3 ms·

Wait, at what point did releasing classified information, treason, become something worth supporting? Edit: I love it. Downvoted. Information is classified

by TGJ 16y ago

Wait, at what point did releasing classified information, treason, become something worth supporting? Edit: I love it. Downvoted. Information is classified for many reasons. Some of which are because some information may help the US's enemies. That is treason. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. You only know now that the information released was not of high caliber. You only know that after 1 man decided to release these documents. If this 1 man decides to continue to release information, one day he may release something more substantial that could actually harm the US. You downvote me for what? Because you don't agree that it's treason? Or you simply support someone releasing classified information. You don't get to break the law and then later claim that it's not that bad. He broke. the. law.

FluidDjango 16y ago
I'll agree that embarrassing information was released. But I think the allegation of "eleasing classified information, treason..." needs to be proven ( at least better evidenced ) before suppression by governmental (quasi-governmental?) retaliation.
- TGJ 16y ago
  See, it's only with hindsight that you get to know that it was simply embarrassing information. Before it was released, it could have been a myriad of things all of which could have easily been treason because it may have aided our enemies.
jacquesm 16y ago
For something to be treason you have to meet certain criteria, wikileaks meets just about 0 of those.
gloob 16y ago
Not everyone is American. Not everyone is bound by American law.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  American law has not been broken by Wikileaks. There are some ignorant politicians beating their chests about charging Wikileaks with "espionage", etc. but no charges have been filed, and the people calling for such charges are, frankly, idiots. If Sarah Palin is the banner-holder for a cause, the cause is probably based on ignorance and fear. What Wikileaks does is protected free speech in the United States. What some of their sources do or have done, might be illegal.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nphase 16y ago
"When as a country did we become a place where the government gets upset when its secrets are revealed but has no problem knowing all our secrets and invading our privacy?" http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-the-government-would-earn-more-of-our-trust-if-it-invaded-our-privacy-less-20101202 http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-th...
MoreMoschops 16y ago
"Treason" is not the same as "wrong".
fooandbarify 16y ago
To a certain extent, I actually agree with your point. I think it is important for governments to be able to operate within varying degrees of secrecy, and I think that despite Assange's insistence to the contrary, some of the Wikileaks documents place "innocent" civilians in serious danger. My counterpoint is twofold: maintaining secrecy and security is the responsibility of the government(s) involved. Chasing Wikileaks after the fact and twisting the arms of those they do business with only lends credence to the fact that the parties involved failed to protect classified information. If Wikileaks was able to get it, so would anyone bent on causing harm. The mere fact that Wikileaks released it exposes serious security flaws. Punishing them for that is akin to punishing hackers who expose a Windows vulnerability instead of selling it to the highest bidder - enormously foolish in my opinion. The second counterpoint is maybe more important: the fact that the US government chooses to silence Wikileaks by making them the pariah of internet business sets an extremely poor precedent, should the internet allow them to succeed. I think most HN users agree that net neutrality is a good, important thing. I suspect most of us agree that internet censorship on the scale of the Chinese firewall is damaging. (Note: I and probably many others agree that things like child porn are a good thing to try to keep off the internet, and the distinction in my opinion is that society has a responsibility to protect children as much as we can.) So then why would we allow government and big business to shut down a website that is holding them up to a journalistic standard they aren't used to?
- phamilton 16y ago
  Here's my assumption: Somebody released classified information. Somebody committed treason, violated their oaths, etc. Assange most likely was not the one. There is nothing wrong with Wikileaks, but I find it to be wrong that somebody leaked classified documents. Supporting Wikileaks is not wrong directly, but sites like Wikileaks provide incentive to those with classified information to leak it. That is not something I want to see happen.
  - fooandbarify 16y ago
    I find it to be wrong that somebody leaked classified documents. I think it's more complicated than that. "Following orders" is not an acceptable defense, and for that reason I think leaking classified documents is not only sometimes justifiable but that it is sometimes an absolute necessity (ie. in the case where classified documents are the only evidence of a crime). Most of the time, though, you're probably right - classified documents should remain secure. Sites like Wikileaks provide incentive to those with classified information to leak it. Part of my point in the previous post was that if there is a weak point in an organization, there will be a leak. I think there is enough incentive for information leaks without Wikileaks - I have no source for this but I suspect that the diplomatic cables alone would have been worth millions in the black market before the leak. Wikileaks is actually one of the safest places for this information to go.
steveklabnik 16y ago
Since I was one of the downvoters, I'll explain: he did not break the law, I don't think anyone has committed treason in these little kerfluffles, and furthermore, I don't think "he broke a law" is a good argument to not show support. Legality != morality.
- rprasad 16y ago
  Assange is not American. Thus he is not bound by American laws. This does not change the legality of the acts in regards to the American citizens who leaked the information to him. Some of those acts were criminal, some were not. Some were (non-criminal) violations of contracts they signed with their employer or as a condition of their security clearance. New details keep coming out every day. It's too early to say with any authority what happened.
tdfx 16y ago
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

by TGJ 16y ago

FluidDjango 16y ago

I'll agree that embarrassing information was released. But I think the allegation of "eleasing classified information, treason..." needs to be proven ( at least better evidenced ) before suppression by governmental (quasi-governmental?) retaliation.

TGJ 16y ago
See, it's only with hindsight that you get to know that it was simply embarrassing information. Before it was released, it could have been a myriad of things all of which could have easily been treason because it may have aided our enemies.

jacquesm 16y ago

For something to be treason you have to meet certain criteria, wikileaks meets just about 0 of those.

gloob 16y ago

Not everyone is American. Not everyone is bound by American law.

SwellJoe 16y ago
American law has not been broken by Wikileaks. There are some ignorant politicians beating their chests about charging Wikileaks with "espionage", etc. but no charges have been filed, and the people calling for such charges are, frankly, idiots. If Sarah Palin is the banner-holder for a cause, the cause is probably based on ignorance and fear. What Wikileaks does is protected free speech in the United States. What some of their sources do or have done, might be illegal.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nphase 16y ago

"When as a country did we become a place where the government gets upset when its secrets are revealed but has no problem knowing all our secrets and invading our privacy?" http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-the-government-would-earn-more-of-our-trust-if-it-invaded-our-privacy-less-20101202 http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-th...

MoreMoschops 16y ago

"Treason" is not the same as "wrong".

fooandbarify 16y ago

To a certain extent, I actually agree with your point. I think it is important for governments to be able to operate within varying degrees of secrecy, and I think that despite Assange's insistence to the contrary, some of the Wikileaks documents place "innocent" civilians in serious danger. My counterpoint is twofold: maintaining secrecy and security is the responsibility of the government(s) involved. Chasing Wikileaks after the fact and twisting the arms of those they do business with only lends credence to the fact that the parties involved failed to protect classified information. If Wikileaks was able to get it, so would anyone bent on causing harm. The mere fact that Wikileaks released it exposes serious security flaws. Punishing them for that is akin to punishing hackers who expose a Windows vulnerability instead of selling it to the highest bidder - enormously foolish in my opinion. The second counterpoint is maybe more important: the fact that the US government chooses to silence Wikileaks by making them the pariah of internet business sets an extremely poor precedent, should the internet allow them to succeed. I think most HN users agree that net neutrality is a good, important thing. I suspect most of us agree that internet censorship on the scale of the Chinese firewall is damaging. (Note: I and probably many others agree that things like child porn are a good thing to try to keep off the internet, and the distinction in my opinion is that society has a responsibility to protect children as much as we can.) So then why would we allow government and big business to shut down a website that is holding them up to a journalistic standard they aren't used to?

phamilton 16y ago
Here's my assumption: Somebody released classified information. Somebody committed treason, violated their oaths, etc. Assange most likely was not the one. There is nothing wrong with Wikileaks, but I find it to be wrong that somebody leaked classified documents. Supporting Wikileaks is not wrong directly, but sites like Wikileaks provide incentive to those with classified information to leak it. That is not something I want to see happen.
- fooandbarify 16y ago
  I find it to be wrong that somebody leaked classified documents. I think it's more complicated than that. "Following orders" is not an acceptable defense, and for that reason I think leaking classified documents is not only sometimes justifiable but that it is sometimes an absolute necessity (ie. in the case where classified documents are the only evidence of a crime). Most of the time, though, you're probably right - classified documents should remain secure. Sites like Wikileaks provide incentive to those with classified information to leak it. Part of my point in the previous post was that if there is a weak point in an organization, there will be a leak. I think there is enough incentive for information leaks without Wikileaks - I have no source for this but I suspect that the diplomatic cables alone would have been worth millions in the black market before the leak. Wikileaks is actually one of the safest places for this information to go.

steveklabnik 16y ago

Since I was one of the downvoters, I'll explain: he did not break the law, I don't think anyone has committed treason in these little kerfluffles, and furthermore, I don't think "he broke a law" is a good argument to not show support. Legality != morality.

rprasad 16y ago
Assange is not American. Thus he is not bound by American laws. This does not change the legality of the acts in regards to the American citizens who leaked the information to him. Some of those acts were criminal, some were not. Some were (non-criminal) violations of contracts they signed with their employer or as a condition of their security clearance. New details keep coming out every day. It's too early to say with any authority what happened.

tdfx 16y ago

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."