4 ms·

The "truth" has limits on publication: privacy, confidentiality, privilege, security, etc. Just because something is the truth, does not mean it is right to p

The "truth" has limits on publication: privacy, confidentiality, privilege, security, etc. Just because something is the truth, does not mean it is right to publish it. Assange is not a whistle blower. He is not exposing any misrepresentations or cover-up. He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal.

jacquesm 16y ago
Oversimplification does not benefit anybody. > He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal. Assuming he is - which I really think misses the point - by what law is this criminal ? He's not an American citizen, nor is he in America. Why do you feel this is criminal ? Do you think it would it be criminal if an American did it ?
- nhangen 16y ago
  In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility. If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow. There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies. The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such. Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.
    - nhangen 16y ago
      I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today. The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into heroes. Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people that manage it. It's meant to prevent government censorship. And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        > but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies. I don't subscribe to your fear, or to your suggestion that we have a common enemy.
      - nhangen 16y ago
        I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I've met them. They don't like us.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        > I'm referring to enemies of the West. Oh my! > If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I guess I will have to take your word for it. > I've met them. In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ? > They don't like us. Did they specify any reasons ?
        nhangen 16y ago
        When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.
- joshuaheard 16y ago
  It is criminal in the general sense. He will be prosecuted for violating any statutes if there is jurisdiction. I don't see how I oversimplified; truth has limits, so you can "shoot the messenger". Truth is not a defense if you exceed the limits I mention.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 16y ago

Oversimplification does not benefit anybody. > He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal. Assuming he is - which I really think misses the point - by what law is this criminal ? He's not an American citizen, nor is he in America. Why do you feel this is criminal ? Do you think it would it be criminal if an American did it ?

nhangen 16y ago
In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility. If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow. There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies. The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such. Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.
  - nhangen 16y ago
    I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today. The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into heroes. Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people that manage it. It's meant to prevent government censorship. And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies. I don't subscribe to your fear, or to your suggestion that we have a common enemy.
    - nhangen 16y ago
      I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I've met them. They don't like us.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        > I'm referring to enemies of the West. Oh my! > If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I guess I will have to take your word for it. > I've met them. In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ? > They don't like us. Did they specify any reasons ?
        nhangen 16y ago
        When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.
joshuaheard 16y ago
It is criminal in the general sense. He will be prosecuted for violating any statutes if there is jurisdiction. I don't see how I oversimplified; truth has limits, so you can "shoot the messenger". Truth is not a defense if you exceed the limits I mention.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]