Wikileaks is a journalistic organization. If someone in the US military emails the New York Times a classified secret, that does not make the Times an "enemy of the United States."
All this nonsense about "most grievous breach in opsec history" and "extracting information" completely obscures the issue by putting the blame on the wrong boot.
Hacking, spying, all these things can and should be declared illegal/wrong. But publishing data that was sent to you by a willing informant is much less clear-cut, and certainly doesn't warrant "enemy of the state" status from any country claiming to respect freedom of the press.
The goal of news organizations is to find out information and make it public. If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Case closed.
The New York Times will parse and redact the information that they feel could endanger people from any classified information that they may publish or use in an article. They notably published the Pentagon Papers, which showed that the US had been misled regarding Vietnam. This information did not endanger anyone.
Wikileaks, at least with the initial major leak, does not redact or edit information to protect anyone. This has been one of the reasons major journalist outlets (such as NYT) didn't cooperate with them regarding the initial leak.
They simply serve as a clearinghouse for leaked info. The government would almost certainly be able to invoke prior restraint if they were able to take wikileaks to a US court. They were not able to show this in the Pentagon Papers case.
I'm not commenting on the "enemy of state" situation, but I did want to clarify that major difference between an organization such as the NYT and Wikileaks.
The materials were initially redacted and Wikileaks did attempt to consult with the Department of State prior to publishing the materials and was stonewalled.
Given both this and the way these documents were published in a system accessed by several million individuals (including the allegedly mentally unstable), it seems a leap to argue that the fairest portion of blame if someone was hurt (who?) lies on anything except the Department of State for failing to adequately classify source materials, guard access to sensitive documents, and protect/extract imperiled sources when notified of danger to them in advance.
This is the problem with the state of journalism today: Information is released AFTER the bad decision has already been made and it's too late to do anything about it.
The media isn't doing their jobs in this world and that's why WikiLeaks is important.
If a soldier has lunch with Julian Assange, he could be executed. If he has lunch with David Pogue, no big deal. The reason is because the New York Times answers to the politicians and Wikileaks answers to a higher power.
They could, if they had that information. I have meetings scheduled out until November right now. If I tell you I have a meeting on Monday and here's the agenda for the meeting, that's releasing the information before the event happens.
While this sounds awesome and potentially disastrous, it also distroys itself as valuable info IMO.
Plans can change, the past cannot. Now, if there's breaking news however and it affect a large amount of people in a negative way, you'll notice it'll be reversed before it'll become finalized. This is something similar to that vein of thought, and IMO is why social media is important.
Then I guess my question is more about the failures of today's journalists. Is the implication that the Times knows about these plans but refuses to talk about them?
I'm trying to wrap my head around just what wikileaks is doing differently here, regarding BEFORE and AFTER. It would have been nice if wikileaks had told those photojournalists that the gunship was coming BEFORE they were killed, instead of posting the video of the event AFTER it happened.
People tend to make and disseminate plans to their minions prior to executing them. Thus, the plan could be leaked before the thing that is planned occurs.
Easy solution: Make plans for every possible option, so you don't know which one will actually occur.
Oh, wait. The Pentagon already does this: The have battle/attack plans for every country in the world! So I guess they should leak those and let people scream in outrage?
A plan is not equal to intent. And you only know intent after it happens, not before.
"Here are the targets we'd attack in Canada if we were at war" is a little different from "everyone meet up at Fort Afghanistan in Tent 123 at 1300 hours".
Well, the thing of importance would be the enemy knowing a strike is coming (for example). If the military is having people come to a meeting, the subject of that meeting is already determined. A mole could release the details on Wikileaks, saying "they're meeting in Tent 123 to prepare for the attack on Kabul National Bank". Well, now the bank manager knows there's a strike force inbound.
Not that this is a problem inherent to Wikileaks; you could use any service to communicate the same thing. I'm just giving an example of a time where publishing sensitive documents could be done ahead of time to disastrous consequences.
So your argument is that the New York Times and Wikileaks have different journalistic standards.
That I can agree with.
I have seen the argument about potential harm raised a number of times, and I resonate with it and dislike it, just like I disliked Jane Fonda's trip to Hanoi during the Vietnam War but she wasn't made an enemy of the state.
But I note that even The National Enquirer gets the same journalistic privileges and protections that the New York Times does, we do not yet set a 'minimum standards of practice' bar for qualification as being journalists.
But "Freedom of the Press" is not a carte blanche allowance to print whatever you want, just as Freedom of Speech doesn't allow you to say whatever you want.
Prior restraint in the US has established that it is, in fact, "freedom of the reasonable press (as determined by the courts)", fortunately there needs to be a strong burden of proof that prior restraint is necessitated.
The relevant law(s) is(are) about disclosure of information, not the freedom of the press. Unless you want to challenge the constitutionality of government secrets. To illustrate in a related way, consider another example: Acessory to Murder. Which is a also a crime.
> Wikileaks, at least with the initial major leak, does not redact or edit information to protect anyone.
Do you have a source on this? I don't recall all the leaks, but I do remember hearing that Wikileaks did a lot of work redacting and quantizing location information (I think for the cables).
It seems that Gates found that Wikileaks did actually use some restraint (not perhaps as much as one would like but it would be inaccurate to characterize them as a free flow channel of secret data)
That is false. WL offered to censor any paper the US government could argue would bring people in danger. The US government demanded that they cease all publication.
The issue is that the NYT doesn't publish the stuff we actually need to know. NYT publish what we needed to know 30 years ago.
IIRC they were redacting information they judged to be dangerous to release. The unredacted dump was released due to the error of publishing the password to the backup archive they distributed on the internet for redundancy in a book.
Assange tried to weaponize the document dump. He put the encrypted dump out there and threatened that if anything happened to him the info would be released.
The fact that the key then leaked is an amazing demonstration of Wikileaks' incompetence, but it does not speak to the actual intent and threat that Assange was bringin to bear against the US government.
>The New York Times will parse and redact the information that they feel could endanger people from any classified information that they may publish or use in an article. They notably published the Pentagon Papers, which showed that the US had been misled regarding Vietnam.
I'm sure if wikileaks had co-operation from officials in this regard, they would have rededacted the information prior to release. Actually, it was publicized before release/after the point was made by officials that they weren't even going to consider cooperating with wikileaks.
>Wikileaks, at least with the initial major leak, does not redact or edit information to protect anyone. This has been one of the reasons major journalist outlets (such as NYT) didn't cooperate with them regarding the initial leak.
Initial leaks? Oh you mean initial AMERICAN leaks. The many first leaks pertained to a Swiss bank, the 2008 election campaign specifically Sarah Palin emails, a corrupt Kenyan leader, Scientology secrets, and a member ship list of the BNP. Also, while true major outlets didn't want to work with them (in the US), they did anyways, because Assange used them against each other pretty intelligently I might add. They may say he's a horrible person and dick in one column, but they (NYT + The Guardian) were his two biggest collaborators in these HORRIBLE leaks.
Sorry if I've made you upset or offended you. My sources are an index on censorship article (40+ org advocating free speech), wikipedia..., a rolling stone article with Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, A Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Article (best source of info IMO), and TPM (12+ blog/)
The best one by far is the Harvard Law Review article. Very fair, very deliberate, and in my opinion does a good job at presenting both sides.
I diffidently agree that there are major operational differences with these organizations, and even within the Wikileaks community, some dissent and division (most likely due to being open in nature).
It's not a white or black issue. While I think that there have been faux pas on both sides, IMO, the US gov should be the bigger man and just tighten it's security and not make so many outrageous and scary threats all the time. It makes them look bad and incompetent. Fix the security problem and move on. I also personally feel that this NGO (Wikileaks), has the right to exist. Read up on the awesomeness that they helped facilitate in Iceland! Some of that info is contained in this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk
Playing devil's advocate here, but several of the men were actually armed. The controversy was not whether unarmed men were killed, but that two Reuters journalists who were among them were killed. Also, the NYTimes didn't break the story, the Washington Post did.
A US Army information assurance agent downloaded gigabytes of state secrets and mailed them to a foreign national. Your willingness to call that a "nonsensical" breach says more about your biases than mine.
I don't think anybody disputes that the person or persons who both were given access to the classified data and then gave it to someone who wasn't cleared to have it, should not be hunted down and punished.
A number of people don't think that a journalistic organization that then tells the world about the information rises to the level of treasonous behavior.
There is no evidence that Wikileaks seeks to 'overthrow' or otherwise 'impune the soverignty of' the United States or any other country whose dirty laundry their air, they are in the most classical of definitions the "messenger" here.
What sort of reasoning can you use to show that they deserve the moniker 'enemy' which doesn't apply to the New York Times or the Economist?
The TechDirt article was very distracting, but it seems that they way the US Military tells its own members "don't send secret information to a given third-party or we will hang you by the neck until you are dead" is by declaring that third-party an enemy. The documents are entirely about how they are prosecuting "Subject."
Saying "enemy of the state" is sure good link bait, but it doesn't mean the US is in a state of war.
And do the US newspapers have this same classification?
I could see declaring Iranian state run TV as an enemy, they are the propaganda engine for Iran, I could see them declaring "The Center for Holy Jihad and the Complete Destruction of the US and Israel" an enemy.
But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get, whether its US secrets or Australian secrets or what ever.
So tell me the Times and the Washington Post are on the same list or have the same standing in the eyes of the US Government and I'll agree that this is a non-story and over blown.
> But Wikileaks seems to be pretty even handed in their dissemination of data they get
Of course "even-handed" can be read as "non-discerning", and I think that's one of the biggest problems with the attempts to classify what Wikileaks is doing as "journalism."
The NYT, for instance has released "state secrets" (the Pentagon Papers), but they did so because it revealed policy errors in the government's prosecution of the Vietnam war, which were clearly in the interests of the U.S. public to know. They carefully judged the value of the data, and released it because they felt the value of the making the information public in that specific case out-weighed the value of keeping it secret.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to have applied almost no judgement at all: they just released an enormous "bluh" of data, much of which is both problematic diplomatically (and so actually has the potential to harm U.S. interests) and yet of little obvious value to the U.S. public.
[An example being all the various cables where an ambassador says something like "The public here thinks president Y is a doodyhead, and we should be careful when talking about subjects A and B." In many cases this is essentially common wisdom, and yet seeing it explicitly stated by U.S. representatives may enrage "president X" and cause diplomatic problems for the U.S. in his country.]
Unless Wikileaks actually tries to follow journalistic practices, I don't think they can reasonably be called journalists. Journalism entails responsibility and judgement as well as freedom, and Wikileaks has shown little stomach for the former despite claiming the benefits of the latter.
No. No newspaper has that classification, including Al Jazeera. The US military isn't terrified that Reuters is trying to socially engineer whole databases of diplomatic cables out of them.
You're right, we are going to agree to disagree :-)
I think the US Military has every reason to be terrified that Reuters might successfully social engineer entire databases of sensitive data out of them in pursuit of a story.
We disagree on the response, I'd advocate the State department and Military need to give better training and supervision of their staff. Not, if Reuters is successful, declaring Reuters an enemy.
I think he was fully aware of the nature of his actions but incorrect in his expectations as to how he would be perceived. In the chats between Lamo and Manning it was apparent he thought he'd be seen as some sort of hero for his actions by the majority of the US population. Obviously this isn't the case.
A number of people don't think that a journalistic organization that then tells the world about the information rises to the level of treasonous behavior.
-- The question is inducement. Context is relevant.
Eg, Is it ok for the "XYZ press" to pay for people to <leak> "official" secrets? What about foreign press? What about foreign governments? What about foreign State press? Quite quickly you end up in the edge-case of pretexting bad behaviour in the name of otherwise legitimate activity.
I think we agree, I've been arguing the 'Equal protection' angle, which is to say that if Wikileaks is an enemy of the US then so is every journalistic outlet in the world. This is a general argument and says nothing about specific acts.
Now if you or I or a reporter or a Mossad agent or a IRG member seeks out someone with classified information and bribes, extorts, or otherwise induces that person to reveal it, that is espionage pure and simple. If the person doing the inducing has diplomatic immunity they are expelled, if the person who gave up the information is identified they are dealt with in either civil court or military court.
Over our history, we have chosen to separate that activity from people who are in possession of classified information that they feel proves or exposes some great injustice or cover up. And that person independently seeks out a reporting agency to bring the information to light and correct the injustice. We still prosecute the people who release that information but we haven't (traditionally) been able to prosecute the receiver of that information (and I'll reiterate that the Pentagon Papers case is a great exemplar here).
So the treatment here would seem to hinge on the motivation of the organization and how they came about to have possession of the classified information.
Wikileaks hasn't been incriminated (here, at least).
While doing a personnel investigation, the Air Force said that female Subject was accused of communication with the enemy.
Saying that "the enemy" was Wikileaks, and that "enemy" means various nefarious things are both things that are being read into this, with much urging from Assange and his lawyer. The Air Force didn't even want to publicize this but it got released by a FOIA request; it's hard to say I was incriminating a third-party with communications intended to be private.
(I could well see that "communication with the enemy" refers to any dissemination of classified data that could end up in the hands of the enemy. Just what should count is probably a good debate to have, and I bet it's already been had since issues like this were around long before the Internet.)
"Make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources" is exactly what is happening here. A member of the military (presumably a female in the Air Force, from context) was leaking information to (EDIT: suspected of corresponding with) Assange and/or Manning.
But doesn't the same logic make every person without classified access an enemy of the state?
That is, if an Army agent emails classified info to you or your neighbor, that should be wrong without labeling you and your neighbor enemies of the USA.
My point is that I see the comment I replied to as incredibly biased. I see it as laden with charged words and assumptions of the nobility of "our" side and the badness of "their" side.
One man's state secret is another man's dirty laundry.
Edit: In other words, you weren't really saying anything :D
Edit 2: I always come to regret saying "you". Pointing fingers doesn't feel good.
If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Case closed.
It already is, that's why Bradley Manning is in detention, the only problem is that it's selectively enforced largely because it's not easy to figure out the source of each leak.
There is, United States v. Manning, Bradley E., PFC, presided over by Colonel Denise Lind. Even in civilian courts trials tend to move slowly, especially when there are many different defence motions filed.
The court-martial was due to start on the 21st of this month, but has been delayed as a result of a motion filed by Manning's defence to dismiss all charges. The hearing for this motion will be on 29 October and the court-martial will now only start after that's resolved, expected to be early next year.
I believe that what is meant by "criminalizing contact between Wikileaks and active servicemembers" is not that Wikileaks should be considered an enemy of the US, but rather that "leaking secrets to Wikileaks" should be criminalized.
The same should hold for communicating confidential information to any newspaper, I don't believe that Wikileaks should be singled out here.
Exactly, see my 'connecting the dots' response below. I get it that the US is pissed off that people are sending Wikileaks classified information, the Nixon administration was really pissed off by Woodward and Bernstein's revelations and the Johnson adminstration was in a tizzy over the release of the Pentagon papers, but they didn't turn around and declare the papers and the journalists 'enemies of the state' now did they?
So, if I mean to do espionage against the US military, all I have to do is gather lots of information, and publicly dump part of my findings in order to become a "news organization".
All this nonsense about "most grievous breach in opsec history" and "extracting information" completely obscures the issue by putting the blame on the wrong boot.
Hacking, spying, all these things can and should be declared illegal/wrong. But publishing data that was sent to you by a willing informant is much less clear-cut, and certainly doesn't warrant "enemy of the state" status from any country claiming to respect freedom of the press.
The goal of news organizations is to find out information and make it public. If you want to keep information private, fine, make it a criminal offense for your people to disclose that information to news sources. Case closed.