That is a court case.
I doubt that would be constitutional.
That's irrelevant really - certainly with regards to any punishment. Loads of stuff is unethical that happens all the time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Removes Unofficial WikiLeaks Application From App Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is a court case.
I doubt that would be constitutional.
That's irrelevant really - certainly with regards to any punishment. Loads of stuff is unethical that happens all the time.
First of all. Wikileaks is a new media organisation recognized by such authorities as United Nations. They've also received many journalistic awards. Therefore your argument is without merit.
Banc des Amerikas
Cant wait to the the Bank of America Wikileak.....
No that any level of greed, theft or evil doing would be News....
Cant wait to the the Bank of America Wikileak.....
No that any level of greed, theft or evil doing would be News....
WikiLeaks have been sourced by a large number of reliable sources, they are clearly journalists by any reasonable definition.
Death penalty by firing squad is certainly Constitutional in the US, and still allowed in some states I believe. According to wikipedia 3 people have died via firing squads since the death penalty was reinstated in the US.
Of course this is off point, my firing squad reference was simply to underline the seriousness of the charges/penalties this dude faces.
On the court case point, court martials are very different affairs, though it is not unlike a criminal court case in some ways.
Since this topic is more ethical than law in nature, and since peoples emotions are based on ethics here not on law (no one here is this upset over someone that speeds), certainly few if any of us are here because we want to discuss international law, than it is very relevant. We are here in such a debate because some of us think wikileaks did an "ethically correct" thing, and others think they did not. No one praises someone for following the law, they praise them for doing something above and beyond the ethical norm. Therefore to defend wikileaks on the basis of international law is the irrelevant discussion at this point. It's interesting, should be brought up, should be known by all parties, but we are to the point of discussing ethics now.
I missed the part in Con Law where the UN is the arbiter of American Constitutional freedoms.
Last edited by a moderator:
What I've saying is that the crime you are claiming he has done is rather far-fetched...
I doubt the basic principles of common law (innocent until proven guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt etc.) don't apply.
Seriously not (just) trying to bust you on this, but I don't understand your comment - the crime I claim he has done is far-fetched?
Seems pretty damn clear he stole documents as a US soldier from the US Department of Defense. Unless you're saying he actually owned them, or they weren't classified, or he had permission I'm not sure what part of my saying "he's in a hell of a lot of trouble" is far fetched...
I already said the firing squd reference was hyperbole, if that's what you mean.
actually ... it _did_ come from covert sources in iraq ..except that it were sources from the BND and not the CIA ... and since the BND shared data with the CIA ... the CIA forwarded the information from the BND without cross checking
and once the claims were proven to be fabricated... the US government still went through with the invasion
quote of the Day -- Fanned
Earendil Sez:
I have no problem with wikileaks finding and revealing documents that prove illegal action by the US Government, like a proper journalist with a sense of ethics and integrity. I have a huge problem with egomaniacs that don't care about people, or the results of their actions, and publishing hundreds of thousands of harmful never meant to be public documents.
I sey: 2X Quote of the day. Good Work! Fanned!
Earendil Sez:
I have no problem with wikileaks finding and revealing documents that prove illegal action by the US Government, like a proper journalist with a sense of ethics and integrity. I have a huge problem with egomaniacs that don't care about people, or the results of their actions, and publishing hundreds of thousands of harmful never meant to be public documents.
I sey: 2X Quote of the day. Good Work! Fanned!
Fair point.
Yeah, I meant that, sorry.
(Shakes hands and continues to civilly disagree.)
10,000 informants? Where did the hell did that come from?
The intelligence and reporting on the supposed wmds came from a very small group of people, whose sources were poorly vetted and serving their own political agendas. The intelligence fed off itself, the self fulfilling prophecy of an administration thirsty for war. We were fed a dumptruck of lies, and American contractors and corporate interests are laughing their way to the bank. Meanwhile we've contributed to the death of at least 2.5% of the Iraqi population and the destabilization of what was an unfree but relatively stable country.
Last edited:
still in denial I see? ... too hard to grasp that the US knows where they live? and too hard to understand them filling out a questionaire on the subject?
Iraq was stable were they? ... when you execute the National Soccer Team? ... pretty stable yes, as long as you are not on the team.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Some of the over-the-top patriotism in here is getting on my nerves. All I can say is that here in Australia where I live, Julian Assange is pretty much a hero and the cables have been a good laugh for people, especially the one about our former PM. IMO, the leaks have done nothing but EMBARRESS the US, the cables are nothing but top secret gossip.
Some of the over-the-top patriotism in here is getting on my nerves. All I can say is that here in Australia where I live, Julian Assange is pretty much a hero and the cables have been a good laugh for people, especially the one about our former PM. IMO, the leaks have done nothing but EMBARRESS the US, the cables are nothing but top secret gossip.
What the Hell?
Originally Posted by Apple OC :
The intelligence for WMD did not come from covert operations ... they came from information gathered from 10,000 Iraqi/Americans that had escaped Saddam's Murderous Regime.
Originally Posted by OutThere: 10,000 What the Hell?
Posted by louis Fashion: (who knows about such things)
The most significant "informants" were, in fact, sponsored disinformation agents planted by the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC, a darling of the Neo-Cons, had a vested interest in convincing the US to invade Iraq.
Geo Bush, et al believed the disinformation because he (they) wanted to.
Oh yes, they wanted so much to believe.
Sad but true.
__________________
Originally Posted by Apple OC :
The intelligence for WMD did not come from covert operations ... they came from information gathered from 10,000 Iraqi/Americans that had escaped Saddam's Murderous Regime.
Originally Posted by OutThere: 10,000 What the Hell?
Posted by louis Fashion: (who knows about such things)
The most significant "informants" were, in fact, sponsored disinformation agents planted by the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC, a darling of the Neo-Cons, had a vested interest in convincing the US to invade Iraq.
Geo Bush, et al believed the disinformation because he (they) wanted to.
Oh yes, they wanted so much to believe.
Sad but true.
__________________
Last edited:
Free speech? Free speech is not a defense for copying or distributing something that is not yours to begin with. Just stealing documents and publishing them does not constitute "speech".
He may have thought the US would lose the peace, but I highly doubt he seriously believed he'd win a war against the most powerful army on earth.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that the WMD information in Iraq came only from these thens of thousands of informants?
By the way, Mustard gas and weapons like them are not WMD's and would not produce the mushroom cloud smoking gun BS Bush was talking about. Don't try to shift goalposts here, especially when you weren't even the one who put them there in the first place.
Part of my post got clipped and I fixed itI had more to say. As louis Fashion posted above, the government and press were fed intentionally fed willful disinformation. They both saw that they were each coming to the same conclusions, and took that as a sign that their intelligence was accurate, rather than a sign that they were being played by their informants. This stuff is pretty well established at this point and made very clear in numerous well respected publications.
First of all we have establish that the purpose of Wikileaks is to distribute information. They don't serve a interest of any particular government or country. 1) Vast amount of the documents are about activities that can be used as part of wider journalistic investigation and can be seen as information that should fall within Freedom of Information Act. 2) On individual level the information is redacted. In regards of harming political image of many nations... Its happened and theres no end in sight. As said Wikileaks serves wider journalistic interest and information that sheds light into misconducts or general political activity or climate should be brought forward. 3) Wikileaks has released only small fraction of information that they have gathered. However I do agree that there is lack of journalistic analysis there. Important information is easily lost into some irrelevant chitchat. 4) I don't know, however in wider perspective its somewhat irrelevant. The important part is that also relevant information is released. However finding that information can be challenging.