4 ms·

Intent matters. Wikileaks was explicit about publishing the documents to document US war crimes and war crimes were indeed documented. The Pentagon Papers were

Intent matters. Wikileaks was explicit about publishing the documents to document US war crimes and war crimes were indeed documented. The Pentagon Papers were 4,100 pages. Not every single one of them was individually proof of a war crime. Imagine the US government sued Daniel Ellsberg for the publication of all the parts of the papers that didn't explicitly prove war crimes, but skipped the bits that proved them - that's the equivalent of what is happening here.

slg 6y ago
Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. They have published countless leaks that have nothing to do with war crimes. Hypothetically let's imagine a scenario in which someone was able to get their hands on every single state secret the US had and published them all. Should that be protected as long as a single misdeed was revealed? Assange defenders seem to often point to his good deeds as an excuse to ignore his misdeeds. The law doesn't and shouldn't work like that.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. That is your opinion but its not the truth. Wikileaks own manifesto states: WikiLeaks is a multi-national media organization and associated library. It was founded by its publisher Julian Assange in 2006. WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses. War, spying and corruption. And, that is precisely what it has done: exposed war, spying and corruption. But those aren't the only things governments want kept secret.
  - slg 6y ago
    The comment I was responding to said their intent was to reveal war crimes. Spying and corruption are not war crimes. Corruption is an incredibly vague term that Wikileaks can and has used to publish almost whatever they want. It is also worth noting that revealing war crimes, spying, and corruption is possible with a more targeted approach rather than Wikileaks approach of publishing large batches of semi-related documents. This shotgun approach seems to be done in service of overall transparency rather than revealing the specific wrongdoings that Wikileaks claims it is against. Hence my comment that they seem to care more about revealing secrets in general than specifically war crimes.
    - fit2rule 6y ago
      Show me anything that Wikileaks released that did not, in some way, involve either a) a war crime, b) corruption, or c) spying. Wikileaks is not a judiciary body. It never had any intention other than to provide an ill-informed public (remember, the Iraq war was predicated on a lie) with enough data to make its own conclusion. Your authoritarian stance that only the government can decide its own secrets is fundamentally corrupt to the idea of a free, open society.
      - slg 6y ago
        https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=lunch https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=lunch Also you are reading a lot into my comments. I have never said anything approaching "only the government can decide its own secrets". My belief is simply that secrets are not inherently bad. Revealing a state secret should only be done when the person publishing that information can point to a public good that will result from that information being revealed. How does knowing lunch orders from random DNC employees help reveal war crimes, corruption, or spying?
        fit2rule 6y ago
        The corruption of the DNC is a very real thing. >How does knowing lunch orders from random DNC employees help reveal war crimes, corruption, or spying? Right, corruption never happens during lunchtime.
zerocrates 6y ago
The government did prosecute Ellsberg under the Espionage Act. The case was dismissed largely due to prosecutorial misconduct on the government's part, in particular apparently illegal wiretaps of Ellsberg, the records of which had "disappeared." The famous case that got decided on its merits around the Pentagon Papers was the case against the New York Times and Washington Post, and even that only really narrowly deals with prior restraint and not the actual right to publish the documents (so it left the door open to just prosecuting them after the fact). Popular opinion is in Ellsberg's corner but the law itself is much trickier. It's another of those things that are often being revealed nowadays as things people believe are bedrock principles of American law that are really more of "conventions," things that just aren't done, until they are. Assange is an even more interesting case, since his position really puts him more in the position of the Times or Post as a publisher. My recollection is that to a significant extent the case hinges upon characterizing his actions as being more of an active participant in the leaking to try to sidestep the freedom of the press issue to some extent.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >The government did prosecute Ellsberg under the Espionage Act Right. I was trying emphasize the "all the parts of the papers that didn't explicitly prove war crimes, but skipped the bits that proved them" part. In other words, once you remove the known-bad bits then what is left seems innocuous and so it's much harder to prove that a specific leak was a "good" thing. The intent here seems clear: the US wants to ensure Wikileaks isn't allowed to talk about the actual evidence of warcrimes at the trial. They will claim that because Wikileaks isn't being charged with leaking THOSE documents, they are not relevant.

slg 6y ago

Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. They have published countless leaks that have nothing to do with war crimes. Hypothetically let's imagine a scenario in which someone was able to get their hands on every single state secret the US had and published them all. Should that be protected as long as a single misdeed was revealed? Assange defenders seem to often point to his good deeds as an excuse to ignore his misdeeds. The law doesn't and shouldn't work like that.

fit2rule 6y ago
>Wikileaks intent was not to document war crimes, it was seemingly to reveal all state secrets. That is your opinion but its not the truth. Wikileaks own manifesto states: WikiLeaks is a multi-national media organization and associated library. It was founded by its publisher Julian Assange in 2006. WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses. War, spying and corruption. And, that is precisely what it has done: exposed war, spying and corruption. But those aren't the only things governments want kept secret.
- slg 6y ago
  The comment I was responding to said their intent was to reveal war crimes. Spying and corruption are not war crimes. Corruption is an incredibly vague term that Wikileaks can and has used to publish almost whatever they want. It is also worth noting that revealing war crimes, spying, and corruption is possible with a more targeted approach rather than Wikileaks approach of publishing large batches of semi-related documents. This shotgun approach seems to be done in service of overall transparency rather than revealing the specific wrongdoings that Wikileaks claims it is against. Hence my comment that they seem to care more about revealing secrets in general than specifically war crimes.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Show me anything that Wikileaks released that did not, in some way, involve either a) a war crime, b) corruption, or c) spying. Wikileaks is not a judiciary body. It never had any intention other than to provide an ill-informed public (remember, the Iraq war was predicated on a lie) with enough data to make its own conclusion. Your authoritarian stance that only the government can decide its own secrets is fundamentally corrupt to the idea of a free, open society.
    - slg 6y ago
      https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=lunch https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=lunch Also you are reading a lot into my comments. I have never said anything approaching "only the government can decide its own secrets". My belief is simply that secrets are not inherently bad. Revealing a state secret should only be done when the person publishing that information can point to a public good that will result from that information being revealed. How does knowing lunch orders from random DNC employees help reveal war crimes, corruption, or spying?
      - fit2rule 6y ago
        The corruption of the DNC is a very real thing. >How does knowing lunch orders from random DNC employees help reveal war crimes, corruption, or spying? Right, corruption never happens during lunchtime.

zerocrates 6y ago

The government did prosecute Ellsberg under the Espionage Act. The case was dismissed largely due to prosecutorial misconduct on the government's part, in particular apparently illegal wiretaps of Ellsberg, the records of which had "disappeared." The famous case that got decided on its merits around the Pentagon Papers was the case against the New York Times and Washington Post, and even that only really narrowly deals with prior restraint and not the actual right to publish the documents (so it left the door open to just prosecuting them after the fact). Popular opinion is in Ellsberg's corner but the law itself is much trickier. It's another of those things that are often being revealed nowadays as things people believe are bedrock principles of American law that are really more of "conventions," things that just aren't done, until they are. Assange is an even more interesting case, since his position really puts him more in the position of the Times or Post as a publisher. My recollection is that to a significant extent the case hinges upon characterizing his actions as being more of an active participant in the leaking to try to sidestep the freedom of the press issue to some extent.

alasdair_ 6y ago
>The government did prosecute Ellsberg under the Espionage Act Right. I was trying emphasize the "all the parts of the papers that didn't explicitly prove war crimes, but skipped the bits that proved them" part. In other words, once you remove the known-bad bits then what is left seems innocuous and so it's much harder to prove that a specific leak was a "good" thing. The intent here seems clear: the US wants to ensure Wikileaks isn't allowed to talk about the actual evidence of warcrimes at the trial. They will claim that because Wikileaks isn't being charged with leaking THOSE documents, they are not relevant.