Obama administration now worse than Bush on press freedom

[Themightytom]

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.

I would expect that there are extensive classified communications about the harm that has been done being exchanged that the NEXT big leak would reveal. For a system operating on the premise that secrets are a necessary tool of diplomacy, you don't expect them to truthfully acknowledge the extent to which this is harming international relations do you? that would be inconsistent.

Google Pentagon Papers.

Thats not the same situation, those were documents leaked that were of a more historical nature, Wikileaks is exposing information that is current, and has direct bearing on current situations. private impressions of ambassadors, the attitudes of coutnries etc regarding issues that are STILL being negotiated, involving people that are STILL expected to interact and work together.

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?

My line of thought does not remove any and all checks and balances from the system, and the trend at least domestically is that more and more information is becoming transparent, in terms of how funds are allocated, how funds are spent who is working for whom, how much they're getting paid etc.

Your perspective on the using the media as a check against the government creates a redundant system that compromises the operation of the existing one. There are plenty of watchdog organizations and institutes that keep an eye on public policy and government activities and advocate for change within the system, whats more they have the benefit of catering to an informed and engaged population that actually educates itself on current events, as opposed to say Fox, who has demosntrated little or now regard for the facutal nature off what is reported, and rather a disposition towards supporting a political ideology as a means of infalting viewership.

If the actual motivation of the media WAS to act as a conscientious watchdog, or at least to act as an objective reporting source, I suppose it would be a valid system, and I believe the latter was the intent behind public television come to think of it, but is that what Wikileaks did here? or did they just blast out most of what they had with no particular agenda or purpose.

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.

I don't see how you got that at all, the media isn't screening anything, Wikileaks SORT of is, with regards to information released. They are also however as I stated explicitly above, acting as an intermidary between news outlets and the actual release of infformation. If Wikileaks leaks something, news media outlets, (CNN Fox, ABC, NBC) can report that it is being leaked as opposed to being the party that is leaking the information and risking liability for the Espionage act.

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?

Operative when used as a noun refers to a secret agent. That implies duplicity, underhanded dealings and deals made in smoke filled back rooms. Replace the term "Democratic operative" with "Democratic spokesperson" or "Democratic Advocate" and you get a much more benign connotation.

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

Um... we need an awkward turtle smiley here, I think that's what I've been doing Thanas, the blog asserts that Obama is worse than Bush based on the premise that Obama's persecution of wikileaks is unreasonable, hence why I have been arguing that it is not.

More quote tags fixed. Do be more careful, please.
-SCRawl

[Themightytom]

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?

Being corporate assholes isn't espionage. They certainly didn't intend to get caught.

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

Because Wikileaks posted it in the first place Zod, did you even read my post?? mainline news can claim they are reporting on what wikileaks is posting, not on classified material.

[General Zod]

Being corporate assholes isn't espionage. They certainly didn't intend to get caught.

By your own guidelines Haliburton employees and executives should be tried for espionage because they've damaged US foreign relations and interfered with military operations. If we're not going to charge our own citizens using that line of reasoning then frankly it's outright hypocritical to charge Assange.

Because Wikileaks posted it in the first place Zod, did you even read my post?? mainline news can claim they are reporting on what wikileaks is posting, not on classified material.

You mean this post?

because legally speaking they aren't disseminating classified information, they are reporting on someone who is.

The one where you said they aren't disseminating anything, which is blatantly false? Unless you're using some bizarre definition that simply copying what's already posted isn't disseminating, you're flat out wrong.

I would expect that there are extensive classified communications about the harm that has been done being exchanged that the NEXT big leak would reveal. For a system operating on the premise that secrets are a necessary tool of diplomacy, you don't expect them to truthfully acknowledge the extent to which this is harming international relations do you? that would be inconsistent.

Since when is tinfoil hattery a valid point?

[Thanas]

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.

I would expect that there are extensive classified communications about the harm that has been done being exchanged that the NEXT big leak would reveal. For a system operating on the premise that secrets are a necessary tool of diplomacy, you don't expect them to truthfully acknowledge the extent to which this is harming international relations do you? that would be inconsistent.

So in short, you got no evidence there is any damage being done right now.

Thats not the same situation, those were documents leaked that were of a more historical nature, Wikileaks is exposing information that is current, and has direct bearing on current situations. private impressions of ambassadors, the attitudes of coutnries etc regarding issues that are STILL being negotiated, involving people that are STILL expected to interact and work together.

Why? The Pentagon papers had a direct impact on US relations as well, so why should it not apply here?

My line of thought does not remove any and all checks and balances from the system, and the trend at least domestically is that more and more information is becoming transparent, in terms of how funds are allocated, how funds are spent who is working for whom, how much they're getting paid etc.

Your perspective on the using the media as a check against the government creates a redundant system that compromises the operation of the existing one. There are plenty of watchdog organizations and institutes that keep an eye on public policy and government activities and advocate for change within the system, whats more they have the benefit of catering to an informed and engaged population that actually educates itself on current events, as opposed to say Fox, who has demosntrated little or now regard for the facutal nature off what is reported, and rather a disposition towards supporting a political ideology as a means of infalting viewership.

If the actual motivation of the media WAS to act as a conscientious watchdog, or at least to act as an objective reporting source, I suppose it would be a valid system, and I believe the latter was the intent behind public television come to think of it, but is that what Wikileaks did here? or did they just blast out most of what they had with no particular agenda or purpose.

You seem to be really ignorant and you apparently have not thought this through. By going after Wikileaks, you are exactly preventing the public from being informed. besides, if you think the trend is towards more transparency in national affairs, you are sadly mistaken. More and more documents are being classified now than in any other age before.

I don't see how you got that at all, the media isn't screening anything, Wikileaks SORT of is, with regards to information released. They are also however as I stated explicitly above, acting as an intermidary between news outlets and the actual release of infformation. If Wikileaks leaks something, news media outlets, (CNN Fox, ABC, NBC) can report that it is being leaked as opposed to being the party that is leaking the information and risking liability for the Espionage act.

Wikileaks gave the whole lot to the media, which then decided what to release via wikileaks. That is the screening process. You have a fundamental misconception of what is going on here.

Operative when used as a noun refers to a secret agent. That implies duplicity, underhanded dealings and deals made in smoke filled back rooms. Replace the term "Democratic operative" with "Democratic spokesperson" or "Democratic Advocate" and you get a much more benign connotation.

Except that the latter two are inaccurate and I fail to see how operative by itself is so bad. You seem to think of the "secret operative", but notice the secret attached?

Um... we need an awkward turtle smiley here, I think that's what I've been doing Thanas, the blog asserts that Obama is worse than Bush based on the premise that Obama's persecution of wikileaks is unreasonable, hence why I have been arguing that it is not.

It certainly is not what you have been doing.

[Themightytom]

Being corporate assholes isn't espionage. They certainly didn't intend to get caught.

By your own guidelines Haliburton employees and executives should be tried for espionage because they've damaged US foreign relations and interfered with military operations. If we're not going to charge our own citizens using that line of reasoning then frankly it's outright hypocritical to charge Assange.

That is not at all my reasoning, you posted the Espionage act, and I pointed out that Wikileaks was intentionally disseminating information that was classified that could interfere with public opinion and hurt the military's supply chain. How in your mind does that equate to a company like Haliburton getting CAUGHT doing things? Or are you actually suggesting Haliburton is issuing press releases exposing their own wrong doing? you might as well claim that the US government violated the espionage act, by acting in a manner that embarrassed itself.

Here I'll repost and highlight so there is no confusion as to the difference:

* 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..

You mean this post?

because legally speaking they aren't disseminating classified information, they are reporting on someone who is.

The one where you said they aren't disseminating anything, which is blatantly false? Unless you're using some bizarre definition that simply copying what's already posted isn't disseminating, you're flat out wrong.

Really Zod? What is the title of nearly all of those re-posts? "Wiki leaks says" and in every article you see "Cables released by wikileaks" as a preface. They are reporting what wikileaks is reporting, not directly on the classified subject matter directly. Way to be oblivious.

I would expect that there are extensive classified communications about the harm that has been done being exchanged that the NEXT big leak would reveal. For a system operating on the premise that secrets are a necessary tool of diplomacy, you don't expect them to truthfully acknowledge the extent to which this is harming international relations do you? that would be inconsistent.

Since when is tinfoil hattery a valid point?

[/quote]

Since when is an ad hominem attack a valid rebuttal? I am pointing out that it would be inherently consistent for the government to privately maintain a different position relative to diplomatic affairs than that which is presented to the public, or did it escape you as to WHY these cables are particularly newsworthy in the first place.

The classified information is inconsistent with the publicly presented position. An ambassador plays nice in public, and then calls his counterpart an asshole in private. Obama publicly supports environmental initiatives and then joins forces with China to evade regulating emissions.

I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest the government can read minds, so trying to make the association between my prediction based on precedence and stereotypical paranoia isn't particularly apt, especially considering the inescapable fact that the government does maintain classified opinions.

[Themightytom]

So in short, you got no evidence there is any damage being done right now.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... s-damage/1

I would say the damage was done, and we recovered nicely, so far.

Why? The Pentagon papers had a direct impact on US relations as well, so why should it not apply here?

What efforts were under way relative to that release that were damaged by the pentagon papers? It was not at all current.

My line of thought does not remove any and all checks and balances from the system, and the trend at least domestically is that more and more information is becoming transparent, in terms of how funds are allocated, how funds are spent who is working for whom, how much they're getting paid etc.

Your perspective on the using the media as a check against the government creates a redundant system that compromises the operation of the existing one. There are plenty of watchdog organizations and institutes that keep an eye on public policy and government activities and advocate for change within the system, whats more they have the benefit of catering to an informed and engaged population that actually educates itself on current events, as opposed to say Fox, who has demosntrated little or now regard for the facutal nature off what is reported, and rather a disposition towards supporting a political ideology as a means of infalting viewership.

If the actual motivation of the media WAS to act as a conscientious watchdog, or at least to act as an objective reporting source, I suppose it would be a valid system, and I believe the latter was the intent behind public television come to think of it, but is that what Wikileaks did here? or did they just blast out most of what they had with no particular agenda or purpose.

You seem to be really ignorant and you apparently have not thought this through. By going after Wikileaks, you are exactly preventing the public from being informed. besides, if you think the trend is towards more transparency in national affairs, you are sadly mistaken. More and more documents are being classified now than in any other age before.

Wikileaks is not the sole mechanism for informing the public, so i am not preventing the public from being informed, I am merely advocating for consequences to that disclosure to ensure that it is done for a purpose other than sensationalism.

What are you basing your claim regarding increasing classification on? And are we considering public funding of international projects relevant to international affairs?

Wikileaks gave the whole lot to the media, which then decided what to release via wikileaks. That is the screening process. You have a fundamental misconception of what is going on here.

My understanding is that Wikileaks did not reveal classified information that they felt would endanger or cause harm, is that not true? Wikileaks provided copies of what they intended to release to media outlets but have been releasing it themselves periodically, at which point other media sources report that it is being reported.

Operative when used as a noun refers to a secret agent. That implies duplicity, underhanded dealings and deals made in smoke filled back rooms. Replace the term "Democratic operative" with "Democratic spokesperson" or "Democratic Advocate" and you get a much more benign connotation.

Except that the latter two are inaccurate and I fail to see how operative by itself is so bad. You seem to think of the "secret operative", but notice the secret attached?

Exactly how is advocate innaccurate? It's MORE accurate than "operative, as that person is advocating for a Democratic position.

Notice the lack of secret attached?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operative

the second definition is exactly what I inferred it to be, and while i acknowlede the first definition is that off an artisan or worker, i would point out that the synonyms list THESE words as closest in meaning:

Synonyms: agent, asset, emissary, intelligencer, mole, spy, spook, undercover

all but one of which have dubious connotations.

It certainly is not what you have been doing.

What do you think I have been arguing Thanas?

What am I, the housekeeper?
-SCRawl

[General Zod]

That is not at all my reasoning, you posted the Espionage act, and I pointed out that Wikileaks was intentionally disseminating information that was classified that could interfere with public opinion and hurt the military's supply chain. How in your mind does that equate to a company like Haliburton getting CAUGHT doing things? Or are you actually suggesting Haliburton is issuing press releases exposing their own wrong doing?

I'm suggesting you should try being consistent. Exactly what is your proof of Wikileaks' intent to harm the military?

you might as well claim that the US government violated the espionage act, by acting in a manner that embarrassed itself.

Thanks for finally getting my point, genius. The reason using the espionage act in this way is so dangerous is because it's too broad of a brush to use. You realize the act was originally used to oppress political groups the government didn't like, yes?

Really Zod? What is the title of nearly all of those re-posts? "Wiki leaks says" and in every article you see "Cables released by wikileaks" as a preface. They are reporting what wikileaks is reporting, not directly on the classified subject matter directly. Way to be oblivious.

Have you actually read any of these articles? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40713113/ns ... tral_asia/ One example of direct quotes from some of the cables.

Since when is an ad hominem attack a valid rebuttal? I am pointing out that it would be inherently consistent for the government to privately maintain a different position relative to diplomatic affairs than that which is presented to the public, or did it escape you as to WHY these cables are particularly newsworthy in the first place.

With as many people that have been fuming over the leaks in public except for the actual defense experts, I'm going to go ahead and say you're full of shit until you can show some evidence.

[Thanas]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... s-damage/1

I would say the damage was done, and we recovered nicely, so far.

Too bad that both Gates as well as the Judiciary Committe disagree with you.

You seem to be really ignorant and you apparently have not thought this through. By going after Wikileaks, you are exactly preventing the public from being informed. besides, if you think the trend is towards more transparency in national affairs, you are sadly mistaken. More and more documents are being classified now than in any other age before.

Wikileaks is not the sole mechanism for informing the public, so i am not preventing the public from being informed, I am merely advocating for consequences to that disclosure to ensure that it is done for a purpose other than sensationalism.

What are you basing your claim regarding increasing classification on? And are we considering public funding of international projects relevant to international affairs?

Among other things, I am basing my claim on the recent Judiciary committee hearing. I suggest you go read it and the testimonies of experts, as linked in the N&P post about it and then come back.

My understanding is that Wikileaks did not reveal classified information that they felt would endanger or cause harm, is that not true? Wikileaks provided copies of what they intended to release to media outlets but have been releasing it themselves periodically, at which point other media sources report that it is being reported.

Yes, so how does this prove in any way that wikileaks meant harm?

Exactly how is advocate innaccurate? It's MORE accurate than "operative, as that person is advocating for a Democratic position.

because not all operatives are advocating, many are just trouble shooters and fixers. Really, you seem to get bent out of shape over the smallest usage of the word while ignoring the evidence in the article itself. We have a name for that fallacy.

What do you think I have been arguing Thanas?

I do not know. What I know is that you are too ignorant and unwilling to educate yourself on the issue at hand.

Thus, I issue the warning: Either read up on the issues (the Judiciary testimony by blanton would be a good start) or concede.

[Themightytom]

because not all operatives are advocating, many are just trouble shooters and fixers. Really, you seem to get bent out of shape over the smallest usage of the word while ignoring the evidence in the article itself. We have a name for that fallacy.

I wasn't ignoring the evidence in the article, I was pointing out that it is not presented objectively, and citing that as an example of inflammatory language. I would also like to point out that an advocate would in fact, trouble shoot and fix, as an extension of social marketing. Nonetheless in my OP I separated that from my argument that Obama's administration wasn't reacting unreasonably.

Among other things, I am basing my claim on the recent Judiciary committee hearing. I suggest you go read it and the testimonies of experts, as linked in the N&P post about it and then come back.

Done, thanks for the clarification.

I do not know. What I know is that you are too ignorant and unwilling to educate yourself on the issue at hand.
Thus, I issue the warning: Either read up on the issues (the Judiciary testimony by blanton would be a good start) or concede.

Ok Thanas, respectfully, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am either ignorant, or unwilling to educate myself. I don't think I've indicated an unwillingness to read anything you've posted, but rather an unfamiliarity with the international affairs component, and i haven't really disguised that.. I've been studying and working with US public policy for years, I have just been focusing on areas relevant to dealing with nonprofit organizations. I literally asked you to tell me what you were referencing in order to educate myself?

While i don't necessarily see more than anecdotal testimony regarding the actual question I asked you, regarding a trend increasing classification, Blanton's statements were actually pretty compelling regarding the damage Wikileaks could have actually inflicted.

I'm suggesting you should try being consistent. Exactly what is your proof of Wikileaks' intent to harm the military?

Yes, so how does this prove in any way that wikileaks meant harm?

We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions. We aim for maximum political impact.

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/

Wikileaks ACKNOWLEDGES that it intends harm, to governments and institutions, Thanas, and Zod, every time they release anything relative to that institution. You may have altruistic reasons for spiking a tree, but you still intend to harm the mill.

* 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..

...and I would like to remind you both that the standard is not quite as high as your terminology would suggest. They would actually only need to prove that Wikileaks activities have interfered with the operation or success of the armed forces of United States. Wikileaks is already directly responsible according to Thanas' links, in changes to the security procedures in place to protect classified information. Private Mannings committed the offense but Wikileaks became an accessory once they acted as an intermediary for releasing it.

I don't even know why you two are repeating that point as though it wouldn't be shredded in a court room based on statements they themselves make. Sure we could argue that a system is composed of individuals, and that by "assisting" the individuals they are improving the system, unfortunately "Harm" is actually going to be determined relative to the system they are attacking, If they are trying to create "maximum political impact" on a system that derives its military support from a political process, its going to cause harm to the military.

Per my actual argument, which you seem intent on ignoring, it is entirely responsible for the Obama administration to respond to a threat to national security. They are protecting the system they are in charge of, from a situation that could destabilize it.

Now as I conceded above, Blanton makes very compelling arguments that Wikileaks has not actually caused harm at this time, however, we know that they withheld information that they self identified as capable of endangering lives, for example cooperative agents on the ground in iraq and Afghanistan. They are still a threat if they have that information, because we cannot safeguard it. THEY could be hacked, or THEY could have a leak that decides to let fly a copy or two to, say a nice wealthy Iranian with strong religious beliefs. They have to do something about this, they can't responsibly just let it go.

Wikileaks represents an uncontrollable outlet for whistle blowers. Per my argument that the Obama administration is not acting unreasonably, it is central the argument presented by the original post, that Wikileaks behavior be indistinguishable from traditional news activity, hence why I am arguing that Wikileaks is something new and different.

http://www.newstime.co.za/WorldNews/Wik ... Fve/16065/

This is where i was getting my assertion that Wikileaks acts an intermediary for news sources. If a traditional media agency operating in the US releases a story referencing classified information, they can be held accountable as an agency, and ultimately pressured to reveal their source. At the very least they are subject to federal regulatory agencies.

If an intermediary like wikileaks just up and reports, then all the news agencies replicating the story not only have a legal firewall, as they are not reporting the information leaked directly, but they also have no direct access to the leaker, and represent a complete waste of time for an investigation. On order to actually respond to the leak, or potential leak of information, the government can't even go after them directly, but instead have to include intermediaries like paypal and Amazon. I'm not saying that the government actually DID lean on those two particular participants, but I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure both organizations decided they didn't want to be part of the situation anyway.

Fixed again.
-SCRawl

[General Zod]

Wikileaks ACKNOWLEDGES that it intends harm, to governments and institutions, Thanas, and Zod, every time they release anything relative to that institution. You may have altruistic reasons for spiking a tree, but you still intend to harm the mill.

Political impact does not equate harm. By that logic any political entity should be guilty of espionage.

Now as I conceded above, Blanton makes very compelling arguments that Wikileaks has not actually caused harm at this time, however, we know that they withheld information that they self identified as capable of endangering lives, for example cooperative agents on the ground in iraq and Afghanistan. They are still a threat if they have that information, because we cannot safeguard it. THEY could be hacked, or THEY could have a leak that decides to let fly a copy or two to, say a nice wealthy Iranian with strong religious beliefs. They have to do something about this, they can't responsibly just let it go.

Is there any legal precedence for that kind of reasoning? At all? Because that sounds to me to dangerously skirt ex post facto.

If an intermediary like wikileaks just up and reports, then all the news agencies replicating the story not only have a legal firewall, as they are not reporting the information leaked directly, but they also have no direct access to the leaker, and represent a complete waste of time for an investigation. On order to actually respond to the leak, or potential leak of information, the government can't even go after them directly, but instead have to include intermediaries like paypal and Amazon. I'm not saying that the government actually DID lean on those two particular participants, but I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure both organizations decided they didn't want to be part of the situation anyway.

And you base this on . . . what?

[Themightytom]

Political impact does not equate harm. By that logic any political entity should be guilty of espionage.

If that political entity leaked classified information in order to damage the military... it would be

Is there any legal precedence for that kind of reasoning? At all? Because that sounds to me to dangerously skirt ex post facto.

Yeah Zod... that entire section you quoted was my argument that the Obama administration is taking an appropriate stance on the wikileaks situation... not a legal argument justifying the use of the Espionage act to do it... so an ex post facto would probably be what they should do... in terms of identifying a new type of threat and addressing it, because you and Thanas have been pretty persuasive in terms of the Espionage act being a square peg in a round hole.

My understanding of Thanas' objections is that he wouldn't want to see the First Amendment deconstructed in order to fit that square peg in a round hole.

If an intermediary like wikileaks just up and reports, then all the news agencies replicating the story not only have a legal firewall, as they are not reporting the information leaked directly, but they also have no direct access to the leaker, and represent a complete waste of time for an investigation. On order to actually respond to the leak, or potential leak of information, the government can't even go after them directly, but instead have to include intermediaries like paypal and Amazon. I'm not saying that the government actually DID lean on those two particular participants, but I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure both organizations decided they didn't want to be part of the situation anyway.

And you base this on . . . what?

The link that I posted in which Assange explains Wikileaks role.

Another minor fix.
-SCRawl

[General Zod]

If that political entity leaked classified information in order to damage the military... it would be

And we're back to the point that you cannot prove that his intent was to damage the military. Especially when your definition of harm is incredibly nebulous and a number of those cables have exposed quite a few military fuckups and atrocities.

If that political entity leaked classified information in order to damage the military... it would be

You mean like how people in the Hillary Plame affair were charged with espionage and . . .

Oh wait.

Yeah Zod... that entire section you quoted was my argument that the Obama administration is taking an appropriate stance on the wikileaks situation... not a legal argument justifying the use of the Espionage act to do it... so an ex post facto would probably be what they should do... in terms of identifying a new type of threat and addressing it, because you and Thanas have been pretty persuasive in terms of the Espionage act being a square peg in a round hole.

We're not talking about future threats. We're talking about Wikileaks.

[Thanas]

So I am still waiting for Tom to prove that wikileaks caused damage or violated the espionage act (right after he proves how the espionage act applies to a non-US entity).

Because if the definition of harm is "we would like to impact and change organizations", then you might just as well string up the Green party for causing harm to the USA by demanding more clean energies.

[Terralthra]

Except that the latter two are inaccurate and I fail to see how operative by itself is so bad. You seem to think of the "secret operative", but notice the secret attached?

Exactly how is advocate innaccurate? It's MORE accurate than "operative, as that person is advocating for a Democratic position.

Notice the lack of secret attached?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operative

the second definition is exactly what I inferred it to be, and while i acknowlede the first definition is that off an artisan or worker, i would point out that the synonyms list THESE words as closest in meaning:

Synonyms: agent, asset, emissary, intelligencer, mole, spy, spook, undercover

all but one of which have dubious connotations.

You helpfully left out d). " a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest <political operatives>" Could that be because it demolishes your retarded nitpick? Maybe!

Also, neither agent nor emissary have dubious connotations. Both mean much the same thing: one who acts on behalf of a larger organization.

[dragon]

wonder how the US Supreme Court 1971 decision of the New York Times vs. the U.S. will polay into this, more commonly known as the Pentagon papers.

The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

link

[Themightytom]

If that political entity leaked classified information in order to damage the military... it would be

And we're back to the point that you cannot prove that his intent was to damage the military. Especially when your definition of harm is incredibly nebulous and a number of those cables have exposed quite a few military fuckups and atrocities.

"my definition" is the verbage used in the Espionage act. By exposing military fuckups, they harm the military's credibility in nation's like Afghanistan where they are trying to gain local support. More to the point they interfere with military operations by complicating access to restricted information

You mean like how people in the Hillary Plame affair were charged with espionage and . . .

Oh wait.

They weren't leaking information to harm the military, if anything they were trying to support it by discrediting Wilson's criticism of the justification of invading Iraq.


[/quote]

We're not talking about future threats. We're talking about Wikileaks.

Which represents a future threat if it isn't addressed now.

[Themightytom]

Except that the latter two are inaccurate and I fail to see how operative by itself is so bad. You seem to think of the "secret operative", but notice the secret attached?

Exactly how is advocate innaccurate? It's MORE accurate than "operative, as that person is advocating for a Democratic position.

Notice the lack of secret attached?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operative

the second definition is exactly what I inferred it to be, and while i acknowlede the first definition is that off an artisan or worker, i would point out that the synonyms list THESE words as closest in meaning:

Synonyms: agent, asset, emissary, intelligencer, mole, spy, spook, undercover

all but one of which have dubious connotations.

You helpfully left out d). " a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest <political operatives>" Could that be because it demolishes your retarded nitpick? Maybe!

Also, neither agent nor emissary have dubious connotations. Both mean much the same thing: one who acts on behalf of a larger organization.

I conveniently acknowledge it you jackass.

Agent has a dubious connotation. Emissary does not, which is why I didn't underline it.

[General Zod]

"my definition" is the verbage used in the Espionage act. By exposing military fuckups, they harm the military's credibility in nation's like Afghanistan where they are trying to gain local support. More to the point they interfere with military operations by complicating access to restricted information

Or the military could try not committing war crimes and actually accept responsibility for them when it does?

They weren't leaking information to harm the military, if anything they were trying to support it by discrediting Wilson's criticism of the justification of invading Iraq.

How the fuck are you supporting the military by trying to get them to invade a country based on lies? What a load of mealy mouthed horseshit. So far your reasoning seems to be that being anything other than an abject cheerleader is enough to harm the military.

Which represents a future threat if it isn't addressed now.

You can't legally charge people for things they might be responsible for in the future.

[Themightytom]

So I am still waiting for Tom to prove that wikileaks caused damage or violated the espionage act (right after he proves how the espionage act applies to a non-US entity).

I already posted the USA today article proving that wikileaks caused damage. You directed me to the statements by the judiciary committee, that address the extent of damage incurred, but they did not dispute that some had been done.
As a case in point,

In cables released by WikiLeaks, some U.S. diplomats raised questions about Turkey's reliability as a global partner, given the rise of pro-Islamist and anti-Israel sentiments within its government.

We have several military bases in Turkey supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wiki leaks cables show US diplomats unfavorably characterizing high ranking Turkey officials. They show US diplomats accusing Turkey of willfully permitting Al Quaeda to smuggle weapons into Iraq.

Both the secretary of state and the president have called the release damaging, that is better evidence than Blanton or even Gates, as their testimony is more pertinent.


The argument that the Espionage act does not apply to a non-US entity, makes it the perfect buffer for future leakers, and making it the threat to national Security that Obama's administration needs to address.

If Greenpeace leaked classified military information, say the design and capabilities of classified nuclear reactors on US Naval vessels, in order to make the case that nuclear waste was bad for the ocean, they would be violating the Espionage act with intent to interfere with the US military.

Legally speaking, the U.S. did not limit its jurisdiction to "American citizens" or "American entities" because it wouldn't make sense to have an espionage act that doesn't permit persecution of foreign nationals, does it. They HAVE prosecuted foreign nationals under it before, Alfred Zehe for example,

Because if the definition of harm is "we would like to impact and change organizations", then you might just as well string up the Green party for causing harm to the USA by demanding more clean energies.

The Espionage Act doesn't refer to harm Thanas, that was Shep's 18 USC 793/794 comment

I asserted that wikileaks is an accessory to violating the Espionage Act, and I clarified to Zod early on that I considered Assange's prosecution to be the response to that offense. The information that Wikileaks has released has to have been classified information that was "To convey information with the intent to interfere with the operation, or success of the armed forces of the United States."

Wikileaks conveyed classified information. According to their own mission, it was intended at the very least to cause maximum political damage. Politics are an inextricable component of American military activities, both at the domestic, and international levels, and the activities of the armed forces best fit the "repressive" activities Wikileaks claims a desire to interfere with. Assange bears responsibility for the activities of the organization he founded and oversaw.

Oy vey.
-SCRawl

[Themightytom]

"my definition" is the verbage used in the Espionage act. By exposing military fuckups, they harm the military's credibility in nation's like Afghanistan where they are trying to gain local support. More to the point they interfere with military operations by complicating access to restricted information

Or the military could try not committing war crimes and actually accept responsibility for them when it does?

Red herring and not a rebuttal.

They weren't leaking information to harm the military, if anything they were trying to support it by discrediting Wilson's criticism of the justification of invading Iraq.

How the fuck are you supporting the military by trying to get them to invade a country based on lies? What a load of mealy mouthed horseshit. So far your reasoning seems to be that being anything other than an abject cheerleader is enough to harm the military.

They were already in the country, Zod the leak had nothing to do with trying to get them to do anything.

We're not talking about future threats. We're talking about Wikileaks.

Which represents a future threat if it isn't addressed now.

You can't legally charge people for things they might be responsible for in the future.

Oops...
You accidentally forgot cut out the part where I said:

Yeah Zod... that entire section you quoted was my argument that the Obama administration is taking an appropriate stance on the wikileaks situation... not a legal argument justifying the use of the Espionage act to do it... so an ex post facto would probably be what they should do... in terms of identifying a new type of threat and addressing it, because you and Thanas have been pretty persuasive in terms of the Espionage act being a square peg in a round hole.

So yeah... it wasn't a legal argument. Glad we covered that... three times...

[General Zod]

Red herring and not a rebuttal.

Really? Because from where I'm standing it looks as though you're arguing that any exposure of military war crimes causes harm to the military's image. . . when the military is the one doing the most harm themselves. Should CBS be charged with espionage for "interfering" with Abu Ghraib's operation by publishing torture leaks?

They were already in the country, Zod the leak had nothing to do with trying to get them to do anything.

I noticed that after I posted but it was too late to edit. In any case my second point still applies. By your reasoning being anything other than an abject cheerleader causes harm.

[Themightytom]

Red herring and not a rebuttal.

Really? Because from where I'm standing it looks as though you're arguing that any exposure of military war crimes causes harm to the military's image. . . when the military is the one doing the most harm themselves. Should CBS be charged with espionage for "interfering" with Abu Ghraib's operation by publishing torture leaks?

So... from where you're standing the military is not classifying its reports and trying to hide anything that would harm them?

And CBS worked with the Bush administration, to report in a manner that did not harm the army, or did you miss Rather's lawsuit.

They were already in the country, Zod the leak had nothing to do with trying to get them to do anything.

I noticed that after I posted but it was too late to edit. In any case my second point still applies. By your reasoning being anything other than an abject cheerleader causes harm.

No, by my reason, publishing classified information in a politically explosive manner can cause harm to the supply chain of the armed forces.

Again with the quote tags.
-SCRawl

[General Zod]

So... from where you're standing the military is not classifying its reports and trying to hide anything that would harm them?

That's an awful convenient dodge of my point. Is it okay for the military to get away with hiding war crimes in the name of "national security"? Yes or no?

No, by my reason, publishing classified information in a politically explosive manner can cause harm to the supply chain of the armed forces.

The Abu Grhaib leak wasn't explosive? There's an awful lot of cognitive dissonance going on here.

[Simon_Jester]

I asserted that wikileaks is an accessory to violating the Espionage Act, and I clarified to Zod early on that I considered Assange's prosecution to be the response to that offense. The information that Wikileaks has released has to have been classified information that was "To convey information with the intent to interfere with the operation, or success of the armed forces of the United States."

Ahem. I would like to see proof of intent, because I don't think you've managed that.

Wikileaks conveyed classified information. According to their own mission, it was intended at the very least to cause maximum political damage. Politics are an inextricable component of American military activities, both at the domestic, and international levels...

In that case, aren't all acts of antiwar protest or demonstration, and all news sources NOT pro-war, acts of espionage under the Espionage Act?

After all, the Act doesn't punish "conveying classified information," and you didn't say "convey classified information. The Act punishes, and you referred to, the act of conveying information. Period, end of sentence. Any information.

If I convey information that has the effect of undermining domestic support for a foreign war, the Espionage Act doesn't care whether it was classified or not. It shouldn't matter whether the information is classified, because the Espionage Act also bars the spreading of non-classified information for the same purposes. Someone who uses only unclassified sources to put together documents for the benefit of an enemy's attack plans would still be guilty under the Espionage Act, after all.

But when that fact is combined with your interpretation of what counts as a crime under the Act, we have a problem. Because political activity counts as undermining the military to you.

In that case, how can it ever be legal to oppose a war? Is it "conveying information to interfere with the success of the armed forces" to tell people that we're not winning a war? To go interview people in the war zone and report

Was it "conveying information to interfere with the success of the armed forces" to release the Pentagon Papers? What about publishing information on the My Lai massacre- that certainly affected domestic support for the war, and therefore reduced the probability that US forces would (somehow!) succeed in South Vietnam. Was that a crime under the Espionage Act?

In short, as far as I can tell, any attempt to say anything that does not encourage the American people to support a war would count as a crime under the Espionage Act for you.

That's not acceptable, because I want to live in a society that has the ability to decide not to fight a war, or to abandon a war if it can't be won. At a bare minimum, that means people have to be able to say "Uh, guys? We aren't winning." Or "Uh, guys? We're up to some really atrocious stuff over there." It also means allowing people to present evidence to support those claims.

There's no way to have real civilian control of the military if the civilians are not allowed to know what their own military is doing. Therefore, we cannot censor the information the public needs in order to have that knowledge.

Now, hopefully this is an exaggeration on my part because I've missed some nuance in your argument. I really really want to believe that... but I can't find that nuance.

...and the activities of the armed forces best fit the "repressive" activities Wikileaks claims a desire to interfere with...

Hardly. Wikileaks seems at least as concerned with the actions of American corporations and diplomats, hence the release of so many State Department cables. American soft power reaches a lot more places at once than the US military, since we don't have the manpower to garrison the planet.

[Themightytom]

So... from where you're standing the military is not classifying its reports and trying to hide anything that would harm them?

That's an awful convenient dodge of my point. Is it okay for the military to get away with hiding war crimes in the name of "national security"? Yes or no?

I didn't dodge your "point", my rebuttal was that your comparison is not apt, because it is missing a key trait. The military is not actually trying to discredit itself. It is actively avoiding this by classifying reports of activities that would discredit it.

You are straw manning the argument to "is it ok for the military to get away with war crimes" when my original response was to your attempt to claim the military is guilty of espionage against itself. Frankly I don't care if it's "ok", that's not what we were talking about at all.

No, by my reason, publishing classified information in a politically explosive manner can cause harm to the supply chain of the armed forces.

The Abu Grhaib leak wasn't explosive? There's an awful lot of cognitive dissonance going on here.

[/quote]

Hey Zod, can you point out to me exactly where I said Abu Ghraib wasn't explosive?