| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4884 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
This is about "Cablegate". Just curious about the popular opinion here. Feel free to discuss what you picked. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where is the option for "I don't know anything about it?" |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Releasing classified documents without proper authorization and reclassification is a federal offense. What they have done is against the law, and if they are ever caught and tried the punishment will be harsh. The fact that the information in those documents shows the extreme bad taste, poor judgment and cynicism of some of the top federal employees is beside the point. It does however give the feds a strong motive to keep it from happening again and punishing severely those who have already done it. I would not do it myself. I do not actually approve of their doing it. However they came by the information it was an illegal act. I admire their courage in trying to expose our folly to the world, but think their motivations are questionable. That being said, their sources are the ones that committed the big offenses, leaking to WikiLeaks. The web people are small potatoes but the feds feel the need to slap them down. Who the feds really want are the federally employed leakers. The web guys will, if caught, be able to deal with the names of the leakers. It isn't like they have journalistic integrity to protect, they aren't journalists. Of course if they give the names up their chances of getting anymore juicy leaks diminishes rapidly. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
LadyKate wrote: Where is the option for "I don't know anything about it?" I think that would be "undecided". |
|
| Author: | Aethien [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's funny reading all these articles about the leaks - "Oh, no! U.S. diplomats think Putin's an ***!" "U.S. diplomats think British diplomats are paranoid about the special relationship!" "We don't know what's going on in North Korea!" Gee, really? All of this is stuff that's generally known, when you think about it, as most of don't. We know diplomats says undiplomatic things in their private cables. We know that diplomatic speak for public and foreign consumption, and diplomatic thinking, are two different things. Really, they didn't need to release these cables to demonstrate this. So, I'm not really sure what the point was of releasing all of this. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anything that upsets the establishment/government can't be all bad. I'm all for any action that erodes the stability and powerbase of government --even in very small ways-- and puts it back in the hands of individuals. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think governments need to be shaken up like this from time to time. It's like coughing... it can feel a bit rough but it clears up your throat. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Micheal wrote: Releasing classified documents without proper authorization and reclassification is a federal offense. What they have done is against the law, and if they are ever caught and tried the punishment will be harsh. Except he's not a US citizen. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
Couldn't he theoretically be expedited just like any other criminal, provided we have such an agreement. Or does that again only apply to US citizens. I mean if hed stolen the information himself wouldnt we have some kind of recourse? |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Müs wrote: Except he's not a US citizen. Then couldn't it be espionage? |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
Rorinthas wrote: Couldn't he theoretically be expedited just like any other criminal, provided we have such an agreement. Or does that again only apply to US citizens. I mean if hed stolen the information himself wouldnt we have some kind of recourse? Extradited? It depends on the country where he's located. Quote: The United States has extradition treaties with over 100 countries. Of the treaties most are dual criminality treaties with the remaining being list treaties. Link to list of countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... n_treaties |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's not illegal to disseminate classified information...unless you're in a position where you've been entrusted with that information and taken an oath to protect it. An American citizen could also be posting that information, and they're free and clear. It's the person who leaked it to them that would be in trouble. (Assuming they caught him. What the law COULD do is put pressure on the American citizen to testify as to who their source was, and put them in jail until they gave in. Unless of course, they didn't know.) Some of you seem to be confusing Wikileaks with the source of the information. Wikileaks itself hasn't broken any laws with regard to the information they have published. And an extradition treaty won't do you much good trying to compel a foreign national to testify. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 A United States citizen who has not signed any sort of NDA can not legally be charged with any crime for disseminating classified information. Oh, the government can certainly try, but the case will end up appearing before these individuals:  This is exactly why we have those nine judges. This is what they are for. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
While I can appreciate what the guy is trying to do, it's irresponsible and will likely result in innocent deaths. Also, Wikileaks only published the information. It will be interesting to see the fate of the young man who intentionally stole classified information with the sole intention of disclosing it to the public. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
Corolinth wrote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 A United States citizen who has not signed any sort of NDA can not legally be charged with any crime for disseminating classified information. Oh, the government can certainly try, but the case will end up appearing before these individuals: This is exactly why we have those nine judges. This is what they are for. You forget that Julian Assange is not a US citizen, and therefore in the eyes of the US, doesn't count as a human being with rights. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
Xequecal wrote: Corolinth wrote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 A United States citizen who has not signed any sort of NDA can not legally be charged with any crime for disseminating classified information. Oh, the government can certainly try, but the case will end up appearing before these individuals: This is exactly why we have those nine judges. This is what they are for. You forget that Julian Assange is not a US citizen, and therefore in the eyes of the US, doesn't count as a human being with rights. This is not true. 14th Amendment: Quote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. For the bolded part, "person" is specifically written instead of "citizen". |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Supreme Court specifically denied standing to several German citizens who were kidnapped and tortured by the CIA as terror suspects, even after they were found to be completely innocent. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Xequecal wrote: The Supreme Court specifically denied standing to several German citizens who were kidnapped and tortured by the CIA as terror suspects, even after they were found to be completely innocent. The German citizens weren't charged with U.S. crimes in a U.S. court system. If they were, they would have fallen under U.S. jurisdiction and thus the 14th Amendment. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Xequecal wrote: The Supreme Court specifically denied standing to several German citizens who were kidnapped and tortured by the CIA as terror suspects, even after they were found to be completely innocent. The German citizens weren't charged with U.S. crimes in a U.S. court system. If they were, they would have fallen under U.S. jurisdiction and thus the 14th Amendment. Who says Assange is going to be tried in a U.S. court? His death will be a tragic suicide after he shoots himself 16 times in the back. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Xequecal wrote: The Supreme Court specifically denied standing to several German citizens who were kidnapped and tortured by the CIA as terror suspects, even after they were found to be completely innocent. The German citizens weren't charged with U.S. crimes in a U.S. court system. If they were, they would have fallen under U.S. jurisdiction and thus the 14th Amendment. Who says Assange is going to be tried in a U.S. court? His death will be a tragic suicide after he shoots himself 16 times in the back. I was just responding to your reply to Coro in regards to criminal charges. I am not referring to assassination. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
After a thorough investigation we are certain that the person who shot and killed Mr. Assange was a lone gunman with serious mental health problems and a well documented grudge against him unrelated to WikiLeaks dating back several years. We offer our condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Assange, may he rest in peace. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Everyone who participated in the theft of the material should be arrested and tried. From what I've read, there's accusations that Manning contacted wikileaks and someone or ones from that organization worked with him to steal the info. I believe that if true, that would make wikileaks part of a conspiracy to steal government info. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
Corolinth wrote: One of these things is not like the other. Hmmm.... |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its the midget isn't it? |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Do you support the Nov. 28 actions of Wikileaks? |
Lex Luthor wrote: 14th Amendment: Quote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. For the bolded part, "person" is specifically written instead of "citizen". True; but it also says that this is something forbidden to any State. It says nothing about what any of the federal branches of the United States (ex. Congress, the SCOTUS) may or may not do. Which is interesting, because the Constitution makes a clear distinction between federal government as "the United States", and singular state government as "the several States", or "each/any State". |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|