Thread: WikiLeaks
View Single Post
Dimnos Dimnos is offline
LOVES the tubal ligation!
Dimnos's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Baseball Town, TX
Dimnos is probably a real personDimnos is probably a real person
Old Dec 22nd, 2010, 04:33 PM       
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
so are guberment secrets that can harm the nation if displayed, apparantly :O
This is another point in this whole debate. IS anything he posted really going to harm the nation or its military efforts. Most of what has been released by Wikileaks (I dont say all because I havent read over all 200K+ documents) doesnt pertain any current military actions. They document mistakes and carelessness on the part of the military in events that happened in '09.

So far from what I have been reading about the espionage act this is also what keeps them from being in violation of the espionage act. But more on that later.

Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
Isn't that what 4chan basically did in response to this? thought i saw guitar woman or someone mention that
Yes and by all accounts they are in fact guilty. However unless you can prove that Assange is a member and actually partook in their illegal hacking then he still isnt guilty. Even if they did it "in his name" or whatever.

Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
In response to the actions of Julian Assange and his organization, U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman, John Ensign, and Scott Brown "introduced a bill to amend the Espionage Act in order to facilitate the prosecution of folks like Wikileaks."[31] This legislation, known as the SHIELD Act, "would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence informants."[32] Critics have noted that "[l]eaking [classified] information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers," and that "Liebermanís proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community."[33]
Interesting that they want to modify the law specifically for the Julian Asshinge thing. Does that mean wikileaks leaked the names of US Military and Intelligence informants?
I dont exactly follow this quote. At the beginning it sounds like they want to prosecute Wikileaks. Then it switches to talk specifically about military and intelligence informants and releasing their names. I dont know if Wikileaks released actual names of informants but if they have to amend the law to make what Wikileaks did illegal then arent they kind of saying it wasnt illegal before? Ill read up more about this Shield Act while Im reading up on the espionage thing.
Reply With Quote