|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 8, 2010 15:15:46 GMT -5
In theory, stopping another person's heart or beating them to death is illegal. In practice, most angry people will commit murder. Obviously, the law is too impractical to continue. Clearly, we can only have laws that everyone obeys. Otherwise we'd have to -shock- punish people for the crimes they commit. And that would be very uncentrist, very uncivil. Most angry people will not commit murder. Beating someone to death is illegal. Killing someone is self defense is not. Of course the laws around murder are well established and defined. The constitutional law regarding the power to wage war is not.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 8, 2010 16:09:46 GMT -5
The inspectors did their jobs perfectly. They made totally accurate judgements of Iraq's capabilities and intentions. Perfectly for what they where shown. They had no way of knowing about areas that where off limits. The point is that information that government holds secret can be used by an enemy to better prepare for an attack. Which may make them more likely to act without the fear of reprisal, and get people killed. Wait, are you saying yellow cake was not found? Government agencies? Which ones? Nixion did not trust many people. You don't even know what you are talking about. The news papers have been writing stories about the documents. Wikileaks is still dumping them as whole sets. Even you should be able to see the difference. Older projects no. Recent ones, well that depends on the operation. If it was an intelligence operation inside another country and that was made public they maybe mad about it. Really ltfred. Here are the basics of the Freedom of Information Act. www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/guide.htmlNotice that they talk about "agency records". Not the Public records. Here is the PDF for the Act www.justice.gov/oip/amended-foia-redlined.pdfNow if you have any small shred of evidence to support you view that government record are owned by the people please share. ......oh and even it the US public owned the records, each person would only own a very small part of them. So a person leaking documents would not own enough of it to make that decision. Wikileaks is not a US citizen or even a US organization. So they have no rights to those documents. Rationally, yes. Really, put out the provision of the Constitution that allows people to publish illegally obtained government documents. Well we will see if he is convicted of anything. So childish it gets the longest responce of any section! Will do bad, or may do bad. You can't say for sure. I do agree government needs watching. Those controls are in place. The freedom of information act, the whistle blowers act ect. No these are not perfect, but they do work. While governments need watching, they also need the ability to maintain secrets. Every organization does. Even Wikileaks. No, not everyone believes the other side needs to be stopped. I think elements inside the current GOP need to be stopped, or at least not listen to. I don't think the GOP as a whole should cease to exist. If the opposing view to yours goes away you have nothing to measure your views against. So you don't think there are any such laws currently like this in the US. So does that mean you agree that the Documents Wikileaks obtained where done so illegally, and unjustified? I do find it interesting that near-powerless actor can break laws they see as unjust, but government can't break laws that are insufficient to protect citizens. You see ltfred that was my point when I argued that laws should not be blindly followed. Editors being editors is fine. People publishing illegally obtained documents is not. They have that right when it comes to the government. Not when it comes to individuals. So again you can think he is innocent all you want. It does not make it so. He may not have been convicted in a court of your liking, but you can't deny that he sought out to fight and kill US solders with a murderous organization. I think you mean Wikileaks. Yes, they are completely responsible for any event that come from leaked documents. Question, if they are receiving leaked documents that are not available to the public how are they fact checking them? They are not. They have no idea if those documents are true or not.
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Dec 9, 2010 1:32:03 GMT -5
While I have mixed opinions on the matter, I found this t-shirt graphic to be thought provoking.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Dec 9, 2010 7:55:01 GMT -5
.... Question, if they are receiving leaked documents that are not available to the public how are they fact checking them? .... While I have no interest in getting between you and Fred I would point that the above is not the impossible task you suggest. They verify by among other things checking them against what is known. Remember those "Leaked" documents that supposedly showed that Niger had given Saddam yellow cake uranium? They were proven to be fake by examining the contents. Verifying sources to some reasonable degree is not impossible just because some of the material was formally secret. Journalists do this all the time. How else do you suppose they verified the Pentagon Papers?
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 9, 2010 9:15:56 GMT -5
While I have mixed opinions on the matter, I found this t-shirt graphic to be thought provoking. I find it to be stupid. The theft of government documents and giving them to a foreign agent has literally always been treason and/or espionage. It is not new, and every country on the face of this Earth would at least consider charges if it happened to them.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Dec 9, 2010 16:24:37 GMT -5
While I have mixed opinions on the matter, I found this t-shirt graphic to be thought provoking. I find it to be stupid. The theft of government documents and giving them to a foreign agent has literally always been treason and/or espionage. It is not new, and every country on the face of this Earth would at least consider charges if it happened to them. That still leaves aside the real issue.. what if the government has been lying to it's people and doing things behind their backs? Does that countries reporters count as foreign agents? Would you place the Pentagon papers in the same category? And if not why not? Lets be honest, if this were N. Korea or China having it's documents leaked about how they are hurting people or telling lies, most here would probably not have a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 9, 2010 17:06:23 GMT -5
I find it to be stupid. The theft of government documents and giving them to a foreign agent has literally always been treason and/or espionage. It is not new, and every country on the face of this Earth would at least consider charges if it happened to them. That still leaves aside the real issue.. what if the government has been lying to it's people and doing things behind their backs? Does that countries reporters count as foreign agents? Would you place the Pentagon papers in the same category? And if not why not? Lets be honest, if this were N. Korea or China having it's documents leaked about how they are hurting people or telling lies, most here would probably not have a problem with it. Missing the real issue. Yes it is absolutely unlawful to steal state secrets and doing so should result in arrest and prosecution. What is not clear is whether or not it is illegal to publish such information. Wikileaks did NOT steal the information; it was given to them unsolicited. It is not clear if Wikileaks is guilty of anything at all under US law.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 9, 2010 18:16:26 GMT -5
Lets be honest, if this were N. Korea or China having it's documents leaked about how they are hurting people or telling lies, most here would probably not have a problem with it. You're right, but the leaks here have not been about the U.S. hurting people from what I gather. It is mostly the unguarded, candid, private opinions and positions of diplomats all over the world. Does the American public really have a right to know that diplomats from Arab countries have outright asked the U.S. to do something about Iran? Or that China has told us they would be willing to support a unified Korea? And will diplomats be willing to share these feelings with the U.S. in the future knowing they could end up plastered all over the internet, for all to see? It is outright irresponsible and a hindrance to diplomacy to make this stuff public, assuming it is not also dangerous. And placing WikiLeaks on the level of journalism is a crock. Journalists do research, give context, explain the relevance of information, and have a sense of tact when handling information. WikiLeaks just makes sure stuff is real and then posts it, with no attempt made to help with the understanding. And while Assange's actions violate our laws is for the courts to decide, I would say that foreign agent "buying" secrets are just as guilty as the person selling them, albeit of different crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 9, 2010 20:58:37 GMT -5
Norris, you don't get to define a profession just because somebody does things in a manner you don't like. A simplistic definition is "the profession of reporting or photographing or editing news stories for one of the media" (link) and this is a reporting of news. It's more of a data dump style of reporting, but it is still reporting. I also highly doubt you would care if wikileaks did have a more traditional article. Anyways, the point remains that this is what is expected of journalists, they report of leaks whenever they get a chance, and it's what they have done historically. The person(s) who acted unlawfully was whoever leaked the info in the first place. As for what the public has a right to know, considering that the public elects representatives based on things like foreign policy, it might be helpful if they are informed of the reality of the situation. More details means a more informed decision, a more informed decision is a better decision.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Dec 9, 2010 21:49:11 GMT -5
As for what the public has a right to know, considering that the public elects representatives based on things like foreign policy, it might be helpful if they are informed of the reality of the situation. More details means a more informed decision, a more informed decision is a better decision. I would care if WikiLeaks did a more traditional article, because that would show them putting a little thought into what they are doing and following a code of ethics. As it is, they're just a middle man. And while having more details on foreign policy situations could result in a better decision, it could also result in the situation we're deciding on no longer existing. Do you think egocentric dictators will be more willing to come to the table knowing their neighbors are afraid of them? Do you think that Israel and Palestine will be closer to peace now that it has come out that the Israeli government doesn't think the PA is strong enough to sustain a state? Do you think ANY diplomat will be giving the U.S. candid, honest, nothing-held-back opinions for the next five years knowing that they can and will be splashed on the front page of every newspaper from here to Siberia? How the hell does this help foreign policy?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 9, 2010 22:01:54 GMT -5
As for what the public has a right to know, considering that the public elects representatives based on things like foreign policy, it might be helpful if they are informed of the reality of the situation. More details means a more informed decision, a more informed decision is a better decision. I would care if WikiLeaks did a more traditional article, because that would show them putting a little thought into what they are doing and following a code of ethics. As it is, they're just a middle man. And while having more details on foreign policy situations could result in a better decision, it could also result in the situation we're deciding on no longer existing. Do you think egocentric dictators will be more willing to come to the table knowing their neighbors are afraid of them? Do you think that Israel and Palestine will be closer to peace now that it has come out that the Israeli government doesn't think the PA is strong enough to sustain a state? Do you think ANY diplomat will be giving the U.S. candid, honest, nothing-held-back opinions for the next five years knowing that they can and will be splashed on the front page of every newspaper from here to Siberia? How the hell does this help foreign policy? 1) It's not just the bloody US 2) This is not a new phenomenon 3) Those examples you gave are moronic. Egocentric dictators never have been willing to come to the table without a show of some sort of force against them (not necessarily military) and Israeli-Palestinian peace is a pipe dream, it's been over 60 years and they are no closer than they were from the start.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Dec 10, 2010 2:00:53 GMT -5
That still leaves aside the real issue.. what if the government has been lying to it's people and doing things behind their backs? Does that countries reporters count as foreign agents? Would you place the Pentagon papers in the same category? And if not why not? Lets be honest, if this were N. Korea or China having it's documents leaked about how they are hurting people or telling lies, most here would probably not have a problem with it. Missing the real issue. Yes it is absolutely unlawful to steal state secrets and doing so should result in arrest and prosecution. What is not clear is whether or not it is illegal to publish such information. Wikileaks did NOT steal the information; it was given to them unsolicited. It is not clear if Wikileaks is guilty of anything at all under US law. Well, in New York Times Co. v. United States the Supreme Court ruled (in a series of concurring opinions) that the government could not prevent the New York Times from publishing the so-called "Pentagon Papers" that were leaked to them because the government failed to show that the publishing of such materials would cause "grave and irreparable" danger. On a side note, thanks to Wikileaks we know the kind of powerful hold Royal Dutch Shell has over the country of Nigeria: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying
|
|
|
Post by booley on Dec 10, 2010 2:16:59 GMT -5
... Missing the real issue. Yes it is absolutely unlawful to steal state secrets and doing so should result in arrest and prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 10, 2010 3:20:35 GMT -5
Norris, you're forgetting that there are a lot of journalists who don't really do much at all of what you mentioned. I mean, people who write for Fox News, The Daily Mail, and The National Enquirer are all journalists, after all.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Dec 10, 2010 4:11:42 GMT -5
Norris, you're forgetting that there are a lot of journalists who don't really do much at all of what you mentioned. I mean, people who write for Fox News, The Daily Mail, and The National Enquirer are all journalists, after all. well they call themselves that at any rate.
|
|