Reasons To Be Cheerful - Part Whatever
ChatterBank1 min ago
Is the Wikileaks website doing anything illegal?
Apparently the owner of the Wikileaks website is worried that America will attempt ro extradite him from Sweden if he is initially extradited there from Britain. Is the Wikileaks website actually doing anything illegal, or is it just showing the public information that America and other powers that be, would rather that the public did not have access to?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm sure that the legal arguments are being thrashed back and forth by those who know the law more completely, however, my understanding of the situation is;
Assange and/or his company were passed 'classified/secret' (but to what degree is debateable) information and they are publishing it.
Apparently, it is an offence to retain this information and an offence to destroy it, so they have published it, instead.
Naturally, the USA wish to decredit Wikileaks and whistle-blowers and seem to make legislation in reaction to events.................
The Americans are just miffed because the rest of the world can now read in quite how much contempt it is held by USA.
Assange and/or his company were passed 'classified/secret' (but to what degree is debateable) information and they are publishing it.
Apparently, it is an offence to retain this information and an offence to destroy it, so they have published it, instead.
Naturally, the USA wish to decredit Wikileaks and whistle-blowers and seem to make legislation in reaction to events.................
The Americans are just miffed because the rest of the world can now read in quite how much contempt it is held by USA.
An awful lot of it is simply diplomatic tittle-tattle.
What the French Embassador said to the Germal Embassador about what the ritish Embassador thought might happen etc.
The point is that it was supposedly secret and has now come out because the US authorities got careless with who it gave access to.
So they are embarassing the US with that and the fact that they are still live and still publishing despite the best efforts of the US is embarassing them even more.
If they are breaking laws they are just minor ones like breach of copyright etc. After all they've not signed any official secrets acts themselves - they'e not American.
Imagine if a British citizen was being hunted down by say the Saudi authorities for publishing leaked Saudi intelligence in such a way.
I think people would see it somewhat more sympathetically don't you?
Certain regular posters on here would be hailing them as a national hero
What the French Embassador said to the Germal Embassador about what the ritish Embassador thought might happen etc.
The point is that it was supposedly secret and has now come out because the US authorities got careless with who it gave access to.
So they are embarassing the US with that and the fact that they are still live and still publishing despite the best efforts of the US is embarassing them even more.
If they are breaking laws they are just minor ones like breach of copyright etc. After all they've not signed any official secrets acts themselves - they'e not American.
Imagine if a British citizen was being hunted down by say the Saudi authorities for publishing leaked Saudi intelligence in such a way.
I think people would see it somewhat more sympathetically don't you?
Certain regular posters on here would be hailing them as a national hero
The point about "leaks" is that they involve bringing out into the open what someone has up to then intended only to be known and recorded by a very select band of people/institutions - in other words it is "privileged information". The simple fact is that all such information includes (but is not limited to) something the knowledge of which gives the holder some advantage over others or a situation in some way (but sometimes it is simply tittle-tattle). Some privileged information will include a record of things that amount to a breach of law or at least dishonest behaviour. When priveleged information is spilled into the open, it is unsurprising for those whose position has been compromised, including the former keepers of it, to react with moral indignation, anger or worse.
It has been claimed that this batch of leaks has compromised safety of people. Wikileaks say they have carefully screened the material to avoid any risk and that they have also invited the US Government and others to prior to publication comment on the edited versions of the documents.
I am a strong supporter of freedom of expression but if I had discussed with someone that I had been unfaithful to my wife, and then somehow a tape of that conversation and other conversations of mine was about to be made public then I think I would quite possibly try to prevent it, I might even say it put me in danger but whatever my discomfort, it would be hypocritical to insist that whoever published it should be jailed for that as a crime. I could perhaps take out a civil complaint against the person with whom I had the conversation for not guarding his tape better, but that would be all (and I doubt it would get far).
Some of the indignant outpouring has basically been based on "tradition", old fashioned concepts of state secrets, gentlemanly conduct, etc., much or all of which was always a bit selective and nebulous (in the mind) and is n
It has been claimed that this batch of leaks has compromised safety of people. Wikileaks say they have carefully screened the material to avoid any risk and that they have also invited the US Government and others to prior to publication comment on the edited versions of the documents.
I am a strong supporter of freedom of expression but if I had discussed with someone that I had been unfaithful to my wife, and then somehow a tape of that conversation and other conversations of mine was about to be made public then I think I would quite possibly try to prevent it, I might even say it put me in danger but whatever my discomfort, it would be hypocritical to insist that whoever published it should be jailed for that as a crime. I could perhaps take out a civil complaint against the person with whom I had the conversation for not guarding his tape better, but that would be all (and I doubt it would get far).
Some of the indignant outpouring has basically been based on "tradition", old fashioned concepts of state secrets, gentlemanly conduct, etc., much or all of which was always a bit selective and nebulous (in the mind) and is n
....and is now mostly history. I suspect that in a decade or two we will look back and smile thinking that we went through a period when a few totems/shibboleths (and indivisdual positions) bit the dust and a new order of sorts was established. In the process there will be confrontations and we will be interested in the arguments put forward. Total transparency in international relations and politics in general (and pretty much all of life) seems most unlikely to make the skies fall in, but there are those who think otherwise. In the process there will be confrontations and we will be interested in the arguments put forward. The US and others will harp on about their fight for and support of freedoms which they then speak and act contrary to whenever those very freedoms give rise to their discomfort. Some want not only to maintain a privileged position but also have their cake and eat it too.
If they had stolen or taken the information themselves they would be in a very different position. As it is, the providers are anonymous 'whistle-blowers'. So WL maintain they have not broken the law. All will be revealed if USA issue a warrant .. what it alleges.
The Swedish allegations are feeble to say the least.
The Swedish allegations are feeble to say the least.
Exactly, Boxtops, the material was stolen, so Assange is a 'fence' at the very least. As I understand it, Private Bradley Manning - a serving US soldier who had presumably taken an oath of loyalty and was subject to the American equivalent of our Official Secrets Act - simply helped himself to the information whilst working in Iraq and passed it on to someone he knew would be a willing recipient. It is alleged that he claimed he had found, "incredible, awful things that belonged in the public domain."
By what right did HE come to that conclusion? In addition, there is some suggestion that Assange may have played a more direct role than that described above by telling Manning how best to go about his theft.
As Karl's reply above suggests, we can take this to a personal level, so, let me raise again a point I made in another recent thread and which no one actually responded directly to.
Imagine you and I share the same accountant and his secretary dislikes you and realises I am a known troublemaker. Now, suppose she encloses details about YOUR financial shenanigans in a letter to ME. Am I now at liberty to "leak" details of those to the local press and pass on rumours of them to everyone I talk to in the local pubs just because SHE and I think they belong in the public domain?
Since so little detail has been revealed - as far as I know - about the Swedish sexual crime allegations, I think it would be unwise to dismiss them out of hand. If Assange is innocent of those, why does he not willingly go to Sweden to defend his name? Given Sweden's long-term neutrality and our supposed closeness to the USA, I should have thought he would more probably be just "handed over" to the Yanks for extradition by US
Assange is NOT the Messiah...he's a very naughty boy!!
By what right did HE come to that conclusion? In addition, there is some suggestion that Assange may have played a more direct role than that described above by telling Manning how best to go about his theft.
As Karl's reply above suggests, we can take this to a personal level, so, let me raise again a point I made in another recent thread and which no one actually responded directly to.
Imagine you and I share the same accountant and his secretary dislikes you and realises I am a known troublemaker. Now, suppose she encloses details about YOUR financial shenanigans in a letter to ME. Am I now at liberty to "leak" details of those to the local press and pass on rumours of them to everyone I talk to in the local pubs just because SHE and I think they belong in the public domain?
Since so little detail has been revealed - as far as I know - about the Swedish sexual crime allegations, I think it would be unwise to dismiss them out of hand. If Assange is innocent of those, why does he not willingly go to Sweden to defend his name? Given Sweden's long-term neutrality and our supposed closeness to the USA, I should have thought he would more probably be just "handed over" to the Yanks for extradition by US
Assange is NOT the Messiah...he's a very naughty boy!!
The angle our infamous government would take against Assange is that he engaged in "conspiracy"... seems most of the data in the recent releases came from a soldier of very low rank that had access to most of the information, who, supposedly released it to Assange. Problem is, no one other than those in government really believe all of this came from the lowly PFC. The real scandal is that the information was so readily accessed. Shows, in my opinion, how poor a lot of Agencies are able to keep the data secure.
Opinion is split but most citizens polled here seem to favor some sort of prosecution... but I find my self in the other camp saying "Who's the real culprit?"
Opinion is split but most citizens polled here seem to favor some sort of prosecution... but I find my self in the other camp saying "Who's the real culprit?"
QM - your analogy doesn't work since you aren't really that important.To make your analogy more accurate, I would need to be in a position of power (lets say the partner of a major firm of Solicitors) and the secretary comes upon thousands of memo's between Judges, Police inspectors etc who all question my integrity and put in writing between each other that I have been guilty of malpractice. Would it then be in 'best interest' to pass that information on?
Regarding Wikileaks:
Is it important to know that the foreign office were going to deliberately mislead parliament over Cluster Bombs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11894759
Is it important to know that one of our 'allies' is breaking the law by spying on the United Nations?
Is it important to know that Col Gadaffi seems to actually have been responsible for the Lockerbie Bomber being released.
Is it important to know that a private in the army has access to all of this information...
Regarding Wikileaks:
Is it important to know that the foreign office were going to deliberately mislead parliament over Cluster Bombs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11894759
Is it important to know that one of our 'allies' is breaking the law by spying on the United Nations?
Is it important to know that Col Gadaffi seems to actually have been responsible for the Lockerbie Bomber being released.
Is it important to know that a private in the army has access to all of this information...
If I somehow found out that an official arranged to spend tax revenue in contravention of the financial rules of the country; If I found out that a company hired an ex-employee of another in order to obtain trade information from inside the other firm; If I found out that the Government was hiding/obscuring details of something in order to avoid being judged by the electorate for its conduct; If I found out that a preacher had misappropriated his congregation's funds; If I found out that someone was doing business with Mugabe to siphon off the wealth of his country; no matter how I came by that information I would feel entirely at liberty to disclose it to all and sundry. That would include had I come across a document blowing in the wind, being Mr.Smith's bank statement or if it was a love note of his to his cleaning lady. There is likely to be more interest in some information than other. Should I choose to be involved in the publication of any of that, then I would naturally realise that the parties concerned might disapprove, even if I advised them in advance of my intentions. Had I committed a burglary to obtain the publkished information then the burglary would be a crime, but the publication is a separate act. In particular, one should not mix in moral judgement when considering questions of criminal liability. If there is no crime then any dispute is merely a civil matter, one of personal stance and grievance.
Oneeyedvic, I tried to bring matters down to a local/personal level for you, the possible baddie, and me, the possible whistleblower, but you respond by saying that it must all be blown up into a a vast and wide-ranging situation. That hardly answers the point, does it? Please tell me the answer to the question I put in Para 3 as if I WERE "really that (locally)important".
Karl, the majority of "ifs" in your 1623 posting involve CRIMES, so I would have no objection to your being a whistle-blower on them. However, was it a crime for the head of the Bank of England to say Cameron and Osborne were "shallow"? I think not...indeed, extremely accurate! However was it necessary for that opinion to be released into the public domain and, if so, for what reason other than pure mischief?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.