Wikileaks did not commit a crime, House Judiciary chairman says

[IScreamSundays]

Source: Raw Story

The chairman of the House judiciary committee defended Wikileaks on Thursday, arguing that the controversial actions of the anti-secrecy outlet are protected under free speech.

Speaking at a hearing to explore whether Wikileaks violated the Espionage Act -- which the Obama administration claims its editor-in-chief violated -- Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said that "America was founded on the belief that speech is sacrosanct" and dismissed calls for censorship of media outlets publishing leaked documents.

"As an initial matter, there is no doubt that WikiLeaks is very unpopular right now. Many feel that the WikiLeaks publication was offensive," Conyers said, according to prepared remarks. "But being unpopular is not a crime, and publishing offensive information is not either. And the repeated calls from politicians, journalists, and other so-called experts crying out for criminal prosecutions or other extreme measures make me very uncomfortable."

The Obama administration and members of Congress from both parties have called for the prosecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange after the unauthorized leak of State Department cables, portraying him as a threat to national security.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/wikileaks-did-not-commit-crime-conyers/

[Robb]

1. And he's absolutely correct.

[subsuelo]

45. except for the "Wikileaks is very unpopular" part. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

68. exactly. it's mostly offensive to the empire

who is currently without clothes.

[EFerrari]

81. I believe he was talking about inside the beltway.

Didn't he say, when everyone is calling for heads to roll in this town, it's a sign that it's time to slow down?

[molly77]

86. subsuelo

I'll bet WikiLeaks is very unpopular in Washington. World wide, I would say it is going viral.

Jon Conyers is a good man.

[ashling]

52. I could never figure out under what authority

they claimed that he committed a crime in the first place. He is not an American citizen and did not do anything on American soil.

[24601]

116. You don't have to be an AMCIT or on US soil to be subject to US

jurisdiction for a crime against the US.

[ashling]

121. But under what authority?

I'm not disputing that there may be some treaty or other legal theory, I'm asking what it is.

[SlimJimmy]

192. The same authority that allows the Italian government to try anyone committing a crime against their

laws, whether they be a citizen or not.

[sabrina 1]

126. But you have to have committed a crime, and that is not the case here.

Wikileaks has exposed criminal activity, war crimes etc. not just here but in other countries as well. That is the function of a legitimate free press.

There was no crime committed, everyone knows that, except for a few rabid defenders of the war machine here who would like to cover up the crimes. It was always inevitable that if the U.S. government and media refused to deal with the crimes of the Bush administration, someone else would do it for us. That is what is happening and the PTBs are outraged. Having had no problems controlling the media here, they cannot accept that they do not rule the world, only the world's complicit politicians.

[Enthusiast]

148. "they do not rule the world"

Not yet, anyway.

[SlimJimmy]

160. Try reading the law before you make such nonsensical pronouncements. He is nothing more than

a common criminal, and should be prosecuted as such.

Sabrina 1

"There was no crime committed, everyone knows that, except for a few rabid defenders of the war machine here who would like to cover up the crimes."

[JackRiddler]

163. What law would that be, counsel? You seem well-informed, so let us know.

[SlimJimmy]

164. I already did in reply 43. Try to keep up with the thread if you are going to post in it. (nt)

[JackRiddler]

165. Got any case law for us on the use of 18 U.S.C. § 793 in relation to publications by the press?

I mean, since you know it's a cut-and-dried thing... educate us!

[SlimJimmy]

178. Since when am I your servant? If you want to find case law, look

for it yourself.

[JackRiddler]

183. You're the one who cited 18 U.S.C. § 793 as usable against Assange...

I looked for case law relating to its use against publication of leaked material by press, and couldn't find anything. It seems to have been used only against people who breached confidentiality as government employees AFTER signing a non-release agreement, which means it wouldn't apply to Assange. Perhaps you can help, perhaps there's something out there on its use in criminal charges against the press. Since you're citing it and saying there's an open and shut criminal case against Assange. I'm not a lawyer, and you seem sure of yourself, so I'm inviting you to back up your own claims and outline what a case under 18 U.S.C. § 793 against Assange might look like.

Thank you!

[SlimJimmy]

191. It really doesn't matter if it's never been used as a charge against the press. The statute allows

for that. The egregiousness of this case just might make for precedent.

[JackRiddler]

193. Ah, so you're looking for a precedent to overturn 219 years of First Amendment press protection.

This is not surprising, because that's what the government is currently looking for, too. I'm glad you understand that, though I hope it inspires at least some cognitive dissonance and a twinge of conscience.

The position has its supporters among authoritarians far beyond the fetishists of the "national security" priesthood, i.e., they who have abused the power that secrecy gives to the detriment of all.

[SlimJimmy]

196. I don't consider Assange to be the "press" in the same regard as say the New York Times.

Your mileage may vary.

[JackRiddler]

200. Banamex v. NarcoNews (2001) set a different precedent. Can you cite case law for your argument?

If Wikileaks is not journalism, then neither was the NY Times when it reported on the Pentagon Papers. If your attitude prevails, investigative journalism will be criminalized and all media will become Pravda, although Pravda will go under names like "The New York Times."

[SlimJimmy]

202. Did the NY Times editor in cheif start as a computer hacker turned "journalist" for cover? (nt)

[JackRiddler]

204. Thanks for confirming you have no case law and want to overturn First Amendment protection.

No, the NYT editor probably started as some rich frat boy at Yale, but what he was in youth is as irrelevant to a criminal case as Assange's past as a hacker. Who's going to be called a journalist? Your argument is heading down the road to official registration and licensing of journalists, with sanctions if they don't play by government-set rules on content.

[SlimJimmy]

217. What's going to happen is Assange is going to be charged and

ultimately convicted for his role in obtaining and publishing classified documents. Then you can protest that as well, as an abridgment of his rights.

[Lord Magus]

209. In the absence of relevant facts, you resort to irrelevant ones.

No surprise for a 1st Amendment abolitionist.

[Lord Magus]

208. The CONSTITUTION, however, does NOT allow for it.

The statute isn't used to prosecute journalists for publishing leaked information because it can't be used for that purpose. The 1st Amendment prohibits it.

[sabrina 1]

173. And your evidence please?

Fyi, the Judiciary Committee yesterday stated that Wikileaks has done nothing illegal. Same statements from legal entities around the world, including Australia.

The U.S. initially wanted to trump up charges under the espionage act, but that was pretty much slapped down yesterday by the Judiciary Committee. So, exactly what makes him a 'common criminal'? Your opinion is not evidence of anything, other than maybe, a lack of knowledge of the facts.

[SlimJimmy]

179. Yes, the judiciary committee trumps US Code. Got it. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

181. Of course Congress trumps the military. This is not a military

junta, yet. The Constitution trumps the USMCJ.

But that is not what I asked. You are claiming that it is okay for the U.S. military to torture U.S. soldiers accused of crimes. I have read the USMCJ and have nothing, not that I expected to, that allows the military to do that. But you sounded so certain, I asked for something to back up your assertions, but if there is something written somewhere that legalizes torture in the military, it needs to be dealt with, as it would be a clear violation of our Constitution, which most definitely trumps the USMCJ and Congress should know about it.

[SlimJimmy]

190. I was citing US code not the (UCMJ) [sic]. And this person (Manning) is NOT being

tortured. Solitary confinement is not torture. Even if your fevered little brain would like it to be.

[JackRiddler]

195. Court verdicts trump everything. The paragraph you cite has never been used the way you want.

Or maybe you can find some relevant case law, since I can't?

Also, the Judiciary Committee's view of the law may trump your own, did you know?

[SlimJimmy]

197. Not until they write new code and have it passed into law. And that hasn't happened in this case.

Also, the Judiciary Committee's view of the law may trump your own, did you know?

[JackRiddler]

201. Again, by all appearances you are fitting the law into your preference for repressive enforcement...

but without providing any history of case law that supports your proposed abusive application of USC.

[SlimJimmy]

203. Case law is not an impediment to enforcement, and you know it. This specious argument

that enforcement requires precedent is boring. Mark my words, Assange will be charged soon enough.

[JackRiddler]

206. Oh, I agree. "Enforcement" constantly makes a mockery of the law.

And in your case, I haven't seen you lose any breath arguing for democracy or justice on this thread, so why let that get in the way of the state that does renditions and summary executions by drone bombing on whatever secret orders it pleases?

[JackRiddler]

205. You have it the wrong way around. Existing law doesn't make a criminal of Assange.

What you propose implies an unconstitutional re-writing of the law. Besides that it's repressive on its face.

[SlimJimmy]

218. Existing law makes Assange a criminal. Something he's used to being in more than one country.

[sabrina 1]

2. I'm glad he said it, he's the first elected official who appears

to have had the guts to say it out loud.

But he's wrong about Wikileaks not 'being very popular' right now. Only here, where most Americans know very little about the organization. Around the world they are extremely popular, far more popular than, eg, the U.S. government and its ignorant members of Congress calling for censorship and assassinations without trial, supporting torture etc.

They are now caught in their own outrageous demands to arrest an award-winning editor and publisher of a news organization, after opening their big mouths without thinking of the implications of what they were saying, they now, apparently realize they cannot charge HIM, without charging the NYT, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and every other news organization that has covered Wikileaks stories for three to four years now.

Anyhow, I hope his courage to face reality will inspire others to follow his example and tamp down the utterly, as someone said recently, 'deranged' reaction to the news media finally doing its job.

[glinda]

6. Yes. Only unpopular with the Right crowd and the un-informed. We are soooooo stupid!

[EFerrari]

17. He said it on the record and Nader wonderfully introduced into the record

an article that someone wrote about instances of the Obama administration leaking classified material to the press.

lol

I'm waiting on the transcript. It was a great hearing. Good working through of the issues.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Legaland :hi:

[sabrina 1]

99. Thank you for that link. I missed that hearing.

I am listening to it now and am stunned that a former member of the Bush administration has come out against the witch hunting of Wikileaks. Wow! I never thought I'd see that.

Off to watch the rest of the hearing. Thank you again for providing the link.

[No Elephants]

129. Self delete

[Luminous Animal]

118. Ron Paul did, too. (FYI, I am no fan of Ron Paul.)

[sabrina 1]

125. Yes, you are right, Ron Paul did say it also. I am not a fan of any

politician anymore and only support them when they are right. Paul has been consistently right about our foreign policy and is being consistent in his stand on this also. I admire that kind of consistency. Too bad we don't have more of it in our politicians.

[defendandprotect]

136. k/r

[Poll_Blind]

3. And Conyers is...right! n/t

PB

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kudos to Congressman Conyers for his respect for the First Amendment and the rule of law.

Thanks for the thread, IScreamSundays.:thumbsup:

[Kingofalldems]

5. K and R for diversion boy

Trying to take attention away from this.

[valerief]

K&R

[valerief]

7. K&R

[RoccoR5955]

8. K & R n/t

[freshwest]

9. Will the new House majority in January

Be able to argue with this?

Some of the FOX/GOP/Tea Party call for Assange to be executed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/mike-huckabee-wikileaks-execution_n_789964.html

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Id=1493742

Who is going to be head of House Judiciary next year?

Does anyone here know yet?

[truedelphi]

32. I think that Conyers will hold on to his post. He has had

It for years - going back as far as the Clinton Administration, IIRC.

[totodeinhere]

61. No, he will not hold on to his post. When the GOP takes over...

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) will be the new chairman. You really need to take a civics lesson.

http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-house-judiciary-chaiman-smith-vows.html

[goforit]

47. delete

[avaistheone1]

10. Correct.

:kick:

[Pavulon]

11. President Barack Obama told leaders on Saturday that WikiLeaks' actions were deplorable

right wing?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BA24B20101211

[LanternWaste]

12. I think that "deplorable" and "crime" are two wholly separate concepts

I think that "deplorable" and "crime" are two wholly separate concepts-- neither being predicted on the other.

ed: sp

[Pavulon]

13. Correct. I would also bet that the DOJ has flipped manning and

will spare him the death penalty to charge assange with conspiracy at minimum. If he was pulling the strings and running manning like a source he will get an espionage charge.

[IScreamSundays]

14. I am sure when the DOD is done with Manning...

We will hear all kinds of accusations against Assange. Water-boarding is good for that.

[Pavulon]

15. bzzt wrong. i bet bradass has been on tape since he was placed in custody.

the whole torture thing is just a scam to undermine his testimony. he will testify because he does not want to be executed.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. Is the death penalty on the table?

If we're not at war, isn't the death penalty a little extreme?

:hi:

[Pavulon]

23. I would bet in espionage case it is..

and unlike most of those cases the data stolen is already in the clear.

[Hawkowl]

215. Aren't we at war?

Seriously? Just because it's not on tv every night like Vietnam was, we are still at war. Not that I think he should get the death penalty. A simple less than honorable discharge works for me as long as Assange gets the Nobel.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

57. bradass?

WTF?

[Pavulon]

59. manning's self applied username. google bradass87, you can read his confession

that alone will put him in prison until he dies. If parts of that implicate assange as a conspirator, more company.

[Enthusiast]

150. He will say anything they want.

And that is the true objective of torture.

[Bragi]

22. Espionage! That's laughable

I seriously agree with Rep. Conyers here, and disagree completely with you.

I have no enthusiasm for shredding First Amendment rights just because the administration and the dips are pissed and embarrassed because one guy exposed their idiotic document non-security system, and leaked thousands of largely non-classified reports from U.S embassies abroad.

I don't think we need to go all Jack Bauer over this. It's an embarrassment, not a catastophe. The government should suck up its losses, conscientious whistleblowers should do what they do, and WikiLeaks and Assange should continue doing what they do.

If the administration pushes nonsense like declaring the massive publication of leaked material an act of espionage (!!) then it will lose not just legally, but in global esteem, and not just in the end, but while any its unjust prosecutions are unfolding, starting maybe two weeks ago.

[Pavulon]

24. Conspiracy in Federal court is not "jack bauer" its ames and pollard.

the publication is legal. However the act of STEALING it was not. And those 250,000 acts are each a crime and have nothing to do with your 1st amendment rights.

The government has already stated its intention.

[Bragi]

27. Nothing has changed on this since the Pentagon papers

There was a reason the Nixon administration did not charge the New York Times with espionage when they published the leaked Pentagon papers.

It's the same reason why the Obama administration needs to suck it up, move on, stop winging, improve its security, and stop trying to criminalize Wikileaks and/or Assange and/or the whistleblowers and media with whom they work.

[Pavulon]

28. I would not bet on that. Manning stole 250,000 random cables and dumped them

and that is not the pentagon papers. He will for sure die in federal custody. Only question is if he has company.

[No Elephants]

131. Self delete

[sabrina 1]

138. Maybe you should wait for trial before declaring the verdict.

I think many people thought Daniel Elsberg would die in prison also.

[liberation]

96. The Nixon administration did charge The New York times...

... I believe Nixon's Attorney General ordered the NYT to stop its presses and surrounded the building with federal troops based on accusations of "espionage." Probably it was the first time the US government had done such a thing. It is part of the reason why the Pentagon Papers were not published in its entirety by the NYT. Other newspapers around the nation picked where the NYT left and published the rest of the paper dump (they were very extensive). That was back in the days when there was a working press in this country. There was also a functioning judicial branch of the government, and the supreme court told Nixon's thugs to go pound sand and lifted the gag order against the NYT.

What has not changed however, it is the MO and talking points used by those who attempt to discredit those leaking the damning information. During the Pentagon Papers it was mostly RAND and Pentagon operatives who were trying to do damage control by focusing the attention on Ellsberg in order to discrediting his persona. I wonder what are the affiliation/employment of people like Pauvlon's this time around.

[The Flaming Red Head]

82. Have you read the cables?

If so aren't you a conspirator too? And what about the rest of us reading every cable we can get our hands on. Are we to be charged?

[GliderGuider]

31. Actually, in one sense it IS a catastrophe for governments around the world.

Assange has succeeded brilliantly at one major goal he has publicly advertised. The contents of the cables themselves are relatively unimportant to meeting this goal. Far more crucial is the fact that the leak itself has made governments everywhere distrust their communications security. That has caused them to restrict their internal data flow even more. And if there is one thing a conspiracy needs it is secure internal communications. Without that security, the communications slow down and become less effective. That in turn renders the inherent conspiracy of government less effective. And I think that less effective conspiracies are a good thing...

It's no great surprise to me that the government of the USA is eating its own liver, and sending out its minions to paint dirty pictures of Assange and Manning on the walls of places like DU. This is a calamity of the first magnitude for them, regardless of the actual contents of the cables.

[Pavulon]

35. It also restricts people who use that information for things like

counter terrorism operations. People like ames and pollard come along and steal. That is how it works. There have been plenty before manning, they just took their stolen goods to a nation state for belief system or money. The information was not stolen in flight it was taken at rest by someone with access. Traditional espionage since dawn of time.

All this will do is cost money to fix, us policy will continue despite the assange plea for the potus to step down.

[GliderGuider]

38. Yes it does.

How unfortunate. :sarcasm:

ETA: You miss Assange's point. Costing money to "fix" it and rendering it more cumbersome in the process is one of the things he was after. That all comes under the rubric of "reducing the effectiveness of the conspiracy's internal communications".

[Pavulon]

41. Sure it will cost billions. You are picking up the tab, enjoy the show.

the line on your check that says FED TAX pays for it. No matter how secure a system is it can not prevent a person from espionage. Been that way since the dawn of diplomacy.

[GliderGuider]

48. You really don't get what Assange was talking about, do you?

It's not about the money it will cost to "fix" things. It's not about whether espionage is a time-honoured tradition in power hierarchies. It's the fact that the power hierarchies defined by modern governments have detached themselves so completely from the interests of the governed that they are being seen as fundamentally illegitimate. Faced with that understanding, there is no cost too great if it means impeding their continued rape of their citizens.

[Pavulon]

51. Yes, he is an egomaniac calling for the potus to resign. I understand the all info should be free

meme. Understanding does not register agreement. So you want to tear it down? Really, what are you putting in the place of a representative democracy.

You understand that the ENTIRE WORLD conducts diplomacy in secret right? Is this a global revolution or just an american problem?

[GliderGuider]

60. I'm not calling for the destruction of representative democracy.

I'm calling for it to become more accountable to the people it claims to be governing. However, in order to do that, we first need to make it less accountable to the hidden corporatist powers to which it currently swears secret fealty. One nice way of doing that is to expose the secret fealty and collusion to public view. Assange is doing that very well, and that's what has POTUS' knickers in a twist.

Assange is a true revolutionary, and that's why everyone with power to lose is freaked.

[Pavulon]

Again, how is securing enriched uranium at a previously secret location

serving a corporate interest? How is secretly working with china on scenarios for the north korean collapse bad?

Why should things like this be in the clear in real time? How does the world knowing where unsecured nuclear materials are help you agenda?

[GliderGuider]

65. Hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question

"How does the world knowing where unsecured nuclear materials are help you agenda?"

By forcing the governments that claim to represent us to put actual pressure on the party that produced the materials or left them unsecured - pressure that will stop them from doing it again. As it stands, governments may see this as a little opportunity for quid pro quo, with the result that the material stays unsecured and the producing nation is not impeded from further production. In this instance, anything that can be accomplished by stealth can be accomplished by transparency, with the further benefit that the world gradually becomes a safer place to live and trust is restored to the public arena.

It starts from the simple assumption that citizens are adults and that in all our dealings truth is preferable to lies.

[Pavulon]

67. no it was real. It was a pakistani cable where the concern was THEIR people

considering it an American attempt to mess with their nuclear program. So no matter how smart we are here, you must understand that is not how it works everywhere.

There was no lie, it was just not stated in public. Are you really saying there is no place at all for secrecy anywhere in government?

Please name one country using this diplomatic model..

[GliderGuider]

91. Is there any place for secrecy in government? That's a very good question.

The fact that no country is using total transparency as a model today is not proof that secrecy is a good or necessary thing. It's just proof that the current system supports and requires it. You've heard the old saying, "Eat shit - six trillion flies can't be wrong?" Your argument is essentially a similar argumentum ad populumum fallacy - everyone is doing it so it must be right.

When I think about secrecy I start from the individual point of view, since after all, nations and governments are just large collections of individuals. One of the things I believe quite strongly is that secrecy and lies are toxic to the individual. No matter how innocuous the question or how well-meaning the answer, saying "Yes" when the real answer is "No" erodes trust and corrodes the human spirit. Since this happens to the individual, I think it happens to the collective as well. Enshrining the saying of "Yes" when the real answer is "No" for whatever reason, whether it be expediency, policy or paternalism, makes it impossible to trust that anyone is ever telling the truth. That's not the world I wish to live in, and I will fight against it at every turn.

Since I'm also somewhat realistic, I recognize that this is the way the world currently works, and given that, I have to accept that moving in the direction I favour would involve some pain. Overall though, any movement towards truth - no matter how small - is a movement toward the repudiation of a world built on lies and all the damage they cause. I also recognize that it may not even be possible to get there because of human nature. Read Andrew Schmookler's The Parable of the Tribes to see why I have some residual skepticism. Even with that skepticism I prefer to work in that direction because I believe in right rather than wrong, truth rather than lies and freedom rather than slavery. Those who hold secrets or tell lies are both slavers and enslaved. Those who are lied to are simply enslaved, until they decide to throw off their chains.

[Pavulon]

92. can you give a simple outline of how a fully open system would work?

should any part of the system be closed, can I pull your tax return, can I have access to ncic? Can i see troop movements and weapon system information in real time?

I would like a simple scenario where this would work at all?

[GliderGuider]

93. Nope.

Just as you can't give me a simple scenario where full secrecy works. Life doesn't work that way. They way it does work is that people with opposing points of view work to realize their views, and the end result is some balance that comes out of the dynamic interplay between the two. Like what happens in courtrooms, for example.

[liberation]

104. It's easier than that.

Secrets imply a mistrust regarding a 3rd party. A supposedly democratic government keeping secrets from its citizens means that said government does not trust the very citizens who it is supposed to serve. Furthermore having a government set up black boxes, means that citizens do not have the capacity for full oversight and due diligence regarding their own government. Thus negating one of the main principles of democracy. Ergo a government which operates under any level of secrecy can not be considered to be democratic in nature.

So either we live in a democracy, or we do not. Regardless of whatever red herrings the contingent who will forever wonder "if that brown shirt makes them look fat" comes up with via projection.

[ProudDad]

119. Thanks for responding to "Ignored"

so we don't have to... :hi: :)

[GliderGuider]

149. Actually I even enjoy it (for a while)

It gives me perfect opportunities to organize my own thinking, and the exchanges also help me practice not taking irrational, aggressively authoritarian responses personally.

This episode is giving the revolution what it needs: Julian has become a hero, and I expect Manning will become its martyr.

[ProudDad]

169. That must be it...

I tend to take irrational, aggressively authoritarian stuff personally...at least often enough to have set about a dozen to ignore over the last 8 years here...

It's interesting, all but 2 or 3 on my ignored list have been tombstoned... :evilgrin:

[liberation]

106. ... and there you go, asking such a question while having linux as your avatar

I haven't seen irony of that caliber since some other poster had Che as his avatar while making cases for why Reagan was a good president.

LOL.

[Pavulon]

107. bet you don't know how much TS stuff runs on rhel?(nt)

[liberation]

111. bet you don't know how little that changes the ironymeter...

I don't always use rpm-based distros, but when I do I prefer CentOS.



LOL

[Pavulon]

112. Nice patch distribution is important to big guys

installing it and not updating it for 3 years is kinda bad. care to name one country with all their diplomacy in the clear? one..

[liberation]

115. Pzzzt the real big boys roll their own patches

Luckily I am involved in the design phase of computers, I don't have to be the poor sap who has to maintain them for a living.


I'll answer your question after you explain us how exactly an argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy.

[Pavulon]

123. My position was asking how it would work, no secrets anywhere.

that is the argument, it will not work as secrets are required for diplomacy and have been used since the greeks ran the world.

The fact that no other country does an open model is a supporting item, not the argument its self. If it were the ONLY thing i stated that would be a fallacy.

how can the us negotiate with china about north korea or with pakistan about their uraniumn without their rabble fucking it up is where this model breaks down.

I design PLC controllers and write code for machine tools that reside all the hell over. However I have found that if you do not design for the "sap" you end up doing all the support when your shit breaks down.

However I do protect my IP and time. Like the real world keeping some stuff secret is required. Failure to do that could cause an Iranian enrichment like problem, people fiddling with stuff and no one notices until way to late.

[boppers]

221. Is a PLC controller anything like an ATM machine or PIN number?

:evilgrin:

[boppers]

220. "The most interesting rpm OS in the world"

Love the geeky side joke!

[go west young man]

133. He's Mr. free and open source!

[tavalon]

143. Damn, that's funny!

[Enthusiast]

152. LOL with you! nt

[tavalon]

142. Damn, you're right. I called it a straw man, but you have the correct fallacy.

Actually, it could be both, now that I think about it.

[GliderGuider]

151. He is using both

"Everyone conducts diplomacy in secret, therefore that's the right way to do it" is ad populum, while "You want to completely eliminate secrecy and let everybody know where the HEU is" is a straw man.

[tavalon]

156. Yeah, but he doesn't talk to me anyway

I've been disappeared in his world. I am extremely judicious in placing people on ignore, but not all are and he and I have had many differences of opinion but lately, he never engages with me. Doesn't stop me, though. I figure if he wants to "debate", I'll debate, even if it is with thin air.

[tavalon]

141. I won't argue absolutism, but that isn't what Wikileaks exposed.

They exposed that secrecy and deceit are SOP. Not good. Also, your straw man is leaving straw everywhere. Could you please rein him in?

[tavalon]

140. Imagine a world where "diplomacy" is conducted in full view of God and man.

The school of the Americas sure wouldn't exist and perhaps a small planeload of weapons wouldn't have gone to Central America during the Reagan years and...

[sabrina 1]

194. You haven't read the cables, have you? You think they are aimed

only at the U.S.?? Russia, eg, is exposed in the cables as a corrupt state, Putin himself is revealed as the person behind the poisoning of the Russian spy. And that's just one of the other countries exposed in the cables. But only the U.S. is throwing a fit. Putin, eg, says that Assange should be given a Pulitzer prized. He is not especially bothered by how much they reveal about him and his government.

Typical American zenophobia and paranoia. What is remarkable is how other countries equally exposed in the cables, have chosen NOT to call for the criminalization of Freedom of the Press. And they have wondered publicly, why the U.S. is doing so.

You really should give it up. You're not influencing anyone with your wild claims of crimes etc. when what happened is that a completely legal news organization got its hands on some newsworthy documents and published them, in cooperation with five of the world's major news organizations. This is the role of a Free Press, something we are not very familiar with in the U.S. which probably explains your ballistic reaction when you finally see how it works.

This government needs to ratchet down the noise. Searching for a crime to match the actions of a free press to, makes us like a third world dictatorship. If there was a crime, they would have charged him by now. They can't, and the more time that passes, and the more they scream for censorship, the better Wikileaks looks to the rest of the world, because the more people realize how censored the MSM actually is.

[tavalon]

139. Pavilion,

Do you have a dog in this race?

[Bragi]

46. That's a quite interesting perspective

He is causing governments to restrict internal information flows, no doubt about it. Will this result in some power flow back to people at large? I don't really know.

But I agree that the powers that be seem terribly angry, almost irrationally angry, over the whole thing, far out of proportion to the importance of the materials that have been released.

As for trying to criminalize leaking as espionage, I remain incredulous that Obama would allow himself to become the number one declared enemy of free speech rights in America.

But I concede that the administration seems angry enough at this point to encourage people, as you put it to paint dirty pictures of Assange and Manning on the walls of places like DU.

[Pavulon]

49. Its been a felony for longer than you have been alive. calling it leaking

does not change what it is. Espionage and disclosure of classified information, felonies.

Anger has nothing to do with the response from the DOJ.

[Lord Magus]

213. Except the Constitution prohibits such a prosecution.

The leaker can be prosecuted for giving classified information to the press, but the press cannot be prosecuted for publishing it.

[JackRiddler]

166. "Flipped" Manning. So you believe. We'll see if testimony from torture stands up in court.

[OnyxCollie]

34. Gosh.

If President Obama says WikiLeaks is deplorable, and WikiLeaks leaked a cable showing the Obama administration collaborated with the GOP to squelch Spain's investigations of war crimes, President Obama must be right!

Agency theory- Agency theory states that principles (shareholders) hire agents (executives) to
serve the interests of the shareholders. Conflict arises when agents serve their own interests to
the detriment of shareholders (Gedajlovic & Shapiro, 1998).

Gedajlovic, E. R., & Shapiro, D. M. (1988). Management and ownership effects: Evidence from five countries. Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 533-553.

Deterrence theory

a. offenders have to be aware of the penalty for particular crimes
b. potential offenders have to perceive the consequences of lawbreaking as unpleasant and therefore something to be avoided
c. they have to believe real risk of arrest, conviction, and punishment is present
d. deterrence theory assumes that people are rational actors who weigh the relative costs and benefits of their actions and make conscious decisions about the best course

problems with deterrence theory

-long term effects of policies is unknown, resulting social stigma (part of the “cost” of crime) is weakened
-little known about process about how perceptions of risk are formed
-impact of particular policies depends upon how they are implemented
-laws and policies are not always implemented as intended

Walker, S. (1985). Sense and non-sense about crime and drugs. Belmont:Thomson Wadsworth.

Some behavior may be impermissible due to obligations of particular roles in which trust
is placed in exercising judgement. These restraints are conflicts of interest. Davis and Stark
(2001, as cited in Pritchard, 2002) consider an interest to be “any influence, loyalty, concern, or
emotion that might interfere with fulfilling the relevant obligation” (p. 9). Pritchard (2002)
narrows the definition of conflict of interest to “conflicts between interests and obligations that
involve an inherent conflict between them.” (p. 9). As with the problems associated with
deterrence theory, there is uncertainty as to how those tasked with addressing these conflicts
resolve these issues (Pritchard, 2002).

Pritchard, M. S. (2002). Conflict of interest: The very idea. Research Integrity, 5(2), 6-10.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
-PUBLIUS (James Madison), The Federalist No. 51

[Pavulon]

36. Should he resign, yes or no(nt)

[OnyxCollie]

39. President Biden?

At least he voted against FISA...

[Pavulon]

40. You think biden will dismantle the CIA, NSA, and other agencies

will he sign off on drone strikes like Obama has? My bet is nope and yep.. You think he gets a national security brief like the potus?

Should hillary go too? Should we run the federal government like a school board?

[OnyxCollie]

42. Let's get rid of this whole democracy thing altogether.

The cries for ponies from the little people are all too annoying to the Masters of the Universe.

[Pavulon]

44. We can use the Sudan and Somolia for a model..

representative democracy is what we have btw. Pure democracy gets things like prop 8 on the agenda.

[OnyxCollie]

50. But as long as you believe you have a place at the table,

everything's peachy. Right, Pavulon?

Friedmann (1957) states, “the most powerful, wealthy, and highly organized group may
succeed in identifying the ‘public interest’ with its own interests” (p. 167). Key (1942, as quoted
in Joseph, 1982, p. 247) declares “"The great political triumph of large-scale enterprise has been
the manipulation of public attitudes so as to create a public opinion favorably disposed toward,
or at least tolerant of, gigantic corporations” (p. 102, 103). In a pluralistic society there are
countervailing forces, however their ability to heard may be limited (Friedmann, 1957; Joseph,
1982).

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.

Joseph, L. (1982). Corporate political power & liberal democratic theory. Polity, 15(2), 246-267.

[Pavulon]

54. If people dont go smashing the furnature because they can

that is dissent? dumping 250,000 documents, many of which have no connection to any war crime circumvents the democratic process.

That's why it has been illegal for a very long time. How in gods green earth does a project to secure loose HEU in pakistan server the "giant corporations"

[elias49]

74. 250,000 documents, besides having no connection to crimes,

have no need of top secret designation either IMO.
How about letting a little sunshine in?

[Pavulon]

75. They weren't top secret, they were secret, and the LOC

is filled with stuff like this. YHO does not change the crime. much of it would be public at some point. Some of it at a later point.

[elias49]

85. "Some of it would be made public at some point..."

"Some at a later point" When is that?
I say that point has come.
There it is. Any grave harm yet? Other than that nameless 'Austin Powers' guy you keep worrying about. The guy who was trying to peddle some uranium he just happened to be carrying around.
And, by the way, YHO doesn't make it a crime at this point either. You have strong feelings about this. Good for you.
It would help if the facts were on your side. That's all that needs to be said.

[Pavulon]

87. ANd the expat who was reporting..none of that should be in the clear

you believe everything should be in the clear?

[tavalon]

145. So Wikileaks crime is letting the sunshine in too early?

Just who would you like making such decisions?

[tavalon]

144. Circumvents the Democratic process?

Is that irony or just LOL funny?

[crazyjoe]

55. it also gets things like slavery legalized

[bread_and_roses]

66. any President of the US should stand behind the First Amendment

And a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize should applaud the revelations the deceits of war.

However, since taking office President Obama has shown no more regard for civil liberties than his predecessors, and no less willingness to kill in the name of peace.

You can call his "deplorable" whatever "wing" suits you, just don't call it an affirmation or defense of democracy.

But I for one would call slavering over the possibility of Bradley Manning spending life in prison or being put to death "right-wing".

[Pavulon]

69. Better call up Holder at the DOJ. They are the ones

who are going to make that happen. Serving time for breaking federal law has no wing..

Obama did exactly what he said he would do. He did not claim to be dennis k while in the campaign.

[bread_and_roses]

76. A very small truth on which to rest such big lies

No, he did not claim to be Dennis K - there, we can agree.

Of course, what exactly he did claim is something else again.

[sirthomas66]

103. I forgot about that. Can Norway reclaim a Nobel Prize?

[No Elephants]

130. Obama and his WH have shown contempt for the left a number of times.

[SemperEadem]

16. well, perhaps the state department needed to make sure

that their fucking joints were fluxed and soldered well.

It sounds like they used Haliburton to build their cable system and got ripped off big time.

[treestar]

18. I don't get how he can say that

Is he agreeing that classified documents can be leaked and it's no crime? Why doesn't he know that much about the law?

[GliderGuider]

20. He's not saying that.

As I understand it, he's saying that the re-publishing of leaked material is not a crime. That opinion has no bearing on the legality of the actions of Manning who may have actually released the documents to Wikileaks. Manning may be found guilty of a crime, but that's not what Conyers was talking about - he was talking about the actions of Assange and Wikileaks. As far as I know, the simple re-publishing of classified material that someone else gives you is not a crime. Conyers' knowledge of the law is pretty good.

[Pavulon]

25. The key will be in how the information was acquired.

if manning , all alone, gathered the information and dumped it, manning bears the charges alone. If however, assange ran him how intelligence services use sources, sent him after data on the siprnet then there is at minimum a conspiracy charge there. Maybe more.

That is how it will work.

[Bragi]

29. That's how things work in Tom Clancy novels

In real life, real leaders know when to cut their losses, move on, and avoid trying to criminalize acts just because they embarrass powerful people.

Obama needs to fix the document security system, move on, and not listen to heated minds demanding that he get embroiled in pointless, long-term, and ultimately-losing cases aimed at criminalizing free speech.

[Pavulon]

30. There is no way to fix a system unless you remove all the users. The

action now is to prosecute manning and anyone who conspired with him. Mark my words, it will happen this way.

Stealing classified information is not free speech. The NYT can publish it, but the person who stole it is still responsible for the act.

[truedelphi]

37. Obama also needs to become aware of a fact that Nixon knew early on

Only in a stable economy, does the national security of the country possess the ability to defend itself from THREATS WITHIN.

Obama needs to be far more worried about how this nation might fall apart from the coming turmoil of so many being without jobs, medical care, homes and HOPE.

Nixon had at least one commission telling him to keep National Guardsman inside our nations borders to keep a lid on things.

Obama, like Bush before him, seems to think that no matter how much "hurt" is caused to those in the middle and lower class, there will be no retaliation.

If he doesn't want a commission to explain this to him, then maybe he needs to read up on some
history.

[Eric J in MN]

53. If Julian Assange sent Bradley Manning after data...

...that is no different than Bob Woodward asking a source a question about classified information.

[Pavulon]

58. I dont think so. If he used him as an agent for his cause

then he is not press. assange has said he is not press.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Do you have a link to Julian Assange saying he isn't press? NT

NT

[Pavulon]

64. looking. been awhile, comment was I an not press but an editor at large..sic

will find the link or follow up with a post stating I cant..

[Eric J in MN]

159. I don't want people prosecuted for acting as "press" or for acting as "an editor at large." NT

NT

[U4ikLefty]

168. Got that comment yet Pavulon or are you just lying?

I'm waiting.

[U4ikLefty]

187. Still waiting...will do this for a long time.

c'mon Mr. military industrial complex...let's have it!!!

[Pavulon]

188. Aww, you hurt my feelings. I CAN NOT find that article, so I will RETRACT the

statement. However even if he is press he can not participate in the crime. If he was part of the criminal acts helping manning steal on siprnet his role as PRESS (yes he is press) transition to that of a criminal co-conspriator.

Here is a kitty gif to make up for my ERROR which I have admitted to..

[Lord Magus]

214. I guess that's why Bob Woodward was prosecuted...

...for asking Deep Throat to give him information.

[tavalon]

146. Editor. He's press and you are parsing words for some benefit

Why?

[Lord Magus]

216. Because it's easier than admitting to being a 1st Amendment abolitionist.

This way he can at least try to get people to take him seriously.

[go west young man]

134. It has clearly stated at the Wikileaks website since 2006 that anyone can submit

whistleblower info. How is that Assange conspiring when everyone knows of Wikileaks? Link here and excerpt: http://www.wikileaks.ch/Submissions.html

. Material we accept

Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance. We do not accept rumor, opinion, other kinds of first hand accounts or material that is publicly available elsewhere. This is because our journalists write news stories based on the material, and then provide a link to the supporting documentation to prove our stories are true. It’s not news if it has been publicly available elsewhere first, and we are a news organisation. However, from time to time, the editors may re-publish material that has been made public previously elsewhere if the information is in the public interest but did not have proper news analysis when first released.

[SlimJimmy]

43. This is pretty cut and dry if the government wants to make a case

against Assange for previous releases.

18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it;

[Bragi]

72. Hah!

...which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

So that provision applies if Assange was of the view that publishing that information for all to see would injure the United States or provide any advantage to any particular foreign nation.

And if he says he was strongly of the view that publishing the information widely would ultimately strengthen the United States, and would provide no special advantage to any foreign nation, then that Code provision doesn't apply, right?

So what else have you in your legal strong box to over-ride First Amendment rights?

[Pavulon]

73. He will do a hard 25 for conspiracy, dont worry. If they can make espionage work

he will die in prison with manning. Either way he should enjoy his groupies while time permits.

[Bragi]

120. You seem to be incredibly mean-spirited

You're like the Madame La Farge types who knitted in the shadow of the guillotine during the French Revolution. They had no principles, but ghoulishly enjoyed any execution, any time.

[SlimJimmy]

155. Please. He knew it would damage the US, and took pride in it.

Assange:

"The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped. If that makes me dangerous in their eyes, so be it."

"We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work."

[go west young man]

161. Wikileaks 5 year record of releasing info on all nations, many

of which are at war, trumps your argument that he was specifically aiming at the U.S.
The U.S. just happens to be the most warmongering at the moment. Hence his desire to expose it's crimes.
He obviously paints with a broader brush than you would have him hold.

[SlimJimmy]

162. Nice try, but the law is clear. It doesn't say anything about it having to be an

exclusive targeting of the US. It merely says he should reasonably know that damage will result. And based on his writings, he clearly had that in mind.

[sabrina 1]

175. Too bad for you that it does not harm the U.S. to expose the

corruption and crimes of those who actually have harmed this country. On the contrary, holding our war criminals responsible can only benefit the U.S. Or in your mind, is Bush/Cheney the same as the 'U.S.' and did YOU oppose their lies and crimes and demand they be held accountable BEFORE the 2008 election? If so, then your position on Assange makes sense.

He has done more good for the U.S. than anyone in this country in a position to so. When a country disposes with the rule of law and will not prosecute its own criminals, it is inevitable, since they have created international victims, that someone else will do the job for them. We, eg, did the job for Germany. Too bad we don't restore the rule of law and it would not be necessary for other countries, Spain, Poland et al, to do it for us.

[Lord Magus]

219. Nice try, but the 1st Amendment is very clear.

The law you're citing doesn't apply to the press, because it would be flagrantly unconstitutional for it to be applied to them.

[sabrina 1]

174. Sounds good to me. Liars who drag their countries into wars

that kill millions, who torture innocent men, women and children, who profit from their crimes, certainly should be brought to justice. I think our Founding Fathers would agree with Assange and applaud his efforts to get justice for those who are vulerable to these evil people. Or did you support Bush/Cheney's policies and lies and war crimes?

[ChemDork]

184. You need to be careful. Very careful.

There is a very sharp difference between damaging the USA, and damaging the reputations of the various racketeers at the very top.

Don't confuse the two. And, also consider that laws can be declared unconstitutional, such as a law that infringes on free speech would.

Now go play in traffic.

[fascisthunter]

210. lol

:thumbsup:

[Lord Magus]

207. Nope.

This was settled in the Pentagon Papers case. The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot be prohibited for journalists to publish leaked material, even if the leaker passed it on to them illegally.

[Eyerish]

19. K&R

[Daemonaquila]

26. Thanks, JC.

As always, you're a voice of reason. I fear the day you leave the House.

[Creative]

33. At least he didn't say that PVT Manning did not commit a crime.

[ProudDad]

170. He may have committed a "crime" in the eyes of

the masters of the Empire...

But he committed a patriotic act for the People's of Earth...

[Creative]

177. Who are the "People's of Earth?"

Who are the "masters of the Empire?"

Who are you?

[totodeinhere]

56. The problem is he won't be the chairman anymore in 3 weeks.

I doubt if the new GOP chairman will agree with Conyers.

[Creative]

63. Evidently, the Dept. of Justice does not agree.

Rumor has it, an indictment is forthcoming.

[Uncle Joe]

78. This would be the same Dept. of Justice that didn't believe in investigating Cheney/Bush and

their minions for war crimes.

[fascisthunter]

79. D'oh!

[EFerrari]

83. Or rectify the Siegelman case or the same one who put the FBI

on anti-war activists. Yeah, that one.

[Creative]

97. I'm trying to find the link between Bush and Assange, but it is no where to be found.

Watch out for the straw man behind that tree.

[tavalon]

147. Hilarious if it weren't so ghoulishly wrong.

[Lord Magus]

211. So what?

There's no valid charge they could indict Assange on. If they want to pursue a politically motivated false prosecution, that doesn't confer any validity on it.

[myrna minx]

70. K&R n/t

[City Lights]

71. K&R. nt

[mdmc]

77. ..until next year..

[Stoic]

80. Delete this.

[dipsydoodle]

84. K & R

Made my day.

[Devil_Fish]

88. Espionage only applies to acts commited on U.S. Soil, or by U.S. Citizens. NT

[Pavulon]

89. conspiracy does not have that limitation. (nt)

[Devil_Fish]

102. So when will Dick be charged for conspiring with Scooter? NT

[Creative]

105. Are you suggesting that your straw man was involved in a conspiracy?

[liberation]

110. Someone is saying something not nice about Dick Cheney, quick to the fallacy mobile...

[Creative]

153. You have to be really quick in order to save yourself from the straw men.

For they are very unpredictable creatures.

[snot]

90. Yay, John!

[pacalo]

94. I love it when common sense walks in through the door.

And John Conyers has it, yes indeed.

:thumbsup:

[stray cat]

95. So it is clear they did not aid the person who stole the documents in any way at all?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

176. Their M.O. was always to sit back and let people send them stuff.

Why should I believe it was different THIS time?

[underpants]

98. WMD, Acorn, Sherrod, etc. --this whole thing is a hoax

this one is remarkable in the fact that you can see the power structure screaming from windows to a degree greater than you see in the higher income tax break propoganda.

[barbtries]

100. good guy

i am so tired of the knee jerk mentality.

[Jefferson23]

101. First Ron Paul, now Conyers...that is better than nothing. Looking

at this statement from Conyers "For, in such an atmosphere, it is our constitutional freedoms and our cherished civil rights that are the first to be sacrificed in the false service of our national security."

Too bad Obama does not agree.

[midnight]

108. Thank you Rep. Conyers.... This witch hunt of Julian should

make all of us uncomfortable....

[MikeW]

109. thats for judge and jury to decide not some elected politician making soundbites

[EFerrari]

132. What he said was being unpopular is not a crime

and publishing offensive material is not a crime. Mr. Conyers did not write this headline.

[defendandprotect]

113. CHEERS for John Conyers ... !!

[krabigirl]

114. K & R

[The abyss]

117. No Axis Sally nor Tokyo Rose need apply.

Much to dismay - or so it would appear on this thread.

Recommned

[pleah]

122. K&R

[ozone_man]

124. Anyone who trades liberty for security

deserves neither liberty nor security - Ben Franklin

[guruoo]

127. I really doubt the administration will follow through on the DOJ's threat to prosecute

(A prediction, if you will.)

[ProfessionalLeftist]

128. PERSECUTION - not prosecution

That's what the Obama Admin wants to do - not prosecute Assange but rather to persecute him.

[gateley]

135. Right on, Conyers! You make us proud. The others have made us ashamed. nt

[No Elephants]

137. Conyers: Profile in Courage.

[Yavin4]

154. This Isn't Really News

If you watched the business networks, talk of govt. bailouts began in March of 2008 when Bear Stearns fell.

[The Flaming Red Head]

157. Don't you wish Conyers was Prez

There's the rest of em and then there's Conyers.

[howaboutme]

158. Why isn't Obama saying this?

Instead he is on point trying to silence the site. That's what I find really troubling.

[Creative]

167. Because he does not agree.

[ProudDad]

171. Because obama's on his way

to being the next war-criminal-in-chief

[Creative]

172. That is quite a statement coming from someone who worships at the alter of Castro and Chavez.

[go west young man]

180. Here's a "Straw Man" for ya. For someone who posted 4 times

in this thread defending Dick Cheney you are not really very " Creative". Your a
touch oxymoronic. Your straw man distraction has gone up in smoke.

[Creative]

189. It's a creative thing, you wouldn't understand.

[fascisthunter]

212. not as creative as you'd like to think

;)

[Vidar]

182. Bravo Rep. Conyers!

[buckrogers1965]

185. If Manning had access to all this data...

then every intelligence agency in the world already had a copy of these files years ago. Manning was no cracker, he had no special access to this info that tens of thousands of other people don't have.

China already knew all this. Israel already knew all this. Russia already knew all this. Every other country in the world, that cared to know, already knew all this info.

The only people who don't know what is going on are the American people.

It is telling that the federal government is going to such an extreme to keep Americans ignorant.

[Marthe48]

186. Thank you Mr. Conyers

So glad to see someone support free speech, which in this case is exposing the rotten structure supporting a rotten system. It's so heartening to someone saying "the emperor has no clothes"

[Nihil]

198. Kick ...

... so that someone can pass on the info to that empty-headed Vice-President
before he opens his big mouth again.

[pnorman]

199. K & R! For the useful discussion throughout this entire thread.

n/t