Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:When dissing other posters in a slanted manner it helps to spell properly. You spelled professional wrong.

Duly noted

(isn't it libel, though?)

Libel is higher level. Dissing is a nice term that is more appropriate.

Frazzled wrote:Libel is higher level. Dissing is a nice term that is more appropriate.

Libel is written.

to diss (third-person singular simple present disses, present participle dissing, simple past and past participle dissed)

1. (US, UK, slang) To put (someone) down, or show disrespect by the use of insulting language or dismissive behaviour.

Do point where, as I'd like to know what set me apart from what Shuma and others have been doing so far. Otherwise, it's libel.

Destrado wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Libel is higher level. Dissing is a nice term that is more appropriate.

Libel is written.

to diss (third-person singular simple present disses, present participle dissing, simple past and past participle dissed)

1. (US, UK, slang) To put (someone) down, or show disrespect by the use of insulting language or dismissive behaviour.

Do point where, as I'd like to know what set me apart from what Shuma and others have been doing so far. Otherwise, it's libel.

Libel is also legally actionable, and makes one subject to whippy stick duel, at dawn. En garde villain!

Have at you, you thin-moustached doggy hairdresser!

Peter Wiggin wrote:
God I disagree just because I disagree. Rawr I am rite n' you are rong!!!!!!!! SEMANTICS OMG FALLACY (mod) shut up guys.............................RAWR I'M RITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah it did kind of turn into that, was also about 1:30 in the morning.

I still stand by my point that the citizens in Yemen do have a right to know about these things.

Also I think Emperors Faithful was refering to Shuma's "go back to world of warcraft" comment and while "and he wonders why i dont take him srsly" is a shameless dig at Shuma and i admit was inappropriate, what he originally said and how he replied it came across as extreamly condesending

Also "OMG FALLACY" i guess is refering to "mexican cartels started invading texas" as i said i was tired but it does bring up my point that even if your country does have an insurgency it doesent automatically mean the citizens no longer have any rights.

Destrado wrote:Have at you, you thin-moustached doggy hairdresser!

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Where was the deflection, at all, there Dogma?

I asked you a question, and you asked an entirely different question in response, that's basically the definition of deflection.

And you're doing it again be asking "where the deflection was" when it is plain as day what was done. I mean, its possible that you simply don't know what you're doing, but that requires me to also accept that you are entirely incompetent, and I'm not ready to do that.

So using an example and asking a rhetorical question is "deflection"?
Huh. Interesting.

Dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
But since apparently you're going to be a smug git:

I'm not the one that seems to struggle answering a simple question.

Not really. It just seems you're purposely being obtuse and trying to find deflection where there is none.

Kanluwen wrote:
The "means of a given person" is what they can reliably have access to without liquidating everything they own.

It's why when police officers, who haven't won the lottery or come into money, have suddenly started buying things like boats or expensive cars are looked at with suspicion.

That doesn't help you expose corruption in the diplomatic class. It isn't illegal to accept money from non-governmental sources.

It is when you're accepting money from private companies that are bidding for jobs.

You shouldn't consider politics to be analogically similar to police work.

I'm not. I'm saying that corruption is corruption, and it's actually not that hard to find it when you're looking.

But yeah, I was apparently right that the reason behind your hesitation in answering was the realization of how doing so weakened your position.

I've answered three different times. There's no hesitation. It didn't weaken my position either.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Wolfun wrote:So, looks like the 'rape victim' worked with the CIA.

Really quite a stretch. I'd go so far as to call the entire article a fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?

I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.

We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.

Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.

If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.

If you agree with the bolded portion (as I do for the large part although I recognize the necessity of certain things being secret) then your entire argument is null and void.

Plz don't use personal opinions as a basis for objective statements.

Find an objective precidence that says other countries have the right to know what our government is carrying out covertly then.

I'll give you a couple of objective things that say that we don't even have the right to know what our government is doing.

The NATO Classified Information Act and the Classified Information Procedures Act, which concerns classified information and legal procedures.

CIPA was actually enacted to prevented 'graymail' which is when the prosecuted blackmails the government with classified information that he/she may know.

If I recall Assange said that he had a cache of classified documents he would release if he did get imprisoned, hmmm, sounds like graymail to me.

The cables were important to government relations and national security, should we use diplomats for espionage, maybe not, but that's just an opinion I guess. The fact is we did and the information they gathered was for national security use and for foreign relations use, which means that as a matter of fact the government has the right to deem them classified.

In another fact, the Freedom of Information Act exempts any information deemed classified by executive order or pertaining to foreign policy/national security are exempt from the need to disclose that information.

The specialist that released the information violated his contract by giving this information away and in fact it can be considered theft if not some other criminal act. If it is deemed as a criminal act then Assange knowingly accepted the cables even though they were 'stolen'. This means that Assange could face criminal charges because he could be seen as an accomplice.

There are some facts for you.

The Yemenese do not have the same rights as an american citizen. Our Constitution doesn't apply to areas outside of our boundaries unless its for an american diplomat.

You do bring up some good points

halonachos wrote:
Find an objective precidence that says other countries have the right to know what our government is carrying out covertly then.

I'll give you a couple of objective things that say that we don't even have the right to know what our government is doing.

This is based entirely on opinion, if we have a right to know what our government is doing. Almost always this should remain hidden with internal affairs and regulation keeping everything in check, but in some extream cases do you not agree that information should be revealed of criminal activity?

halonachos wrote:
The NATO Classified Information Act and the Classified Information Procedures Act, which concerns classified information and legal procedures.

CIPA was actually enacted to prevented 'graymail' which is when the prosecuted blackmails the government with classified information that he/she may know.

If I recall Assange said that he had a cache of classified documents he would release if he did get imprisoned, hmmm, sounds like graymail to me.

I think Assange/ Wikileaks didnt think this through correctly, it would be hilarious if he was charged on greymail (can you be charged on that?) but nothing else.

halonachos wrote:
The cables were important to government relations and national security, should we use diplomats for espionage, maybe not, but that's just an opinion I guess. The fact is we did and the information they gathered was for national security use and for foreign relations use, which means that as a matter of fact the government has the right to deem them classified.

In another fact, the Freedom of Information Act exempts any information deemed classified by executive order or pertaining to foreign policy/national security are exempt from the need to disclose that information.

True these documents should never have been revealed and should probebly have been directed to some internal investigation, but if there is noone who is going to be held responsible for some of the more serious things then dont you agree that maybe the information should be released so those responsible can be held accountable?

halonachos wrote:
The specialist that released the information violated his contract by giving this information away and in fact it can be considered theft if not some other criminal act. If it is deemed as a criminal act then Assange knowingly accepted the cables even though they were 'stolen'. This means that Assange could face criminal charges because he could be seen as an accomplice.

Assange cannot be seen as an accomplice unless he was involved in the stealing of the documents/ told someone to steal the documents, also there would need to be some activity on his part within US jurisdiction (telling someone go steal these documents does infact fall under US jurisdiction but there is not evidence of this happening) for him to fall under US laws otherwise he falls under international laws/ country's laws he was in.

halonachos wrote:
There are some facts for you.

The Yemenese do not have the same rights as an american citizen. Our Constitution doesn't apply to areas outside of our boundaries unless its for an american diplomat.

My main concern with this is what right do we have to deny them this information? If civilian deaths are caused by another country and then covered up dont you think that they "should" have the right to know? Wikileaks has provided them that privilage of information, what right does America / Yemen government have to deny them this information?

I don't understand what you mean with your first response, the one starting with "This is based on opinion...".

If you could explain, that would be great. As to your other responses.

True, but an accomplice is someone who helps another person carry out something illegal.

By releasing these documents, Assange helped the specialist carry out an illegal action. While Assange isn't an american citizen I'm sure that there are ways the american legal system can get its claws into him.

As to your last statement, Wikileaks did provide them with privilege of information but it was not their right to do so in the first place.

I could give you somebody else's car so you have the privilege to drive it, but it wasn't my place to give you the car in the first place.

So as to the right to deny information, the government has every right it wants to deny the information to others.

Should it deny information, maybe so maybe not. Unfortunately its only a "should" and not a "has to".

Having diplomats spy is not a war crime, collateral damage is not a war crime, and whenever a soldier decided to murder a civilian in cold blood we've dealt with them. Do we choose to broadcast that fact, no. The only exceptions we've had are when something truly heinous goes down such as the rape/murder of a family, which is close to something that happened that put a soldier in prison.

Assange just had a political agenda and decided to put up classified information, information that has done harm to foreign relations and possibly to the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please read this report and see what you think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

So, from what I see there's a slim chance that he can be charged. It can be almost proven that he knowingly distributed information that would harm the government(cache remark and maybe some other things they could find).

Slim chance of doing this...legally.

Like I said, I believe that Assange isn't going to come out of this. Maybe alive, but we never know seeing as though prisons are kind of dangerous you know.

It won't hopefully come to that, but like I said we never know.

To summarise, despite US gov murmurings, it is unlikely that Assange actually committed any crime.

Only once has the US government ever prosecuted a journalist for revealing secrets and the case failed.

IMO the US government would complete fools to murder Assange. All that would happen is that Wikileaks would go on without a figurehead, but with a burning sense of revenge, and the next thing to be leaked would probably be the murder plot.

Kilkrazy wrote:To summarise, despite US gov murmurings, it is unlikely that Assange actually committed any crime.

Only once has the US government ever prosecuted a journalist for revealing secrets and the case failed.

IMO the US government would complete fools to murder Assange. All that would happen is that Wikileaks would go on without a figurehead, but with a burning sense of revenge, and the next thing to be leaked would probably be the murder plot.

Actually, part of the wikileaks crew is leaving to found another site, one "that would release documents, but without the political agenda" quoeting the news channel on in front of me right now.

Also, you have your summary and I have mine. It says that chances are slim, but it could happen.

Slim chance/unlikely, same difference, really.

Kilkrazy wrote:Slim chance/unlikely, same difference, really.

I'm an optimist, sorry.

halonachos wrote:I don't understand what you mean with your first response, the one starting with "This is based on opinion...".

First sentance was jsut my opinion.

the rest

Almost always this should remain hidden with internal affairs and regulation keeping everything in check, but in some extream cases do you not agree that information should be revealed of criminal activity?

Most of the time these kinds of documents should be kept secret

My question is do you not agree that their may be cases where internal affairs may not want/cant bring a person to justice for comitting a crime, or a serious enought breach of human rights. And in such cases that the information should be released? It is irrelevant if it makes the country look bad, what matters is making sure the governments conduct is appropriate and does not violate any of our right, or anyone elses?

Also

My opinion that the Yemen people have a right to know who killed those civilians, even if it was in a missile strike on terrorists, is based on basic human rights. Many people will argue that there is no such thing as rights only privilages in which case what gives anyone the right to stop wikileaks from giving the Yemen people these privilages.

The chance that Assange will be charged with espionage is very high, mitigated only by the possibility of failure to extradite.

The low probability is getting a charge that would naturally stick in a fair trial. This doesn't matter Assange won't get a fair trial.

From the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

"In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security"

"In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."

So the US for extradition would have to "prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security"

Judging by his contact with the US embassy and the Secretary of Defence's comments that last bit would prove hard to prove

Gibbsey wrote:From the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

"In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security"

To quote Shuma from earlier...
Of course they refused to help redact information from classified documents they didn't want released to begin with.

"In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."

So the US for extradition would have to "prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security"

Judging by his contact with the US embassy and the Secretary of Defence's comments that last bit would prove hard to prove

Judging by his contact with the US embassy it's embarrassingly easy to prove, actually.

The fact that he went to them asking for help redacting the documents for "having no interest in hurting US national security" says it all.

Gibbsey wrote:My question is do you not agree that their may be cases where internal affairs may not want/cant bring a person to justice for comitting a crime, or a serious enought breach of human rights. And in such cases that the information should be released? It is irrelevant if it makes the country look bad, what matters is making sure the governments conduct is appropriate and does not violate any of our right, or anyone elses?

Also

Human rights don't include the right to information, speech is included there somewhere, but not information.

As to the quoted question, this is exactly what CIPA covers. Governments may have classified information that pertains to a murder trial and if so the courts will have to prove that the classified information is necessary for the trial. If it is necessary then it is shared with the legal personnel and only the necessary legal personnel(judge, ombudsman, etc) and not to the public. Similar to the HIPAA act that allows the release of some medical information(such as a potential epidemic) but prevents the release of most of the information.

An example would be this: John Doe comes to the emergency room suffering from a condition caused by taking cocaine, John Doe came on his own with no police officers. Well the cool thing is, the hospital personnel cannot call the police to tell them that a person has taken cocaine nor can the police break into the hospital and arrest the man. If the police bring the man to the ER then they already know and have probably arrested him(a side note, if your thinking about doing cocaine keep in mind that your heart rate will go up, your blood pressure goes down, and you get a catheter put into your urethra if you have a bad reaction. )

So yes, there are times when classification is removed for a court trial but the information is not released to the public only to the necessary people.

Well, at least Kevin Rudd has shown his support for an Australian citizen. I would have felt pretty gak about this country if we let one of our own out to dry on the whim of the US.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, at least Kevin Rudd has shown his support for an Australian citizen. I would have felt pretty gak about this country if we let one of our own out to dry on the whim of the US.

A notable reversal on earlier statements made by Julia Gillard.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, at least Kevin Rudd has shown his support for an Australian citizen. I would have felt pretty gak about this country if we let one of our own out to dry on the whim of the US.

A notable reversal on earlier statements made by Julia Gillard.

Yes, there is that. Although, Rudd said that he was given no such recommendations. Perhaps this isn't the political showboating I initially thought it was.

Kanluwen wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:From the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

"In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security"

To quote Shuma from earlier...
Of course they refused to help redact information from classified documents they didn't want released to begin with.

Of course they would refuse to remove sensitive information from their own leaked classified documents it makes perfect sense!

Kanluwen wrote:

"In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."

So the US for extradition would have to "prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security"

Judging by his contact with the US embassy and the Secretary of Defence's comments that last bit would prove hard to prove

Judging by his contact with the US embassy it's embarrassingly easy to prove, actually.

The fact that he went to them asking for help redacting the documents for "having no interest in hurting US national security" says it all.

So because he was redacting information to hide sources, and decides "well maybe we miss something.... hey i know we could get the US to help" automatically means he's guilty? How would this be easy to prove? he's redacting information so the release is not harmful and even asked the US embassy if they wanted a part in redacting information?

Thats bs. He's redacting information that is illegally obtained and illegal to read.

He's already stated his motives and they are some knight's they are to harm the US. Take him out.

Frazzled wrote:Thats bs. He's redacting information that is illegally obtained and illegal to read.

He's already stated his motives and they are some knight's they are to harm the US. Take him out.

I dont really think that would help US foreign policy though....

This is an interesting talk on the previous documents:
http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/Wikileaks-The-Afghanistan-War-Documents-And-Journalism-Ethics.htm

Wikileaks thinks of its self as a news organization/ whistle blowing site, there are certain protection for Journalists where classified documents can be used even if they were illegally obtained.

Wikileaks could be charged if it was releasing agents names, or if its actions were to cause serious damage.

Guilty until proved innocent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

Gibbsey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats bs. He's redacting information that is illegally obtained and illegal to read.

He's already stated his motives and they are some knight's they are to harm the US. Take him out.

I dont really think that would help US foreign policy though....

This is an interesting talk on the previous documents:
http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/Wikileaks-The-Afghanistan-War-Documents-And-Journalism-Ethics.htm

Wikileaks thinks of its self as a news organization/ whistle blowing site, there are certain protection for Journalists where classified documents can be used even if they were illegally obtained.

Wikileaks could be charged if it was releasing agents names, or if its actions were to cause serious damage.

I don't care if they think they are space pope, they gave up military secrets. They are spies. СМЕРть Шпионам