# WikiLeaks



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

This is shaping up to be a major story. It already reads like something from a James Bond novel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

Read about the Insurance file. If I remember my Hawaii Five-O correctly, the only thing left is for Wo Fat to plaster Assange's eyes and ears shut and put him in the big water tank.

One editorial in our local paper last Sunday called for his death. Assange's not Wo Fat's.


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

It's about time someone started a thread on this. My question is: is it ethically ok to leak these documents if it were assured that there would be no human casualties?


----------



## ctt (Dec 24, 2008)

The media wants to make this a huge story. I found this article interesting: https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WindsorNot said:


> It's about time someone started a thread on this. My question is: is it ethically ok to leak these documents if it were assured that there would be no human casualties?


Notwithstanding the last administration, our government is supposed to be transparent and accountable, and surprise inspections of this accountability (Pentagon Papers, Watergate Tapes etc) are a time-honored American tradition. Even our Supreme Court has ruled it to be a First Amendment right to republish illegal documents as long as they were legally obtained by the publisher and qualify as political speech.

OTOH if anyone specific was put in harm's way by the leak of these documents, IMO whoever leaked them (not Assange or WikiLeaks) should be prosecuted.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

It has become very apparent that Wikileaks has published its material in accordance with long standing journalistic traditions. Assange is a scapegoat, and they're upset that they weren't able to contain this as they would have been able to had it been a major news source. 

Keep this coming, they are all interesting reads.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Notwithstanding the last administration, our government is supposed to be transparent and accountable...


And look how much that's changed since Obama took over!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHahahahahha!!

I was skeptical then, I'm skeptical now.

Why some decide to keep their skepticism in a box now amazes me.

It doesn't matter so much who Obama was then as what he is now.

He's The Man!!

And The Man can not (should not) be trusted.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

WindsorNot said:


> It's about time someone started a thread on this. My question is: is it ethically ok to leak these documents if it were assured that there would be no human casualties?


I don't know about "leaking" the documents, as that was done by a third party in the employ of the armed services, not Mr. Assange. And an ethical duty is different from a moral duty, so it may be that the person who actually leaked the documents had an ethical duty not to do so. If there were major cover-ups that were revealed in the leaking then he may have had a moral duty to leak the documents, even if it conflicts with his ethical duty.

I think the "human casualties" qualifier is irrelevant. Our government sends our troops into conflict knowing there will be human casualties (on both sides) but claim the ends justify the means. If that is the case then it is entirely possible for the leak of confidential documents, even ones that directly cause human casualties, to be the moral choice if the leak exposes some greater evil.

From what I have seen thus far the quality of leaked documents does not seem particularly impressive. Yes, it is interesting to see how the government perpetrated a fraud with regard to Yemen, and some of the confidential cables show a troubling lack of good sense or coherent foreign policy, but there's nothing that's going to bring an administration down. I also cannot foresee any human casualties as a direct result of these leaked documents.

My conclusion after viewing some of these documents is that the majority never should have been classified in the first place. The government of the United States needs to be accountable to its citizens, and that means it must be honest with us if we are to adequately hold it accountable. If honesty and transparency make foreign relations more difficult, then so be it. We should behave better than everyone else, not let them drag us down.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Yesterday I heard an interesting twist on the situation. It is apparent that the Wikileaks is protected by freedom of the press, so now there is an attempt to redefine what constitutes the press. Now it seems that the press not only presents the facts but also offers opinions to put the information in context. While I welcome opinions on an editorial page, I frown on reporters that tell me what I should think as part of their story. So now we appear to be doing a dictionary shuffle. If the word of law does not suit, then change the meaning of the word.
Now news is opinion if the State department has its way. I will be watching for any indication that such a concept gains any traction.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Notwithstanding the last administration, our government is supposed to be transparent and accountable, and surprise inspections of this accountability (Pentagon Papers, Watergate Tapes etc) are a time-honored American tradition. Even our Supreme Court has ruled it to be a First Amendment right to republish illegal documents as long as they were legally obtained by the publisher and qualify as political speech.
> 
> OTOH if anyone specific was put in harm's way by the leak of these documents, IMO whoever leaked them (not Assange or WikiLeaks) should be prosecuted.


I'm sure there is no suprise in this but, this great nation, nor any major nation that I am aware of, has ever operated in a fully open, transparent and accountable manner! While it makes for good copy and marvelously animated conversation, I am honestly not sure it is even possible for this twisted world we live it to actually do so. Hell, when I retired from my final period of government service, almost eight years back, I was required to sign two documents: the first reminded me that if I divulged any of the classified information I had been exposed to during that service, I could be prosecuted and imprisoned and the second prohibited me from divulging certain proprietary information or going to work for contractors competing for and/or performing contracts for the Federal government in the area of work, in which I had been employed and again reminding that violation of such could result in prosecution and imprisonment. That dosen't sound too open and transparent to me!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> So now we appear to be doing a dictionary shuffle. If the word of law does not suit, then change the meaning of the word.
> 
> Now news is opinion if the State department has its way. I will be watching for any indication that such a concept gains any traction.


It all started when the US War Department was changed to the Department of Defense and every decade it has gotten worse!!


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It all started when the US War Department was changed to the Department of Defense and every decade it has gotten worse!!


It's all very Dr. Strangelove-esque.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

No. No it is not ETHICALLY alright to divulge information that is not yours to divulge. It is stolen information.

It is however "possibly" MORALLY alright to divulge said information.

The government "should" be transparent. That's why we have a Freedom of Information of Act. The government also needs to protect its ability to gather information (on non-domestic targets), which is the nature of security classifications (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret). It is not the information itself which is is of "primary" value, but its source. The source must be protected.

The issue we run into is that people with access to said information have agreed to not disclose said information. They have an *ethical* obligation not to disclose it, because of these preexisting agreements, regardless of their moral feelings about said information. By breaking their Non-Disclosure Agreements, they have broken the trust of not only their coworkers, but of the American People themselves.

Yes, the Press may reprint this information without repercussion, but that doesn't mean they should have ever had access to it in the first place.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

What's more interesting to me than the leaks themselves is how some people are calling for Assange's head, simply for doing what our Supreme Court has ruled is a protected First Amendment right in our country. Even more bizarre is how our own private sector has taken it upon themselves to become a unified money censoring force:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

He's a scapegoat, yes. It's a big cheeseball of nothing made into something.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

FrankDC said:


> What's more interesting to me than the leaks themselves is how some people are calling for Assange's head, simply for doing what our Supreme Court has ruled is a protected First Amendment right in our country. Even more bizarre is how our own private sector has taken it upon themselves to become a unified money censoring force:


Just because something is legal and protected, doesn't mean it should be done...


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Just because something is legal and protected, doesn't mean it should be done...


In this situation I think it should have been done. It was a moral imperitive. This shows our deficiencies in security, our misuse of confidential status, our poor choices of diplomatic employees, and the misuse of power in vindictive action. Finally it shows that the rule of law is applied unevenly (but we already knew that).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> Just because something is legal and protected, doesn't mean it should be done...


You know that was my verbatim response when we learned Dick Cheney chose military targets in Iraq based on Halliburton's profit potential for their reconstruction. Do the people who're paying for this kind of despotism have a right to know, or should it be protected in the name of national security?

IMO it's one more thing future historians are going shake their heads over. It's really why governments, especially ours, are trying to stop WikiLeaks and it stinks.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> You know that was my verbatim response when we learned Dick Cheney chose military targets in Iraq based on Halliburton's profit potential for their reconstruction. Do the people who're paying for this kind of despotism have a right to know, or should it be protected in the name of national security?
> 
> IMO it's one more thing future historians are going shake their heads over. It's really why governments, especially ours, are trying to stop WikiLeaks and it stinks.


Wait I thought we invaded Iraq for oil.......but seriously, if a governmet cannot communicate frankly and confidentially internally than it is impossible to effectively develop and implement policy. And Assange really isn't interested in leaking anything, if he was he would have carefully edited all the documents at his disposal. And we always hear the cry of how much blood the Bush administration has on it hands but I doubt we will hear the same about Assange even though it is highly probably his actions will result in the deaths of people who actively aided the US.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> In this situation I think it should have been done. It was a moral imperitive. This shows our deficiencies in security, our misuse of confidential status, our poor choices of diplomatic employees, and the misuse of power in vindictive action. Finally it shows that the rule of law is applied unevenly (but we already knew that).


And the people who did the "initial" leaking should have to pay the consequences. They committed the crime. With any other crime (except the Press), we'd refer to someone as an accessory after the fact (also a punishable), or a profiteer (at a minimum).

If someone steals information with the direct intention leaking it to the Press... Doesn't that make them an unknown accomplice?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> And the people who did the "initial" leaking should have to pay the consequences. They committed the crime. With any other crime (except the Press), we'd refer to someone as an accessory after the fact (also a punishable), or a profiteer (at a minimum).
> 
> If someone steals information with the direct intention leaking it to the Press... Doesn't that make them an unknown accomplice?


As you said, the crime was committed by whoever leaked these documents in the first place. AFAIK Assange or WikiLinks has not been accused of obtaining them illegally.

https://www.yorkvision.co.uk/features/com-confidential


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Wait I thought we invaded Iraq for oil.......but seriously, if a governmet cannot communicate frankly and confidentially internally than it is impossible to effectively develop and implement policy. And Assange really isn't interested in leaking anything, if he was he would have carefully edited all the documents at his disposal. And we always hear the cry of how much blood the Bush administration has on it hands but I doubt we will hear the same about Assange even though it is highly probably his actions will result in the deaths of people who actively aided the US.


So a government can do, or say, anything it likes, and can keep all of this secret from it's electorate. Is this is what you would describe as a morally sound democratic system that deserves to be able seize territory from other, less morally sound regimes, on the basis of it's moral superiority, as you stated quite clearly in a different thread?
Western governments have been found out as being crass, and judgemental in their private correspondence, so, rather than suggest that western governments behave better, you blame the person who told us? That makes sense doesn't it. In a dictatorship.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Wait I thought we invaded Iraq for oil.......


Yes. That is true, but invading Iraq to seize oil doesn't prevent Dick Cheney and Halliburton from profiting from individual attacks on individual targets.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wait I thought we invaded Iraq for oil.......but seriously, if a governmet cannot communicate frankly and confidentially internally than it is impossible to effectively develop and implement policy. And Assange really isn't interested in leaking anything, if he was he would have carefully edited all the documents at his disposal. And we always hear the cry of how much blood the Bush administration has on it hands but I doubt we will hear the same about Assange even though it is highly probably his actions will result in the deaths of people who actively aided the US.


 WikiLeaks has been around for four years. I'd have thought for sure that they would have blood on their hands by this point.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Jovan said:


> WikiLeaks has been around for four years. I'd have thought for sure that they would have blood on their hands by this point.


"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> And the people who did the "initial" leaking should have to pay the consequences. They committed the crime. With any other crime (except the Press), we'd refer to someone as an accessory after the fact (also a punishable), or a profiteer (at a minimum).
> 
> If someone steals information with the direct intention leaking it to the Press... Doesn't that make them an unknown accomplice?


I suggest you follow the advice of your own tag line-'Don't over think the problem'
The matter of who removed the data from government servers is a separate issue from who published the information. Nothing so far suggests that Wikileaks made any gesture to induce the leaker to take the information. We still do not know that the leaker would not be viewed as a whistleblower. Only time will tell about that. I do not know what an "unknown accomplice" might be but if you mean an accessory, that is an unlikely classification. 
The bottom line is that as far as I have seen so far the big uproar is due to embarrassment of civil servants. They may want to call it a crime but in reality it is simply called truth.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.


 Thanks, that clarifies things a little.

In any case, I'd still rather have a little transparency and honesty here in the States. Wouldn't it be more productive for a discussion to be raised on how to avoid war crimes in the future instead of covering it up and continuing to give the guilty parties a pass? Funny how they only seem to get punished when the public knows...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WTF:

https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/22/cia-responds-to-wikileaks-wtf/?hpt=T2


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> I suggest you follow the advice of your own tag line-'Don't over think the problem'
> The matter of who removed the data from government servers is a separate issue from who published the information. Nothing so far suggests that Wikileaks made any gesture to induce the leaker to take the information. We still do not know that the leaker would not be viewed as a *whistleblower*. Only time will tell about that. I do not know what an "unknown accomplice" might be but if you mean an accessory, that is an unlikely classification.
> The bottom line is that as far as I have seen so far the big uproar is due to embarrassment of civil servants. They may want to call it a crime but in reality it is simply called truth.


There's a huge difference between a whistleblower and what this person is doing. Whistle-blowing implies that you are bringing it up to the proper authorities. Exposing sensitive information that was never intended for the Press to the Press is not whistleblowing. It's Theft.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

So what happens when your "proper authorities" are the same despots who're being exposed and embarrassed by this information? Nobody has answered the question: do the people who're paying for this despotism have a right to know or do they not? If some kind of gray area exists here, I hope someone will explain it to me.

The people are the only proper and final authority over their government, and the last administration made a literal artform out of circumventing our court decisions, laws and Constitution. Again, legally in the U.S., what Assange is doing is specifically protected under our First Amendment precisely for the reason stated above. Our state and defense depts, and now even Bank of America are bending over backwards trying to get around this fact.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"So what happens when your "proper authorities" are the same despots who're being exposed and embarrassed by this information?"

That is truly the real question. All else is trivia. I don't have a practical answer for the situation. If I follow the Constitution there is no crime anywhere along the line. If I follow the law we end up in unknown territory. If I follow what the State Department believes, anyone who ever visited the Wikileak site would have to be executed at dawn.
The real problem seems to be that in government the belief is that the Constitution is a cute little artifact, elected representatives are figure heads but the various departments of government are our collective masters. This is a real life example of how our system will determine who runs our nation. To determine guilt in Wikileaks is to void the Constitution. This has DEEP implications.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> "So what happens when your "proper authorities" are the same despots who're being exposed and embarrassed by this information?"


Every government organization has a means of escalating issues from the lowest person all the way to the department head in a proper manner. This goes for all three branches of the US government. The people leaking this information are circumventing this. They are being lazy, and/or criminal.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

That doesn't answer the question, or address the problem.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> So what happens when your "proper authorities" are the same despots who're being exposed and embarrassed by this information? Nobody has answered the question: do the people who're paying for this despotism have a right to know or do they not? If some kind of gray area exists here, I hope someone will explain it to me.
> 
> The people are the only proper and final authority over their government, and the last administration made a literal artform out of circumventing our court decisions, laws and Constitution. Again, legally in the U.S., what Assange is doing is specifically protected under our First Amendment precisely for the reason stated above. Our state and defense depts, and now even Bank of America are bending over backwards trying to get around this fact.


Say FrankDC goes out and steals a car stereo and gives it to me to sell for money to get some weed. The cops catch me though, and charge me with possession of stolen property. (But I don't rat him out, I'll take a fall for a buddy.)

Bradley Manning stole classified data, cables, and documents from the United States government. Julian Assange now has them. How then can we not consider him to be in possession of stolen goods?

As I understand it, our First Amendment gives us (i.e., citizens of the United States) the right to say or print anything we want. It does not extend that right to non-citizens (e.g., Assange). Moreover, it does not grant us the right to say or print material that has been plagiarized or stolen, as those are not our intellectual goods.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> Say FrankDC goes out and steals a car stereo and gives it to me to sell for money to get some weed. The cops catch me though, and charge me with possession of stolen property. (But I don't rat him out, I'll take a fall for a buddy.)
> 
> Bradley Manning stole classified data, cables, and documents from the United States government. Julian Assange now has them. How then can we not consider him to be in possession of stolen goods?
> 
> As I understand it, our First Amendment gives us (i.e., citizens of the United States) the right to say or print anything we want. It does not extend that right to non-citizens (e.g., Assange). Moreover, it does not grant us the right to say or print material that has been plagiarized or stolen, as those are not our intellectual goods.


According to our Supreme Court, our First Amendment most certainly does give us the right to publish stolen documents, if they were legally obtained and qualify as political speech.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Say FrankDC goes out and steals a car stereo..."

Say FrankDC discovers corruption and incompetence in the company he works for. He is concerned and passes the information along to a third party who routinely points out corporate screw ups. The third party publicly makes the information known to the stockholders so they can be aware of what is going on. 
Is this any different from what is happening via Wikileaks? Wikileaks was simply the medium for distribution of information to the public. That is no crime. As for Manning, it comes down to how the law interprets his motives and actions. Unfortunately the law is a little vague so he is automatically innocent until the government can prove otherwise. Since the law is vague it could be a tough case except that the government is biased and he will not be given the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of bias he is still innocent at this point.

One final point to think about, the government can not copyright this material so try to avoid thinking of any of this information as property. The government does not have intellectual goods (joke omitted) regarding these papers. Confidential status is not the same as ownership status.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Thanks, that clarifies things a little.


 You know what, I take that back.

I refuse to believe that blood is on the hands of Assange or an inanimate object (the website). If anything, it's on the source who leaked the information. But they were trying to expose corruption, not get over a thousand people killed.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> According to our Supreme Court, our First Amendment most certainly does give us the right to publish stolen documents, if they were legally obtained and qualify as political speech.


Wait...how can you "legally obtain" "stolen documents"? Cite the case, please.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> Say FrankDC discovers corruption and incompetence in the company he works for. He is concerned and passes the information...


But that's just it. Manning didn't work for some company, he worked for the United States government. And in order to pass along the info, he stole it. Just to be clear, let me repeat: he stole it. You seem unwilling to understand this rather important distinction.

You say the law is a "little vague." Which law is that exactly?

And as for confidential status not being the "same as ownership status," I agree. I'd say that confidential status is much more important than ownership status, and must therefore be guarded ever more vigilantly. You see, if I owned the rights to a song, I could sell those rights to someone else. I might transfer those rights for some cash, a bag of weed, or maybe a car stereo. Confidentiality, however, denotes that an item has a degree of exclusivity and lacks the ability to be exchanged for some other good. If my ownership rights to a thing are infringed upon, I can be compensated monetarily or with a bag of weed or a car stereo; if I hold something in confidence, and that confidence is broken by someone or something else, the thing I held in confidence loses its value.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> Say FrankDC goes out and steals a car stereo and gives it to me to sell for money to get some weed. The cops catch me though, and charge me with possession of stolen property. (But I don't rat him out, I'll take a fall for a buddy.)
> 
> Bradley Manning stole classified data, cables, and documents from the United States government. Julian Assange now has them. How then can we not consider him to be in possession of stolen goods?
> 
> As I understand it, our First Amendment gives us (i.e., citizens of the United States) the right to say or print anything we want. It does not extend that right to non-citizens (e.g., Assange). Moreover, it does not grant us the right to say or print material that has been plagiarized or stolen, as those are not our intellectual goods.


The First Amendment applies to anyone within the confines of the US borders (not just US citizens). Assange can print that information, however he cannot legally protect the person who stole it. The First Amendment doesn't actually allow that. That's the trick.

The Press has fought, and lost that battle for years. They claim their sources are confidential, and they keep getting thrown in jail for Contempt of Court. The reason they do this is to two-fold. Protecting the anonymity of their sources allows them to keep their sources. Second, if it is discovered their sources obtained the information illegally, and the press KNEW it prior to printing, then they are just as liable (per your example). If they never divulge the source, they can claim First Amendment all day long without having to go over source information. Everyone knows it's stolen. But we can't touch them because we can't get to the culprit who stole to prove the link to reporter (chain of evidence).

"Stolen goods" is the other tricky bit. Assange has "information" not "goods" (at least as far as the government is willing to push the case). Goods are Real (physical) property which can be moved, shipped, exchanged, etc. Information, on the other hand includes media like paper, disks, emails, and other "transitional" items which are temporary in nature. Manning stole both "Goods & Information" (depending on context), but he gave Assange "Information." If the US government were to raid Assanges premises and locate a harddrive stolen from a government site however....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> "Say FrankDC goes out and steals a car stereo..."
> 
> Say FrankDC discovers corruption and incompetence in the company he works for. He is concerned and passes the information along to a third party who routinely points out corporate screw ups. The third party publicly makes the information known to the stockholders so they can be aware of what is going on.
> Is this any different from what is happening via Wikileaks? Wikileaks was simply the medium for distribution of information to the public. That is no crime. As for Manning, it comes down to how the law interprets his motives and actions. Unfortunately the law is a little vague so he is automatically innocent until the government can prove otherwise. Since the law is vague it could be a tough case except that the government is biased and he will not be given the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of bias he is still innocent at this point.
> ...


Releasing information to Stolkholders (ie the actual OWNERS of the company) is a little different than wikileaks. Many companies do not have a means of redress that the US Government does have in place. If there's an issue in the Executive Branch you can call the whistleblower hotline and/or request a Congressional investigation. If there's an issue in the Legislative Branch, there are similar options available.

As for copyright.. The government does not copyright it's material, but copyright law is actually very simple. The writer of a document owns the document regardless of whether he copyrights it or not. It is copyrighted at creation, and the Copyright process is a formality. Government email addresses and network access are only issued after an in-brief, and an end-user agreement in which the user agrees to the terms and conditions of the organization. I guarantee if they don't get Manning on anything else, they'll nail him to the wall on 3-5 instances of 10 years sentences of breaking NDA's and violating little "sheets of paper" that he forgot he signed, that said he wouldn't divulge information. Most of them say $10,000 or 10 years in prison.

It will be as simple as "Mr. Manning, is this your signature?" "Thank you, your honor, the prosecution rests."


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"You say the law is a "little vague." Which law is that exactly?"
You asked for it. See below the original act and the amendment follows. I will check back later after you have had a chance to realize the vagueness. You should also take note that this law is probably not applicable at all. Thus I am just posting to waste valuable space. However if you have an opinion on the applicability of the law be sure to check case law since a lot of what you might think of has already been tried but I am not about to start posting all of that.

Title I - ESPIONAGE
Section 1

That:

(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or

(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or

(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another 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 title; or

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Section 2

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:

(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years; and

(b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval of military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification of any place, or any other information relating to the public defence, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years.
Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.
Section 4

If two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of section two or three of this title, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. Except as above provided conspiracies to commit offences under this title shall be punished as provided by section thirty-seven of the Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine.
Section 5

Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
Section 6

The President in time of war or in case of national emergency may by proclamation designate any place other than those set forth in subsection:

(a) of section one hereof in which anything for the use of the Army or Navy is being prepared or constructed or stored as a prohibited place for the purpose of this title: Provided, That he shall determine that information with respect thereto would be prejudicial to the national defence.
Section 7

Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial under sections thirteen hundred and forty-two, thirteen hundred and forty-three, and sixteen hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes as amended.
Section 8

The provisions of this title shall extend to all Territories, possessions, and places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or not contiguous thereto, and offences under this title, when committed upon the high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the territorial limits thereof shall be punishable hereunder.
Section 9

The Act entitles "An Act to prevent the disclosure of national defence secrets," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby repealed.

Here is the amendment of 1918
Be it enacted, That section three of the Act... approved June 15, 1917, be... amended so as to read as follows:

"SEC. 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall wilfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor... with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds... or the making of loans by or to the United States, or whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause... or incite... insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct... the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag... or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States, or any language intended to bring the form of government... or the Constitution... or the military or naval forces... or the flag... of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute... or shall wilfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall wilfully... urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things... necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war... and whoever shall wilfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favour the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...."


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"As for copyright.. The government does not copyright it's material, but copyright law is actually very simple."

Actually it is not so simple but in regard to government generated documents it is a little less ambiguous.
Documents generated by government workers is called non-copyright. If it is generated in this country it falls outside the limits of copyright. Then it gets complicated. If the document contains copyright material of others that copyright is in force for that portion, or if the document was generated in another country it might be protected by that country's copyright law. But what if it was generated at an embassy which happens to be surrounded by another country? That can get sticky. Of course you would need to hire your own lawyer to apply the possible laws to each and every document which is in question because in reality what might be applicable could vary. Nothing we might say here is in any way a legal opinion because we are in the dark regarding which law, which document, which country and which claim is made regarding each.
(In other words we are just like the Federal Government at this point. We have no idea what is going on.)
The only thing for sure is that copyright probably does not apply unless there are exceptions. As for breaking an NDA, we know even less about the situation. We will have to wait and see.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> Wait...how can you "legally obtain" "stolen documents"? Cite the case, please.


It's covered in Wiki's article:

"The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[115][117] Several Supreme Court cases have previously established that the American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring it.[118] Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that approach also faces hurdles."

Reference 118:

https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-and-the-first-amendment/


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> You should also take note that this law is probably not applicable at all. Thus I am just posting to waste valuable space.


Indeed. Manning hasn't been charged with espionage, only violations of military law (though some portions of it use language similar to that used to describe espionage). If you read the charge sheet, you'll see that there is nothing vague about it.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> It's covered in Wiki's article:
> 
> "The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[115][117] Several Supreme Court cases have previously established that the American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring it.[118] Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that approach also faces hurdles."
> 
> ...


Thanks, interesting read. The WSJ law blog notes that the three SCOTUS cases have not established an exact ruling, only that their decisions tend in one direction. Really, the question of what to do with Assange is moot. He's not in the US and no country is going to extradite him. Heck, we couldn't even get Polanski back, and he's a rapist! You know who else is a rapist? I digress. Anyway, Assange is safe, wherever he is, not because of our First Amendment but because of the practical difficulties in getting him here.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> Indeed. Manning hasn't been charged with espionage, only violations of military law (though some portions of it use language similar to that used to describe espionage). If you read the charge sheet, you'll see that there is nothing vague about it.


What I saw was a charge sheet relating to "without authorization or exceeds authorized access". Any added charges presumably will stem from this premise. If more charges have been added that are formed from a different basis, I have not seen them yet.

One point is what the word "access" means. He had access and the computers and routers are protected and he is not yet charged with hacking as far as I know. So it seems he had authorized access. We do not know if he exceeded his authorization. That would have to be a specific set of orders and not just general procedures. I searched and found no disclosure of that so far. Like I said before we will have to wait and see.

ON the other hand, you are very anxious to find him guilty but you fall far short of providing law or theory applied to the alleged acts. So now it is your turn. Please enlighten us of your basis for assigning guilt. That could be hard since you should show the law, the applicability of the law to the acts alleged, the applicability of the law to the specific information, documents, and film (powerpoint?). After all he is still innocent until someone proves something which has not been done by anyone yet.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I agree the Assange issue is moot, because the documents in question are now sitting on countless millions of hard drives around the world. It doesn't matter what happens to him or his organization. 

WikiLeaks isn't based in the U.S. but IMO their mission is as close to quintessentially American as any other I can think of. We're just on the wrong side of the surprise inspection this time around and it's stupid to shoot the messengers IMO.

What scares me far more than Assange are the number of Americans who not only are refusing to take responsibility for what our government does, they're fighting against the idea of us even knowing what it does. Obviously secrecy is required in state matters, but we survived the Watergate Tapes, Pentagon Papers and every other occasional inside peek at privileged information, and I think we'll survive these. Also from what I've read, these leaks exposed a gaping security hole in our state department's data handling which has been addressed, so in that respect we owe WikiLeaks at least some thanks.

IMO let's move on and take the diplomatic punches as they come.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Also from what I've read, these leaks exposed a gaping security hole in our state department's data handling which has been addressed, so in that respect we owe WikiLeaks at least some thanks.


True. I heard they're going to start putting our classified info where Obama keeps his birth certificate and college transcripts. It'll be safer there.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> So now it is your turn. Please enlighten us of your basis for assigning guilt. That could be hard since you should show the law, the applicability of the law to the acts alleged, the applicability of the law to the specific information, documents, and film (powerpoint?). After all he is still innocent until someone proves something which has not been done by anyone yet.


Be happy to. Could you have the military authorities send the relevant evidence to me? They can just use my inbox here, if that's easiest.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Thanks, interesting read. The WSJ law blog notes that the three SCOTUS cases have not established an exact ruling, only that their decisions tend in one direction. Really, the question of what to do with Assange is moot. He's not in the US and no country is going to extradite him. Heck, we couldn't even get Polanski back, and he's a rapist! You know who else is a rapist? I digress. Anyway, Assange is safe, wherever he is, not because of our First Amendment but because of the practical difficulties in getting him here.


Who else is a rapist?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> Be happy to. Could you have the military authorities send the relevant evidence to me? They can just use my inbox here, if that's easiest.


Does this mean you don't know but deem to argue a point without even researching what is actually going on? You just want everyone else to waste time educating you. Are you George Bush by any chance?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Who else is a rapist?


Assange's rape case has decayed into an argument over who was responsible for their condom breaking.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Assange's rape case has decayed into an argument over who was responsible for their condom breaking.


Quite. I'm sure that the people in charge will come up with something else. "Ley de Fugo", perhaps, but in Britain that only applies to Brazilian electricians, as far as I know.


----------

