

"[T]here is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops..." Joel Rosenberg Blog

Wikileaks - OK or should be shut down?