Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
please note the posts i made which indicated to you that i am 'OK with this'.
for the record, i am not. but no government can operate with absolute openness. if you believe otherwise, kindly indicate which countries operate in such a fashion.
how am i being 'hysterical'? be precise in your answer.
are you aware that obama has condemned these releases? is he wrong for doing so?
Yes Obama is very wrong for condemning wikileaks because their job is to publish government secrecy of wrongdoing.
They are not American citizens who should be expected to have any ounce of loyalty to the USA.
Even if their leaks lead to the deaths of 20 or 30 informants ( which the military says is not happening) that could be totally offset by the fact thousands of young adults and innocent bystanders would not be killed by these senseless wars and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
There are many things that should be kept confidential.
Planned troop movements.
Military hardware capabilities.
pictures of dead or dying soldiers.
What should not and never should be kept secret is how our elected reps vote and on what.
Every vote should be published daily to include what pork was added to every bill and by who.
8 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or
PS - be very careful regarding what latitude the courts would afford a government argument that State Department cables are not part of the national defense.
I do believe that would certainly cover the helicopter attack video, what say you?
No journalist has EVER been prosecuted under this act. Bush tried it one time with AIPAC lobbyists no less, and was laughed out of court.
Last edited by padcrasher; 12-02-2010 at 06:53 PM..
Yes Obama is very wrong for condemning wikileaks because their job is to publish government secrecy of wrongdoing.
if that is the case, why is so much of what is being published not the least bit illegal - simply embarassing? i believe that is the true agenda.
Quote:
They are not American citizens who should be expected to have any ounce of loyalty to the USA.
true for julian assange - not the least bit true for the leaker, bradley whats-his-name.
Quote:
Even if their leaks lead to the deaths of 20 or 30 informants ( which the military says is not happening) that could be totally offset by the fact thousands of young adults and innocent bystanders would not be killed by these senseless wars and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
really.
so if many people die as a result of these leaks, you're actually OK with that on the incredibly facile basis that you believe this will in any way prevent future wars?
Less than half (40%) of those cables released were classified as confidential.
The other 60% were free fodder which many in the government ASSumed would not be made public for 25 years.
Lax government process for access to confidential documentation is at fault here.
Lax government process for classifying documents is at fault here.
Lax government oversight is at fault seeing this is the THIRD release of documents to wikileaks.
I guess you need to go back and read his/her deeply disturbing views on how a President has the right to assasinate a US citizen with no oversight whatsoever.
When it comes to civil liberties....it's pure 100% authoritarian...much like the fake libertarians of the GOP.
No journalist has EVER been prosecuted under this act.
There is a first time for everything, but that wasn't the main purpose of my post just your misrepresentation of the law.
Quote:
attained the skill to cut n paste some legal clause means nothing.
What a delightful, defensive, and ignorant thing to say.
When one "cuts and pastes" a relevant section of the law in question (I suppose I could have just typed it out) that clearly demonstrates that the law in question is rather broad in scope rather than narrow, as you insisted, it means just about everything.
Quote:
Bush tried it one time with AIPAC lobbyists no less, and was laughed out of court.
Laughed out of court? That would lead one to surmise that the case was dismissed with prejudice by the trial judge, which didn't happen. The case against the AIPAC defendants was dropped by the prosecution because of pre-trial rulings regarding two tests required in the law, an intent of spy, and the intent to cause harm, both of which the Justice department felt was a burden of proof that they could not overcome at trial.
PS - Padcrasher, I always find it helpful to check my opinions against fact before posting, because it is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and removing all doubt. Perhaps you should do the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
