Obama administration now worse than Bush on press freedom

[Thanas]

Source

During the Bush era, I frequently wrote about escalating attacks by the U.S. Government on press freedoms. The Bush DOJ vowed to prosecute whistleblowers while steadfastly refusing to do the same for the high-level criminals they exposed. Alberto Gonzales openly threatened that the DOJ could prosecute editors and reporters of The New York Times for revealing the illegal NSA spying program. CIA Director Porter Goss vowed to subpoena journalists who publish classified information in order to compel them to disclose their sources or go to prison.

And, worst of all, Bush officials sought for the first time in American history to obtain an espionage conviction -- under the Espionage Act of 1917 -- against non-government-employees who had received and disseminated classified information. About that case -- brought against two AIPAC officials who had passed classified information they received from a Pentagon official to the Government of Israel (the Pentagon official pled guilty) -- I wrote about "the Bush Administration's broader, unprecedented assault on a free press of which the AIPAC prosecution is but a part," and argued that "the Bush Administration is seeking to criminalize the very act which defines what an investigative journalist does and has always done in America." The Washington Post's Walter Pincus reported at the time, quoting a legal expert, that "administration officials 'want this case as a precedent so they can have it in their arsenal' and added: 'This is a weapon that can be turned against the media'." After a series of adverse judicial rulings against the Government, the DOJ finally abandoned that AIPAC prosecution.

Amazingly, the Obama administration is surpassing its predecessor when it comes to assaults on whistle-blowing and a free press. As Politico's Josh Gerstein reported, "President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has taken a hard line against leakers. . . .'They’re going after this at every opportunity and with unmatched vigor,' said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists." The New York Times similarly documented: "the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks." The Obama DOJ has launched nothing less than a full-on war against whistleblowers; its magnanimous "Look Forward, Not Backward" decree used to shield high-level Bush criminals from investigations is manifestly tossed to the side when it comes to those who reveal such criminality. And they even revitalized an abandoned Bush-era subpoena issued to The New York Times' James Risen, demanding that he disclose his source for an article in which he revealed an embarrassingly botched attempt to infiltrate and sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

But if current reports are correct -- that the Obama DOJ has now convened a Grand Jury to indict WikiLeaks and Julian Assange -- this will constitute a far greater assault on press freedom than anything George W. Bush managed, or even attempted. Put simply, there is no intellectually coherent way to distinguish what WikiLeaks has done with these diplomatic cables with what newspapers around the world did in this case and what they do constantly: namely, receive and then publish classified information without authorization. And as much justifiable outrage as the Bush DOJ's prosecution of the AIPAC officials provoked, at least the actions there resembled "espionage" far more than anything Assange has done, as those AIPAC officials actually passed U.S. secrets to a foreign government, not published them as WikiLeaks has done.

To criminalize what WikiLeaks is doing is, by definition, to criminalize the defining attribute of investigative journalism. That, to be sure, is a feature, not a bug, of the Obama administration's efforts. Just two days ago, The New York Times' James Risen wrote a story disclosing substantial classified information about the CIA, the DEA and Afghanistan, revealing that a high-level Afghan drug trafficker being prosecuted by the U.S. was long on the payroll of the U.S.; should he be tried for espionage? I wrote in detail back in August about the dangers posed and distortions required to prosecute WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act.

After a pro-prosecution consensus toward WikiLeaks in America's political and media class quickly formed, it seems some journalists -- both domestically and around the world -- are now realizing the dangers to them which such a prosecution would pose. To his credit, 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.

The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau and The Washington Post's Dana Priest -- both of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for publicly exposing classified programs of the Bush administration -- warned that prosecuting WikiLeaks would endanger investigative journalism generally. The Denver Post editorialized that the idea of prosecuting WikiLeaks "is about the only one in recent memory that has attracted bipartisan support in Washington" but "is ill-conceived and fraught with problems" and that "acquiring and publishing information is at the heart of the definition of a free press, which has substantial First Amendment protections." Even the government-revering Washington Post Editorial Page came out in opposition to prosecuting WikiLeaks on Sunday, recognizing that "the government has no business indicting someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its secrets" and that "doing so would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations."

What's most striking about all of this, as usual, is how the worst and most tyrannical government actions in Washington are equally supported on a fully bipartisan basis. It is, of course, a Democratic President -- elected on a promise of creating the "most transparent administration in history" -- that is leading these attacks on whistle-blowing and press freedoms. And it's leading Democratic Senators like Dianne Feinstein demanding Assange's prosecution under the Espionage Act. And it's Democratic operatives like Bob Beckel -- Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager -- calling for Assange to be "illegally" murdered, stating on Fox News: "A dead man can't leak stuff. This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch" (note the illiterate-though-standard claim that Assange, an Australian citizen, has committed "treason" against the U.S.).

Back in the Bush era, this mentality was the province of hard-core conservatives, and Democrats typically reacted with horror. Behold how Bush followers universally spoke about the need to prosecute not only whistleblowers but also journalists. The Weekly Standard and Commentary repeatedly ran articles advocating the prosecution for whistleblowers and The New York Times under the Espionage Act. Bill Bennett demanded that all parties responsible for the disclosures of the NSA program and CIA black sites be prosecuted and imprisoned.

Over and over, the Right during the Bush era argued what has now become the battle-cry of both official Washington and Democratic leaders: that leaks of classified information cannot be tolerated and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Everywhere one goes, one hears such a mentality being advocated by Good Democrats, Progressives and Obama followers. Indeed, the only member of Congress who has thus far stood up and defended WikiLeaks and opposed prosecutions is . . . the universally disparaged GOP Rep. Ron Paul. It's just amazing how seamlessly the two parties end up mirroring each other's arguments and mindsets when in power.

Another mask drops and reveals Obama for what he really is - an authoritarian who never meant the words he spoke on the campaign trail about press freedom. Really, using the Bush-era subpoenas to prosecute journalists for not disclosing their sources?

[spartasman]

Obama is what he has always been, it's just that the splender has worn off by now. He's a weak leader who is in over his head dealing with the government and the public, who is falling back on previous methods because he is under too much stress to devise new/better ones.

[Stravo]

I don't like the guy anymore but to claim he is an autocrat like Bush I think is overstating it. Obama is bowing to pressure to not seem weak. What is the main point that Republicans always hammer Dems on all the time? Weakness when it comes to National Security. So you have this National Security Gap that Dems are usually overcompensating for.

Why didn't Obama shut down Gauntanamo? Is it because he likes to torture terrorists? No, more likley because he knows if he does the Right will castigate him for being weak on terror and what is his come back? "Uh..human rights." The majority of the voting public doesn't give a shit about the human rights of Guantenamo detainees sorry to say so he's playing the numbers.

Same here with the Wikileaks thing. Not only is he reacting to massive embarassment heaped on his administration but again, if he shrugs it off there goes the Right with the Weak on National Security dick waving. And what's Obama's potential response. "Uh...freedom of the press must be maintained." Look at #1. The voting public aren't equating Wikileaks with freedom of the press. They're eating up the Right's spin about lives being putting in danger, etc.

Obama has no spine. That much has been laid bare. Do not expect him to take stands that will make him unpopular or weak especially in regards to National Security issues. That would take a leader and Obama ain't it.

He's not a closet fascist. He's a spineless community organizer.

[General Zod]

I've actually been wondering about this myself. As much as politicians are calling for Assange's head, how come there's been no real effort to clamp down on the newspapers republishing those leaks? If they wanted to stay consistent you'd think they'd be going after everyone reprinting them.

[Serafina]

I've actually been wondering about this myself. As much as politicians are calling for Assange's head, how come there's been no real effort to clamp down on the newspapers republishing those leaks? If they wanted to stay consistent you'd think they'd be going after everyone reprinting them.

Because newspapers are traditional media. Their position is not only clearer legally, but they people perceive them as much more legitimate. Also, they do a lot of other stuff other than leaking.
This does not apply to Wikileaks, which is a relatively new, unknown expression of the new media and only leaks stuff without doing anything else. This (presumably) makes them much more conspicious in the eye of the public, and thus a much more worthwhile target.

[Stark]

Assange is an easily identifiable 'enemy'. He's foreign, he's a traitor (somehow), he's a dirty leftist, he has sex with women at parties, etc. You couldn't get more 'other' from the US political base if you tried.

I bet he isn't even christian!

[Vaporous]

He's not a closet fascist. He's a spineless community organizer.

It is increasingly difficult to believe this. These aren't policies he's forced into, they're just things he does. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep saying "If only the mean ol Republicans would let Obama do good for the people!", when every day gives another example of how terrible he actually is.

[spartasman]

He's not terrible, just... incompetent.

[Themightytom]

He's not a closet fascist. He's a spineless community organizer.

It is increasingly difficult to believe this. These aren't policies he's forced into, they're just things he does. I'm not sure how much longer we can keep saying "If only the mean ol Republicans would let Obama do good for the people!", when every day gives another example of how terrible he actually is.

"just things he does?"
Your response to Stravo's assertion that Obama is caving to political pressure is
"...naw..."

Seriously this has been the most politically charged Presidency from day one, it's a legitimate point to consider in trying to ascertain how Obama makes decisions. Republicans have unanimously blocked him at every turn and mobilized a base that has been irrational and unruly since the very beginning. We're going to be able to say the mean ol' Republicans won't let Obama do good" until the day he leaves office, what we won't be able to do is excuse poor leadership in the face of adversity, because you see the problem is we shouldn't need to ascertain how Obama's policy's are derived, they should be a matter of public record.

If Obama has the justice department going after Wikileaks, he's got to do a better job selling the case to the American people, so that he can gain popular support when he makes decisions. It doesn't make sense to award a profit based media the right to report on anything and everything spun in whatever manner they feel will make a profit.

I don't really care for the techniques employed in this article, setting up a comparison between the Bush administration, and its hypocritical persecution of some but not others, and equating it to Obama's response the dissemination of a ludicrous amount of classified information doesn't seem a fair comparison at all.

Referring to Bob Beckel as a "Democratic Operative"...
what the hell is a Democratic Operative? Is Bill Clinton the head of Democratic Special Forces??
...and thanks for clarifying he was Walter Mondale's campaign adviser in 1984. that relevant fact almost escaped me...

Wikileaks broke laws in obtaining and disseminating classified information. I don't hear "Good Democrats" using that as a rallying cry, but maybe the problem is I don't know what one looks like, maybe someone can tell me what one looks like. I DO know that anyone even remotely supportive of Obama, in other words anyone NOT actively skeptical of the authenticity of his birth certificate... is labelled an Obama supporter.

[General Zod]

Wikileaks broke laws in obtaining and disseminating classified information. I don't hear "Good Democrats" using that as a rallying cry, but maybe the problem is I don't know what one looks like, maybe someone can tell me what one looks like. I DO know that anyone even remotely supportive of Obama, in other words anyone NOT actively skeptical of the authenticity of his birth certificate... is labelled an Obama supporter.

Exactly what law did Wikiileaks break? Can you name them? It's certain that Private Manning broke a number of laws when he copied those cables, but so far nobody's been able to name a law Wikileaks actually broke without a lot of hand wringing. Even the politicians calling for Assange's head have said that they'll just make a new law if they can't charge him with any current laws.

[Thanas]

If Obama has the justice department going after Wikileaks, he's got to do a better job selling the case to the American people, so that he can gain popular support when he makes decisions. It doesn't make sense to award a profit based media the right to report on anything and everything spun in whatever manner they feel will make a profit.

How the heck is Wikileaks a profti based media?

I don't really care for the techniques employed in this article, setting up a comparison between the Bush administration, and its hypocritical persecution of some but not others, and equating it to Obama's response the dissemination of a ludicrous amount of classified information doesn't seem a fair comparison at all.

Which ludicrous amount? There have been only 1.100 cables released.

Referring to Bob Beckel as a "Democratic Operative"...
what the hell is a Democratic Operative? Is Bill Clinton the head of Democratic Special Forces??
...and thanks for clarifying he was Walter Mondale's campaign adviser in 1984. that relevant fact almost escaped me...

Your frothing at the mouth might be more interesting if you would realise that this is a typical word used in this context.

Wikileaks broke laws in obtaining and disseminating classified information.

Which laws?

I DO know that anyone even remotely supportive of Obama, in other words anyone NOT actively skeptical of the authenticity of his birth certificate... is labelled an Obama supporter.

More idiocy.

[Thanas]

I've actually been wondering about this myself. As much as politicians are calling for Assange's head, how come there's been no real effort to clamp down on the newspapers republishing those leaks? If they wanted to stay consistent you'd think they'd be going after everyone reprinting them.

The DoJ is actually looking into that.

And while it warrants no thread of its own, this commentary neatly lays out the issues. Link.

[MKSheppard]

DECLASSIFIED STUFF I READ

See what it lays out clearly for you? See the Declassified markings? See the dire warnings of DOOM (TM) upon you?

Hopefully, we hang Manning by the neck until he is dead. Assange as is typical, will probably get away with it.

It's always been against the law to disseminate classified information under 18 USC 793/794.

It's just that ever since the pentaton papers, everyone believes that information should be freeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Idiots.

[Guardsman Bass]

Going after the newspapers is pretty much impossible, due to the New York Times Co. vs. United States case back in 1971, following the release of the Pentagon Papers. The only way they could go after them would be if they could prove that the release of the State Department Cables in their current form caused a "grave and irreparable danger" to US National Security, and from what we've seen of the Cables (plus Wikileaks' and the newspapers' redaction of names), that seems unlikely.

Assange as is typical, will probably get away with it.

Unless the Department of Justice can prove that he actively solicited Manning for the information (and helped him get it), they probably can't do anything to him legally.

[Themightytom]

Exactly what law did Wikiileaks break? Can you name them? It's certain that Private Manning broke a number of laws when he copied those cables, but so far nobody's been able to name a law Wikileaks actually broke without a lot of hand wringing. Even the politicians calling for Assange's head have said that they'll just make a new law if they can't charge him with any current laws.

Um... the Espionage act of 1917? unless your actually going to hairsplit and say Assange isn't wikileaks...

How the heck is Wikileaks a profti based media?

I was referring to the media outlets posting stories based on the cables. Cnn has a whole section devoted to it at this point. Wikileaks is acting as an intermediary to permit for profit media to report on sensitive communications.

Which ludicrous amount? There have been only 1.100 cables released.

What the.... How often do we see hundreds of top secret documents leaked to the media.

Wikileaks CALLED it the largest classified military leak in history. Unless by using the term "which" you were somehow trying to expand my identification of ludicrosity.
That doesn't sound like you Zod, not at all, I come to expect that if anyone will take the time to deconstruct my post and evaluate it point by point, it would be you, but if you've been visited by the ghosts of Christmas douchebaggery and repented, let me know, I don't want to be attacking someone trying to support me here..
EDIT
That... wasn't Zod at all... this is why posting from a Droid is a bad idea

Your frothing at the mouth might be more interesting if you would realise that this is a typical word used in this context.

How would that be more amusing?

Which laws?

Are you one of those "The constitution didn't award X power to the government" people?

More idiocy.

Not really, i was admittedly using hyperbole, but its a fair statement that neither side is particularly tolerant of moderates and anyone with an unhostile view of Obama has been labelled at best a Democrat and more commonly a Liberal, both with a negative connotation. It is possible to acknowledge that Obama might have reasoning behind his decisions, without actually being an Obama supporter.

[General Zod]

It's always been against the law to disseminate classified information under 18 USC 793/794.

You mean this law?

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States

Good luck proving intent here.

[General Zod]

Um... the Espionage act of 1917? unless your actually going to hairsplit and say Assange isn't wikileaks...

You mean this espionage act?

President Woodrow Wilson and Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory supported passage of the act, but viewed it as a compromise. The President's Congressional rivals were proposing to remove responsibility for monitoring pro-German activity, whether espionage or some form of disloyalty, from the Department of Justice to the War Department and creating a form of courts-martial of doubtful constitutionality. The resulting Act was far more aggressive and restrictive than they wanted, but it disarmed critics of their conduct of the war on the home front.[2] Officials in the Justice Department who had little enthusiasm for the law nevertheless hoped that even without generating many prosecutions it would help quiet public calls for more government action against those thought to be insufficiently patriotic.[3]

It made it a crime:

* To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

* To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.

The Act also gave the Postmaster General authority to refuse to mail or to impound publications that he determined to be in violation of its prohibitions.[4]

The Act also forbids the transfer of any naval vessel equipped for combat to any nation engaged in a conflict in which the United States is neutral. Seemingly uncontroversial when the Act was passed, this later became a legal stumbling block for the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he sought to provide military aid to Great Britain before the United States entered World War II.[5]

How does any of Wikileaks actions fall under this?

[MKSheppard]

How does any of Wikileaks actions fall under this?

Easy.

* To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

I believe that's what releasing scores of classified operational after action logs of the War in Afghanistan, with the names of Confidential Informants who passed us information on the Taliban is.

Oh sure, the newspapers redacted the names of the CIs; but the information is out there and being used by the Taliban to kill said CIs or their families; thus hurting the US war effort by drying up sources of information to the United States on the Talban.

[General Zod]

I believe that's what releasing scores of classified operational after action logs of the War in Afghanistan, with the names of Confidential Informants who passed us information on the Taliban is.

Oh sure, the newspapers redacted the names of the CIs; but the information is out there and being used by the Taliban to kill said CIs or their families; thus hurting the US war effort by drying up sources of information to the United States on the Talban.

I'm pretty sure the Pentagon is on record saying the leaks posed no immediate threat to US forces.

[MKSheppard]

I'm pretty sure the Pentagon is on record saying the leaks posed no immediate threat to US forces.

Here, we learn that Zod has poor reading comprehension. Note the word "no IMMEDIATE threat"; which is to be expected since for now the Taliban is busying itself with killing the CIs.

Long term; it's a threat to US forces, because once the Taliban have purged the region of CIs and their families; who's going to risk their family's life by telling that US convoy that a few days ago someone buried a bomb by the roadside?

[Thanas]

Um... the Espionage act of 1917? unless your actually going to hairsplit and say Assange isn't wikileaks...

The US supreme court already ruled that similar stuff did not fall under the Espionage act. I suggest you educate yourself on the issue.

I was referring to the media outlets posting stories based on the cables. Cnn has a whole section devoted to it at this point. Wikileaks is acting as an intermediary to permit for profit media to report on sensitive communications.

So now the media may only report on stories if they do not make a profit off it? But hey, good news. Germany's non for profit media also widely published the details. Besides, this has got what to do with wikileaks?

Wikileaks does not make a profit out of this. Here is a good article on the funding and how it works.

That doesn't sound like you Zod, not at all, I come to expect that if anyone will take the time to deconstruct my post and evaluate it point by point, it would be you, but if you've been visited by the ghosts of Christmas douchebaggery and repented, let me know, I don't want to be attacking someone trying to support me here..
EDIT
That... wasn't Zod at all... this is why posting from a Droid is a bad idea

It doesn't matter if it was Zod or me, it is not going to make your response any more apt.

Your frothing at the mouth might be more interesting if you would realise that this is a typical word used in this context.

How would that be more amusing?

Because your basic ignorance of US media, which always referred to people as "party operatives", is telling.

Are you one of those "The constitution didn't award X power to the government" people?

No.

Not really, i was admittedly using hyperbole, but its a fair statement that neither side is particularly tolerant of moderates and anyone with an unhostile view of Obama has been labelled at best a Democrat and more commonly a Liberal, both with a negative connotation. It is possible to acknowledge that Obama might have reasoning behind his decisions, without actually being an Obama supporter.

Yes, but what has this got to do with anything? It is a topic tangent.

Here, we learn that Zod has poor reading comprehension. Note the word "no IMMEDIATE threat"; which is to be expected since for now the Taliban is busying itself with killing the CIs.

Unfortunately for you Shep, this has a) nothing to do with the topic at hand and b) Gates wasn't saying no immediate threat, he was saying that no harm had been done.

Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened.

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July.

The letter, provided to CNN, was written August 16 by Gates in response to a query by the senator regarding the leak of classified information.

Gates said the review found most of the information relates to "tactical military operations."

"The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security," Gates wrote. "However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

He pretty much also said the same about the current leaks:

But let me — let me just offer some perspective as somebody who’s been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: “How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel.”

When we went to real congressional oversight of intelligence in the mid-’70s, there was a broad view that no other foreign intelligence service would ever share information with us again if we were going to share it all with the Congress. Those fears all proved unfounded.

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think — I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

In any case, Shep, the ruling in the Pentagon Papers still stands. If you want to prosecute wikileaks for publishing this, you have to establish the following:

a) Jurisdiction - how does Wikileaks fall under any US law and how is an american court responsible for ruling on Wikileaks?
b) Breach of any applicable law - see the Pentagon Papers ruling and how does this not simply prevent reporters from doing their jobs?

[General Zod]

I'm pretty sure the Pentagon is on record saying the leaks posed no immediate threat to US forces.

Here, we learn that Zod has poor reading comprehension. Note the word "no IMMEDIATE threat"; which is to be expected since for now the Taliban is busying itself with killing the CIs.

Long term; it's a threat to US forces, because once the Taliban have purged the region of CIs and their families; who's going to risk their family's life by telling that US convoy that a few days ago someone buried a bomb by the roadside?

That's an exceedingly broad brush to paint these charges with considering how difficult predicting long term threats are. In any case, you still have to prove intent.

[Themightytom]

* To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both..

Damaging US foreign relations doesn't interfere with the success of the armed forces while we are in the process of stabilizing (occupying) a country where everything hinges on ideological credibility? Inflaming a political powerderkeg that has already managed to stall the senate on major issues for a week? If you create a massive uproar over communiques that were intended to be private, you negatively impact the supply chain to military operations in Afghanistan.

The US supreme court already ruled that similar stuff did not fall under the Espionage act. I suggest you educate yourself on the issue.

What are you referring to?

So now the media may only report on stories if they do not make a profit off it? But hey, good news. Germany's non for profit media also widely published the details. Besides, this has got what to do with wikileaks?

Well I don't think Obama is the president of Germany. The statement I was referring to originally was

It doesn't make sense to award a profit based media the right to report on anything and everything spun in whatever manner they feel will make a profit.

and I clarified with:

I was referring to the media outlets posting stories based on the cables. Cnn has a whole section devoted to it at this point. Wikileaks is acting as an intermediary to permit for profit media to report on sensitive communications.

So to clarify, no, I didn't stipulate that Media was only allowed to report on news they don't profit from, I was pointing out that it makes no sense to support an industry that would profit from security leaks. They can't go after news sources that are reporting on what Wikileaks says, because the news is "Wiki leak reported that..."
Versus Wikileaks itself who directly reported classified material. Wikileaks is acting as a liability firewall here. Its pretty undemocractic now that I think about it, as Wikileaks undermines the influence of public policy. While we admittedly didn't elect the politicians who passed the Espionage Act, we DID elect the current government as our representatives, and we DID entrust them with the power to keep secrets.

If a mainline news organization went public with this, and risked the liability to break the story, we could either support their persecution or protest it via voting. We can't really do anything about media organizations disseminating information we don't want disseminated here can we, because legally speaking they aren't disseminating classified information, they are reporting on someone who is.

Wikileaks does not make a profit out of this. Here is a good article on the funding and how it works.

I can see how wikieaks works, and I did not want to characterize Wikileaks as a for profit in the first place, that was a poorly worded comment.
I was commenting on the role Wikileaks plays in enabling for profit media to flout the legal liability.

It doesn't matter if it was Zod or me, it is not going to make your response any more apt.

Fair enough.

Because your basic ignorance of US media, which always referred to people as "party operatives", is telling.

Based on what? I've never seen it in anything but a pundit blog and even then not very often, does that render my evaluation of the connotation invalid in any way? Its inflammatory language that sounds ridiculous.

Yes, but what has this got to do with anything? It is a topic tangent.

I started that part of the comment by pointing out I don't care for the tactics of the blog. It's not particularly substantive and uses rhetoric more often then not to make its case.

Quote tags repaired for clarity's sake.
-SCRawl

[General Zod]

Damaging US foreign relations doesn't interfere with the success of the armed forces while we are in the process of stabilizing (occupying) a country where everything hinges on ideological credibility? Inflaming a political powerderkeg that has already managed to stall the senate on major issues for a week? If you create a massive uproar over communiques that were intended to be private, you negatively impact the supply chain to military operations in Afghanistan.

So how come executives of companies like Haliburton haven't been charged with espionage? Why don't we extradite them to countries where they've committed crimes for trial?

If a mainline news organization went public with this, and risked the liability to break the story, we could either support their persecution or protest it via voting. We can't really do anything about media organizations disseminating information we don't want disseminated here can we, because legally speaking they aren't disseminating classified information, they are reporting on someone who is.

The NY Times and other sites have been reposting entire cables. Try again.

[Thanas]

Damaging US foreign relations doesn't interfere with the success of the armed forces while we are in the process of stabilizing (occupying) a country where everything hinges on ideological credibility? Inflaming a political powerderkeg that has already managed to stall the senate on major issues for a week? If you create a massive uproar over communiques that were intended to be private, you negatively impact the supply chain to military operations in Afghanistan.

And yet, even if we follow this bizarre reasoning (which basically amounts to killing the free press because reporting might anger people), how do you explain Gates and NATO officials stating that no damage has been done so far? Wikileaks cables have more or less confirmed what people already thought of the USA.

The US supreme court already ruled that similar stuff did not fall under the Espionage act. I suggest you educate yourself on the issue.

What are you referring to?

Google Pentagon Papers.

So to clarify, no, I didn't stipulate that Media was only allowed to report on news they don't profit from, I was pointing out that it makes no sense to support an industry that would profit from security leaks. They can't go after news sources that are reporting on what Wikileaks says, because the news is "Wiki leak reported that..."
Versus Wikileaks itself who directly reported classified material. Wikileaks is acting as a liability firewall here. Its pretty undemocractic now that I think about it, as Wikileaks undermines the influence of public policy. While we admittedly didn't elect the politicians who passed the Espionage Act, we DID elect the current government as our representatives, and we DID entrust them with the power to keep secrets.

If a mainline news organization went public with this, and risked the liability to break the story, we could either support their persecution or protest it via voting. We can't really do anything about media organizations disseminating information we don't want disseminated here can we, because legally speaking they aren't disseminating classified information, they are reporting on someone who is.

See Pentagon papers.

And you do realize that if we were to follow your argument, it would essentially kill the free press, because guess what? Government is just going to label anything as secret it wishes to stay hidden and voila. Under your line of thought, the Government would essentially be able to hide anything it wants. Do you support the Government being able to control the media? Do you support the government deciding what the citizens get to hear?

I was commenting on the role Wikileaks plays in enabling for profit media to flout the legal liability.

Which legal liability? Wikileaks worked with the media to prevent people getting hurt. The media acts as a screener to prevent damage in this case.

Because your basic ignorance of US media, which always referred to people as "party operatives", is telling.

Based on what? I've never seen it in anything but a pundit blog and even then not very often, does that render my evaluation of the connotation invalid in any way? Its inflammatory language that sounds ridiculous.

How is it in any way inflammatory?

I started that part of the comment by pointing out I don't care for the tactics of the blog. It's not particularly substantive and uses rhetoric more often then not to make its case.

If it is not particularly substantive, then it should be easy for you to point out how and write a rebuttal, no?