With this in the news so much, I'm surprised there aren't any threads related to it already. I believe in free speech, but when the documents are classified, they and whomever they received them from should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Classified documents are just that, classified, and not to be released until they are unclassified.

So I'd like to know what the rest of you think.

That's a bit vague. Prosecuted by whom, and who is being charged? If outside the US, the options are GREATLY limited.

Meh. I don't think that the leaked cables caused any lasting damage. Politicians calling Assange a terrorist are smoking a special variety of crack.

I agree that the person who provided Wikileaks the documents should be prosecuted (and I'm rather certain he is), but our Constitution pretty much limits Assange's culpability.... unless they decided to declare him an enemy combatant.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

The documents Assange put out identifying the Afgan informants has serious potential to cause harm.

All the people that are found to have given Wikileaks classified documents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and made an example of.

True.

That's really my only complaint about the state in which the cables were leaked. They needed to be redacted better/at all.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I thought government documents were only redacted when they were to be released, or not redacted when they were in files.

They're not. But leaked documents are usually redacted by responsible press when published, wikileaks didn't redact anything.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I thought I read that they worked with international news agencies, who helped decide what to redact/remove. Is that wrong?

What was published officially was redacted. The actual wikileaks archive was not redacted at all.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Got it.

Don't worry, Bradley Manning, the individual accused (though not convicted) has been in 23/24 solitary and force-fed antidepressants for the last 7 months. "Justice" is being served.

OOH RAH, Soldier on, this ain't his momma's house.

I think anyone involved with the publishing and public distribution of classified material should be prosecuted. Just because Wikileaks didn't steal the information does it mean they should get a free pass for publishing the material. Regardless of how much harm has, has not, might, or might not be done by Wikileaks' actions, the act of making classified documents/information made known to the public without clearing it through the proper channels, I believe, should be a federal offense and all involved should be heavily fined and jailed.

That's what would happen to me...I expect the same treamtment for anyone handling classified material.

For the most part, I agree, upon conviction that is. However, I don't think classifying a document should be a free pass to violating the law, either.

Where do you get your info? It's wrong, is why I ask. Do some fucking research.

He probably got it from Glenn Greenwald. Are you no longer a Green-bot?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I agree, but not your use of FEDERAL offense. What about in cases where foreign entities reveal this information? They are under NO legal obligation to keep it secret.

Primarily http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... 14/manning though MSNBC and CBS have picked up on this. If it was wrong, I wonder why Lt. Villiard only corrected him that he is allowed to watch tv during his hour a day out of his cell.

So what's wrong?

How do you do that and still have a free press? Can you replace WikiLeaks with The Washington Times whenever you make an argument and still stand by your words?

Leo, I believe *anyone* that publishes classified documents before they are declassified should be held accountable. It doesn't matter if it is Wikileaks, The Washington Post, CNN, FOX News, you, me, or somebody's grandpa. *EVERYONE* directly involved with improper classified material release and distribution should be held accountable; I don't care who it is.

It is classified material, more often than not, for a reason. Sure, there are lots of things that are classified that most people could give a crap about, but for the sake of natioanl security the policy should be strictly enforced across the board regardless of the content and those involved with its release/distribution should be absolutely hammered to the fullest extent of the law.

Allow me to clarify - It should be a federal offense to anyone that our federal laws apply to. Obviously our federal laws do not apply to those that they cannot be applied against.

Yup, I figured that's what you meant. It was just more of a blanket statement for the collective.

One thing we should also differentiate is information that has been classified and classified information. Anything that could be considered SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) is what I consider truly "classified information" where the real focus should be. The rest is the Confidential/Secret information that in some cases (not all) was classified poorly (not that it's the media or some kid's decision to make).

I know we're not lawyers here, but let's examine this statement a bit more because I think doing so might better explain why I have to respectfully disagree.Just what legal obligation is normal citizen Joe Schmo under? There has to be a difference between a person who was allowed to view the sensitive information after agreeing to keep it concealed and Joe Schmo.

If Joe Schmo is responsible for maintaining the secrecy of classified information, how far does that responsibility go? In this case, I can probably talk about morality better than law. Should he not even read it? If this was physical information (like paper), what steps should be taken to make sure it is delivered into the proper hands? What about destruction? Would it be a crime to destroy the info? What if there was no other copy?

And, if Joe Schmo can be held responsible, couldn't a case be made that a crime committed online against the US government or its citizens could be prosecuted in the US? Wouldn't that transfer of responsibility then justify charging those foreign nationals and either seeking extradition or arresting them if they ever travel to the US?

If legal responsibility doesn't end with the first person who leaked the information (and I do include people who don't agree to keep that material secret, like hackers), then where does it end? Seemingly, it wouldn't, and allowing the government to prosecute anyone along the chain is far too much power, imho.

Please let me know if my understanding of this is flawed, but I see the illegal possession of classified materials the same as possessing stolen property.

For example, if I had stolen a widget and then I sold it to you, you'd have no knowledge that it was stolen property. If you are found to have that widget you could be punished for possessing the stolen property. Yes, you could possibly turn me in for selling stolen goods, but you would still get in trouble with the law.

I look at the Wikileaks issue in the same way. Manning was the one that illegally acquired the classified documents and then gave them to Assange via Wikileaks. I think that the host providers did the correct thing in shutting off their services to Wikileaks because he was operating against their terms of service in "promoting materials that were not legally owned". They should have done that after the first posting however.

Should Assange and Wikileaks be prosecuted as terrorists? Some of the information could cause harm others (like posting the names of those providing information about the Taliban). Those should be handled on a case by case basis. The other documents should be handled in a "possession of stolen property" manner.

Manning knew of the consequences of his actions before stealing the documents. He may or may not have had clearance to the documents. He should face a court marshal for his actions that violated the UCMJ and accept the punishment that the court marshal hands down.

I can buy into this perspective, but it faces the same problem I outlined above. If you looked at WikiLeaks, you now possess classified materials as well, in your cache. And is simply knowing that information is a crime...? Possession is difficult to define when it's used to describe information.

I suppose you could take a cue from the RIAA in your argument, but I think there's an intrinsic difference between music and memos that might not allow them to be equated.

A court martial for Manning, sure. I don't think a reasonable person could really argue against that.

But treating WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization? Are we really flaunting the word so carelessly that we're willing to equate a group of radicals who killed thousands of Americans and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars (if not more) and what more or less amounts to a group of prolific bloggers?

Assange, Manning, and anyone else involved in posting that information online should be held responsible for how it's used. If people are actually hurt as a result of their actions, they have a legal liability. And we shouldn't have to stretch the boundaries of the Constitution to find it.

I would agree with your point about them being classified as a terrorist organization... If they weren't threatening to release even more damaging information in the event they get shut down. That doesnt sound like the action of an altruistic organization. Frankly, I thinK Wikileaks greatly damages the US, and does so intentionally.

this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The man has an agenda. Part of that agenda is hurting the US. So yeah... Fuck him.

They could likely prosecute citizens for dissemination if they knew it was Secret information at the time (because the criteria is 'grave harm to national security'). Just reading it, or accessing the site not so much. Now if it were Top Secret it could be another story. And if it were SCI, you're going to the pokey.

Unless of course you're a federal employee or carry a clearance. If you have a clearance and access Wikileaks you can technically go to jail for it. They sent out a federal-wide email saying as much, and that the least that would happen is we'd get fired.

If you do surf Wikileaks, I'd highly recommend doing so a sandboxed browser. And Tor if you're paranoid. There's been some funky stuff in the Wiki's embedded images.

and for the funny...

they should just make assange vanish

_________________
Jake Rivers - Senex Legio
Get off my Lawn alliance

If you're going to say it, say it.

_________________

If I were them, I'd steer away from speaking about convincing sources to divulge classified information. But that's just me.

On the one hand sure it is not a crime to publish it if you do not carry a clearance. However the person that provided the information probably does carry one, in order to have access to it, and would be committing a crime to divulge it. There are laws concerning being a party to convincing a person to commit an illegal act.