right-wing fanatic Marc Thiessen: WikiLeaks must be stopped

[..]

Seems like some right-wingers can't tolerate free speech or freedom of info.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080202627.html

Since this board has a slight right-wing / cons slant, I'd be interested to know: Do you agree with Marc Thiessen or do you see a benefit of having Wikileaks?

[charlestudor2005]

Well, I'm a self-avowed liberal. But let's start with the premise that there are limits on free speech. As one of our Supreme Court justices wrote (Cardozo, I think), freedom of speech does not give one license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The question now becomes: did Wikileaks cross the boundary so well described above? And, I think the answer is maybe.

With this kind of knowledge comes responsibility. I think if you are going to release the information, you have some duty to conceal the identities of the people who might be killed because of your release. If you don't do that, then you have acted recklessly and abrogated your responsibility. But to call someone a terrorist just because they act recklessly...I don't think so.

And to call them criminals, I think, pushes the envelope. First of all, a criminal act must be done with intent. And although Wikileaks clearly intended to release the docs, I don't think it is clear they intended to commit a criminal act.

And to take the position that we should indict and extradite the leader is absurd. First of all, I don't think any conduct that Wikileaks engaged in occurred on US soil, which makes jurisdiction a real issue. Second, we can't even extradite Roman Polanski who was actually convicted of a crime on US soil, so how do we think we can extradite Assange? And third, I think the nations involved would not bow to pressure from the US.

In the end, I think the lessons are twofold: (1) keep classified material secure (after all, this is a DoD breach, not anyone else, especially Wikileaks), and (2) when something like this happens, don't scream and shout; it only draws attention. Let it die a natural death in the next news cycle.

[Rudyard K]

Our civil judicial world tries to make every dispute a zero sum game. In the criminal judicial world, that is not the case (or at least it shouldn’t be).

For instance, a young gal, who is dressed provocatively, goes to a night club and spends the evening laughing and cavorting with some celebrity sports people. She is invited, and accepts, to go back and continue the party with one of them back at his hotel room. They arrive there, have a few more drinks, some heavy petting ensues…at which point she decides she needs to go home. The sports celebrity is having none of that, and forces himself upon her.

Does the young lady have any fault in this encounter? Of course she does. She is guilty of a lot of stupidity, at worst being a tease, or at best naivety. In the civil world…that stupidity or naivety or teasing probably has some bearing on the allocation of fault. As such, her allocation of fault…and the celebrity’s allocation of fault…add up to 100% of the fault of the bad outcome of the encounter. A zero sum game.

However, in the criminal world, the fault lays 100% in the celebrity’s court for the violation…or at least it should. A sometimes leads to B, which sometimes leads to C, which sometimes leads to D. But D is the criminal act and it is the perpetrator of that criminal act who should shoulder the responsibility for 100% of the criminal act…at least in my opinion. He is entitled to defend himself to the validity of her claim…but if proven, he shoulders 100% of the guilt and fault of the criminal act.

This guy committed the criminal act, and I would pursue him to the four corners of the earth. I have no idea whether extradition would occur, but such wonderment would not dissuade me from the pursuit. DOD of course should also be held responsible for its dereliction of duty…a duty to all of us to protect such things. But such dereliction does not…even 1/10th of 1%...diminish the criminal act committed by this guy. It ain’t a zero sum game.

[Guest052115-1]

It is one thing to whistle blow if an injustice has happened - Abu Ghraib is a good example – but it is another to leak confidential material that involves strategy, diplomacy, tactics and on-the-ground actions. This is not information that citizens are pushing to know or in most cases have the right to know.

That being said, Wikileaks isn't the problem. The problem is the person/people who gave the Wikileaks the materials. I realize that Wikileaks isn't The New York Times, but the Times wasn't shut down when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg was responsible and thus charged and unsuccessfully tired. The person who leaked this should be given a fair trial and hopefully convicted of high treason.

Thiessen makes the argument that Wikileaks isn't a news organization. In this day in age I get my news from a ton of places - TV, web sites, blogs, magazines, newspapers, etc etc. So, I think Thiessen's premise is flawed.

[WTF]

I say freedom of the press should trump everything. If not you give the government to much power. The fault does not lie with the press, it lies with the government and the government is ultimately you and I. The guy was given information, he did not break into someplace and steal it. I understand the private that supposedly gave it to him is in the brig.

Originally Posted by Stick1969

This is not information that citizens are pushing to know or in most cases have the right to know.

I have a right to know if my government is lying to me. That is why we have a free press. If not Fox News would be shut down after the election. MSNBC would have had a tough go with the GOP in power. I want freedom of the press above all. The private that leaked this information and Scooter Libby should recieve the exact same punishment for leaking this information. A reporter has to make a judgement on whether or not it is credible. Him/her being proscuted for publishing should not factor into that thought process.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

MSNBC would have had a tough go with the GOP in power.

MSNBC is such a PoS they are having a tough go with the Dems in power. And thats there team.

I agree with WTF (damn, that doesn't sound right.) Freedom of press (all press including blogs etc.) is key to keeping government in check. Wikileaks didnt commit a crime -- that useless private did and he should be fried for war time treason.

However, I would like to see news outlets exercise some intelligence in their pursuit of government truth.

[Guest052115-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

I have a right to know if my government is lying to me.

I would normally agree with you, but I believe that when it exposes military tactics and objectives I don't think you do have that right. By leaking these documents we could very easily be compromising our troops even more.

[oden]

Leak to the Taliban that Assange is bi, carries a cartoon effigy of Mohamed in his wallet and uses a Koran as a coaster for his nightcap.

[discreetgent]

When the NYT published the material they also published a note from the editor on what material they did not publish. They did try to strike a balance; not sure if Wikileaks did as well. For the most part the US press (right wing, left wing, any wing) does understand that publishing troop movements, etc is not a good thing and avoids doing so. I'm sure things like that have been published but it is rather rare.

As for the rest, the courts have ruled that publishing the material is protected by the First Amendment. Only person government can go after is the person who leaked the material in the first place.

[..]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

When the NYT published the material they also published a note from the editor on what material they did not publish. They did try to strike a balance; not sure if Wikileaks did as well.

The release was a joint effort between Wikileaks, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and The NYT; with each doing of them doing independent analysis of the material. In total over 500 people were involved in the preparation and analysis of the raw material.

It was agreed that prior to publication the NYT acts as US proxy for Wikileaks and asks the White House for a list of names which should be edited out. The White House never responded to this request. The rest is history.

[TexTushHog]

If the material had been truly secret and deserving of classification, I doubt it would have been published. But history shows us that the vast majority of the time, government classifies documents to hide the truth from the American people.

This is best demonstrated by the current administrations response to these leaks. They claim that there is not any really new information in them. Well, that begs the question, why then was it classified? OK, I understand about having an Afghan informers name in the papers. Take that out and then declassify them. It is clear that these documents were classified to diminish the information available, and to diminish the supply of anecdotal documentary evidence, to show that we are clearly loosing this war (as if there was any way you can win a "war" that is not really a military, but rather a political dispute in the first place).

And for the record, I think that the administration's reaction to their declassification is shameful. These documents should have been declassified before Obama decided to double down in Afghanistan so that the public would not be deceived by the executive branch on how bleak the prospects for success really were.

[..]

DoD to WikiLeaks: Return all of the classified war documents in your possession and delete them from your damn website!

Full Press Briefing:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...+Briefing.aspx

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by ..

DoD to WikiLeaks: Return all of the classified war documents in your possession and delete them from your damn website!

Apparently, this is the best the strongest military machine in the world can do. Faced with the exercise of freedom of speech, it seems to be powerless. [Imagine that!]

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by WTF

I have a right to know if my government is lying to me. That is why we have a free press.

It almost seems that government, by definition, lies. The question is what government is lying about & why. THAT is why we strive to have a free & independent press. It is also why we have freedom of speech. I'm particularly partial to the late Justice Douglas' quote:

"Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance."

Originally Posted by WTF

The private that leaked this information and Scooter Libby should recieve the exact same punishment for leaking this information.

Disagree. Scooter should have gotten more than he did but "the best justice money can buy" is a completely different discussion. There is a different set of rules for the military. Don't wanna play by 'em, don't join. He knew what he was doing & hopefully stands prepared to take his lumps for it. Just because you're punished doesn't always mean you were "wrong".

Originally Posted by WTF

A reporter has to make a judgement on whether or not it is credible. Him/her being proscuted for publishing should not factor into that thought process.

Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does. The standard is publishing something that is knowingly false NOT something that may be classified under most circumstances. There's the whole messy concept of prior restraint, but that's a different discussion as well. That's why editors are supposed to grill the hell out of reporters to make sure their source is sound & that there are sourceS (plural) whenever possible.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Disagree. Scooter should have gotten more than he did but "the best justice money can buy" is a completely different discussion. There is a different set of rules for the military. Don't wanna play by 'em, don't join. He knew what he was doing & hopefully stands prepared to take his lumps for it. Just because you're punished doesn't always mean you were "wrong".




.

You are free to disagree but just because we have a set of civilian rules and militarly rules does not mean that a hot shot civilian can say fuc you to his rules and a private has to go by strict rules ......or does it? You might agree with that but I don't. Not saying it is not the current reality but I do not agree with it. The reason you have people with no respect for rules is because the little people see the hot shots having none.

This private should get no worse punishment than Libby is what I believe and nothing you stated changed my mind.