- Who is legally responsible for the wikileaks?
- Is this a First Amendment issue? Why or why not? Explain your response. (You may also want to incorporate the Pentagon Papers).
- Is there a case to be made that this violates the Espionage Act of 1917?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Blog #12 - Wikileaks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Wikileaks has been represented by Julian Assange. The creators has not been formally identified , but its website was launched in 2006, and ran by the Sunshine Press.
ReplyDelete2 From my research, on Google, it stated that the Government did have the right to go after and punish the person within the miltary who gave the personal information. Also it stated the Pentagon Papers were none comparable to the Wikileaks because the situation were totally different, where as the Pentagon Papers- the people had been lied to. The wikileaks- someone went about and transferred personal information. In my personal opinion the situation on whether this is a first admendment issue kind of contradict itself because, i feel that the person did have the right to freedom of speech, but since the issue was personal that wasnt that person's place to put out the information.
3 The Washington Post stated that Julian violated criminal charges in the groups release of the Government's documents, and there could be possible charges under the Espionage Act, but as of now it is unclear whether any charges will be brought. Also, prosecutions involving leaked cassified information are different because the Espionage Act is a 1917 stature that preceded supreme court cases that expanded the first admendment protections. The government would also have to have another country (outside the U.S) to turn over Assange.
1. They are not sure of who legally founded WikiLeaks, but as for now Julian Assange is being held accountable.
ReplyDelete2. "WikiLeaks has the same First Amendment rights as any company or group of individuals. But the First Amendment is not a license to break the law," was what an article i read stated but in my words, i feel Wikileaks doesnt have a right ti giving that information unless they were actually associated with the government and had the rights to give that information.
3. "It is possible for the US government to use the Espionage Act, but it will face many hurdles due to its potential unconstitutionality", was what the The Wikileaks Cablegate stated.
1.As for right now the U.S. has put the unauthorised leaks on Julian Assange, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks.
ReplyDelete2. WikiLeaks may or may not be a First Amendment issue. From my research, the WikiLeaks document in fact appear to fall into an unresolved area of US law. The First Amendment strongly shields the publication of truthful information, legally acquire. Supreme Court justices have not resolved the question of “whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well,” concludes a Congressional Research Service analysis of the issue, published on October 10. The closest the high court has come to ruling on this issue may have been the famous 1971 Pentagon Papers case, in which justices rejected a Nixon administration plea that they stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from printing a leaked top secret study of the history of US policy in Vietnam. It was a landmark ruling in regards to US press freedoms. But what the ruling rejected was the government’s efforts to order publication. I think that WikiLeaks does not have the right to be giving out information, even if the First Amendment clearly states that we have the freedom of speech. I think we do, but just not to put out and say everything. It shoud be a LIMIT!!!
3.“He’s gone a long way down the road of talking himself into a possible violation of the Espionage Act,” said Floyd Abrams. It’s still possible that judges could rule that the First Amendment protects WikiLeaks’ actions, of course. Freedom of speech is a basic US constitutional right. What Assange and WikiLeaks may have done, however, is set up a lawyer's dream of a case which would allow the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between two basic rights – the right to speak, and the right of the US to hold close its secrets, stated Peter Grier, in a article.
1)Who is legally responsible for the wikileaks?
ReplyDelete-It is not clear who is legally responsible but Julian Assanage is the wikileaks frontman.
2)Is this a First Amendment issue? Why or why not? Explain your response. (You may also want to incorporate the Pentagon Papers).
- I feel that this is not a First Amendment issue. The first Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This Amendment says nothing about if you break the law. The Wikileaks have the fredom of press according to the first Amendment, but I feel that it is unethical to use the powers of the First Amendment to break the laws.
3)Is there a case to be made that this violates the Espionage Act of 1917?
-Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.
1. Julian Assange is currently being held accountable for the legal issues regarding Wikileaks.
ReplyDelete2. I personally feel that this isn't a firs amendment issue because freespeech doesn't protect you if you are breaking the law. I am still not one hundred percent familiar with the situation but from what I have gathered, some of their information may have been gathered by "questionable" means. This would lead me to believe that first amendment protection wouldn't be extended to them.
3.I guess it is possible, but it would be very difficult to build a substantial case against Wikileaks.
This is not a question of first amendment rights, it is more a question of “are we Americans truly as free as the government makes us believe.” I think it is a violation of first amendment rights on it’s rawest and barest interpretation; the American government wants to give the perception that we have rights, as long as our rights and our execution of those rights does not confront their plans and secrets. I definitely believe that America does not need to know everything. I think the government has to keep secrets out of sheer protection for the American public. Americans can not comprehend that it is in our best interest that the government hides things. On the other hand, if the American government wants to give their constituents rights, they should be clear and should have a single standard. The right to free speech has been granted, but in the fine print they hide things like, “as long as it does not offend any one” or “you can say what you want as long as we approve it.” I guess the point of this rant is to state the fact that as Americans we are not really free. As long as there is someone or a group of people with more power and authority than others, there will never be true freedom. The secret is for American citizens to accept that the government is doing what they do in our best interest and to protect us. That is after all, why we elect them...WE do elect them right?
ReplyDeleteThe personal legally responsible for Wikileaks is the American government. The face and founder is Julian Assange. The reason the government is responsible is because they patrol “cyberspace” and view what is available, especially that which is directly correlated with government issues. If they did not want a site like this to publish secret information, they should have shut it down sooner. This goes back to the point I made earlier; the government wants to give the illusion that we are free to do as we please, as long as they are okay with it. The personnel responsible for the leak itself is the United States Army. Not Julian Assange, not Bradley Manning, but those above Private Manning. As a private, there is no way that Manning had access to such sensitive files and information. Someone above him had to have screwed up, leaked information, or sold it. Instead of lobbying for Bradley Manning to be executed, why not put that effort into finding out who screwed up and let him get access to confidential information?
The Espionage Act of 1917 seems to be a violation of the First Amendment. It prohibits speech of anything that might undermine the nation or an ally of our nation. I feel this is a violation of the first amendment, but I think it was imposed such that it kept negative light from being shed on leaders during a time of war. To answer the question, in this modern case, the Wikileaks situation does seem to be a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Hayden, thank you for further clarifying the specifics of the Espionage Act of 1917
ReplyDeletealso I apologize for the length of my responses, I was forced to do these from my phone due to Internet problems
Julian Assange is identified as the editor-in-chief and founder of wikileaks, and is thus held legally responsible.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to answer questions 2 and 3 at the same time. I believe that this is not a First Amendment issue because wikileaks clearly violates the Espionage Act of 1917, which held that it is unlawful to interfere with military operations in any way, including free speech that is seen as violating the “clear and present danger rule.” The “clear and present danger rule” allows government regulation of speech if it presents a clear and present danger to bring “evils” to the operations of congress. The case of the recent leaks on wikileaks that regard wars that the United States is currently in cannot really be compared to the situation with the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were released after the Vietnam War was over, and were released because they showed a huge gap between what actually went on and what the government told the American people. At that point, their release was purely for public knowledge and did not present much of a danger to current military operations. Still, the government worked to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers, and today they are still under the “classified” name. The documents recently released on wikileaks regarding the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan are a problem because they divulge information to everyone—not just Americans—about current conflicts. And worse, Assange isn’t even American. He is sharing military secrets with the world (our enemies included) about a country that he has no ties to. While it may have been wrong for the government to stop release of the Pentagon Papers, the US has every right to stop wikileaks. If the site was not punished for what they have already released, they would have clearance to publish more and more—maybe eventually threatening our entire nation’s security in general.
@ Hayden:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you the the US needs to investigate who in the military (besides Manning) has been leaking. If they don't solve that, more leakages may occur.
1. Julian Assange was identified as the editor-in-chief and founder of wikileaks; however, they are still unsure on some instances.
ReplyDelete2.No this is not a First Amendment issue in no way, shape or form. The First Amendment gives you the right to express yourself freely; however, we all know that there are "understood" restrictions on that amendment as well. It does NOT give you the right to break the law because you feel like it. He could've gotten his point across (if there ever was an initial point) another way than what how he chose to handle it in this unnecessary situation.
3. It could possibly be a violation because it prohibits you from saying anything negative about the U.S that may damage its reputation in layman's terms. On the other hand, I do feel that it may be very difficult to build a reasonably, strong case based off the information they have.
http://wikileaks.fi here is the site based out of Finland for public viewing. The US has shut the site down, but they have found refuge in other countries. If this doesn't pull up I found a few other ways to access the site. This gives you access to the Iraq, and Afghanistan War logs. Also the video Collateral Murder, and a few other sensitive items.
ReplyDeleteJulian Assange
ReplyDeleteI don't feel that this is a 1st Amendment issue simply because Julian Assange isn't an American citizen. He's Australian. Not only is he not an American citizen, but he's been breaking the law. I think the issue here is that Julian Assange is posing a threat to the Government. He has information that wasn't intended for worldwide distribution. It shocked me however, when I tried going directly to wikileaks. I couldn't. I read that wikileaks had been dropped from U.S. domain name servers. You couldn't get to it unless you had an alternate address, which I found easily enough on wikipedia. The site was just as you'd imagine. Logs of classified documents. It was cool.. I guess.
has he violated the Espionage Act of 1917? He's been dealing military secrets. Has he interfered with the military, or its recruitment? I think that someone should just give him a good kick in the pants and tell him to watch what he puts on wikileaks or he'll get two kicks next time.
The more research I have done, it suggest that Bradley didn't just stumble upon this information but more so that he sought it out in an effort to punish the government for such lacking security, both cyber and physical.He told an ex-hacker through chats that it was actually quite easy because other people just sat around on youtube or playing games or practicing other wasteful practices; so it made gaining access to files easy and made being detected even more less likely.Originally I was under the assumption that he just happened to gain access to said files but I now know that I was wrong. I felt that Bradley Manning was being punished to an extreme, but now, I feel that he deserves severe punishment for his actions. Not necessarily the death penalty, but a good prison sentence should definitely suffice. I still stand by my previous statements that the US government and Army should have taken precautions to prevent this from happening. I also feel that sites like Wikileaks are perfectly acceptable by the First Amendment and that if the government does not want sensitive information being leaked then they should do more to protect it.
ReplyDeleteThough Wikileaks is currently linked to Australian journalist Julian Assange, I’m not sure he is the one that can be LEGALLY held responsible, at least not here in the U.S. First of all, he isn’t even American so it would be hard to charge him since he’s not a citizen under our Constitution. Secondly, nothing he did was actually illegal. He’s not forcing any one to get the information and he isn’t stealing it. All the information that he is leaking was offered to him. That being said, I think the ones who are offering up the documents are the ones who are legally responsible. I don’t think this can be considered a First Amendment problem because it does say that the government can not infringe on a person's freedom of speech. However, this could definitely be a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Though it is very broad it does include unlawful possession of classified information, if you have reason to believe that disclosure of the information could cause harm to the U.S. As Far as the Pentagon Papers, I think they are two different things. The Pentagon Papers were published because the U.S. government lied to American citizens about their stance on the war and were a way of revealing to the people what the U.S. government was actually doing and even included some false information. The documents in the Wikileaks are just raw unedited bits and pieces of standard written documents and summaries that don’t really reveal anything as controversial.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to place legal blame on one certain figure or organization in the Wikileaks situation. Julian Assanage is the founder of the site and had has accusations made but it’s still unclear as to whether he is overall responsible.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think this can be considered plausible First Amendment problem because it does say that the government cannot hinder a person's freedom of speech. Though I do believe this could undoubtedly be a violation against the Espionage Act of 1917. Though it is vague it does mention illegal possession of classified information, meaning if believed that discovery of the information could cause harm to the U.S. The Pentagon Papers were published because the U.S. government was dishonest with the American citizens about their position on the current war and were a way of enlightening the people what the U.S. government was really doing and even included some phony information. The documents in the Wikileaks aren’t nearly as controversial but are just are standard pieces of documents.
1. As of right now, Julian Assange is being held legally responsible for the leaks.
ReplyDelete2. I mean, yeah technically it is a 1st amendment issue. It is the freedom of the press to say whatever they want. The Pentagon Papers were the same way. It is a person's right to say whatever they want. It is other people's right as to whether or not they take it as truth. I understand that the government wants to keep things private and blah blah blah but it's things like this that show just how much they are keeping from us. With the leak of the Pentagon Papers, America was able to see just how much we had done toward the Vietnam War. It is the right of the citizens to know what they're government is doing and leaks such as this are a great way to see that.
3. Hmmm, this is a more difficult question for me to answer. I suppose from one direction the wikileaks are in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, but it is hard for me to distinguish the difference between the Espionage Act and the 1st Amendment. It sounds more like the wikileaks are in violation of The Sedition Act of 1918, which of course is no longer in use. People talk bad about the government all the time. I think that people choose to believe what they want anyways and just as many people that believe everything coming from the wikileaks is true the same amount think it's lies. I think the best thing that could've happened here is for the government to deny everything. Now morally, that is definitely not what should be done, but if it's about the government covering it's butt, they might as well. Government is becoming more and more corrupt now so why not just add another thing on the pile?
Anyways, my opinion on this whole thing is the people have a right to know what is going on, and the government has a duty to protect it's people. Where the line crosses is so thin that it is hard for me to make a rational decision on the whole matter. As a curious individual, I do want to know what is going on, but as a scared human, I want o be protected from my enemies. I suppose it is up to the courts and their interpretation on the Declaration of Independence as to whether or not the wikileaks organization is right or wrong.
@ Hayden
ReplyDeleteAgreed that they should have shut the site down sooner in order to keep things like this from happened, and also agreed that by doing that it would be in violation of the amendment which shows that we are only free so long as what we're doing is okay with the government. And everyone wonders why I stay out of politics. This is a prime example. I respect that they're here to keep us safe but I do not respect the hypocrisy that seems to go along with that duty.
* the 1st amendment just to clarify.
ReplyDelete1. the government is holding the editor in cheif Julian Assange however i dont think he can be found legally responsible i think he cant be held responsible because he only allowed the leaks he didnt actually leak the items which i think is a big difference.
ReplyDelete2. I think for Julian Assange this is not a first amendment issue because he is not an American citizen which no matter how angry with him the United States is it would be out of their place to go get someone because they are mad at him. However for the military man that did release the papers i think the military has the right to do to him what they want he after all is under their control.
3. I think it is an issue with the Espionage act if the release of those documents would cause clear and present danger however if it wont then i think not
1.) As of now there no single person is being held legally responsible for WikiLeaks, but it's founder is being searched for. Julian Assanage is part of it's Advisory Committee and has been representing WikiLeaks.
ReplyDelete2.) Though the information was considered classified in the government, government information cannot be protected by the copyright laws which are given to document by the protection of the 1st Amendment. The Pentagon Papers are similar to the documents release on WikiLeaks, but the P.P. were about the history of the Vietnamese war and about how the American public was lied to not about Americas diplomacy with The World, so they can't really be compared to each other.
3.) I believe the Espionage Act of 1917 can help the government fight back against WikiLeaks, but they will have to prove Assanage was attempting to aide the enemies of America and not just inform the public on what goes on in diplomatic meetings. Also, since foreign governments are able to see this information, we are fighting The War on Terror and the Koreans are at war, the government can sorta use that at it's advantage.
@ Hayden
ReplyDeleteI like that you said, "the government wants to give the illusion that we are free to do as we please". And also, how you blamed the Army, because you're right, if he is just a private how did he get this information? Did he snoop around? Is there an accomplice from the higher ranks? Is this an attempt to show the government that it's lacking a strong, yet democratic, security force in cyberspace? Or, is this guy just some officer who wanted to be a journalist before enlistment and decided to inform the public from inside the government itself?
1. As for now, Julian Assange is being held accountable because he is the editor in chief of wikileaks.
ReplyDelete2.I do not think that this is a first ammendment rights issue because the law does not clarify if the same freedom of publication rights extend to illegally obtained material. The closest the government has ever come to ruling on a case similar to this is the Pentagon Papers issue in 1971. In that case the Nixon administration was trying to prevent two prominant newspapers from printing leaked information about government polies.The justices ruled that the government could not stop the newspapers from enjoying freedom of press.However, in my opinion the pentagon papers issue was not as pressing as the wikileaks issue is, due to the fact that the pentagon papers were printed after the Vietnam war had ended while these wikileaks documents apply to the current situation in the middle east.
3.Yes,I do believe that the wikileaks case is a violation of the espionage act of 1917. This act prohibits anyone from communicating top secret information about our national defense to anyone who is not authorized to see it.
@Nancy- I agree with you that the pentagon papers issue was not as prominant of an issue compared to the wikileaks due to the fact that we are still dealing with the war in the middle east and those documents put people in danger while the pentagon papers were after the vietnam war and they were not harming anyone.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJulian Assange is the main person that is being held accountable along with Bradley Manning who is the private being accused for giving out the information. In my opinion this is not a First Amendment Issue, because Bradley Manning had a security clearance so he was not allowed to share classified material, if he broke that rule he should be punished. What I have read about the Pentagon Papers is that the information in them was given voluntarily by U.S. government officials to an American official who leaked it. The main difference with the Wikileaks is that the person responsible for it isn’t even American, and the information was given by someone who was not allowed to share it. I believe that if Bradley Manning did give out the information then he violated the Espionage Act of 1917. The Espionage Act makes it a crime “To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.” I don’t know about Assange because he is not an American Citizen, but I think Assange and whoever else is involved should be punished, he doesn’t have the right to potentially put thousands of people in danger just because he isn’t happy with what America is doing. Also I don’t think that America is the only country that keeps controversial secrets from its citizens.
ReplyDelete1. As many have already said the one being held accoutable for the wikileaks is Julian Assange.
ReplyDelete2. I don't see it as an issue but more or less a loop hole for people to work around the gov't. In America there are no restrictioins to what exactly can and can't be said. So although someone giving away the counrtry's secrets is a pretty drastic thing there is nothing the government can do to punish the average Ameican citizen. Do I believe there should be some set rule of what you can say? Yes, I think in matters of giving away things dealing with the country's military and government secrets I do believe there should be rules placed on just throwing that kind of information to the general public.
3. The notion of there being a case is possible but it would be hard gathering and putting together a valid case against Wikileaks.
@Madison I agree it's not a violation of The First Amend. there weren't any regulation on speech and this is a clear example of someones possible exploitation of their rigths.
ReplyDelete1.The founder Julian Assange is responsible for creating Wikileaks and its objective. However, I think those individuals who have submitted classified information to Wikileaks are also legally responsible for violating Sec 1.8 of Executive Order 13526 which was signed by Obama in December of 2009.
ReplyDelete2.Questions 2 and 3.
I do not believe that the First Amendment should apply to Wikileaks because the First Amendment is that of the United States Constitution, and Wikileaks is hosted by a company based in Sweden.
I would have to say that Wikileaks is not violating the Espionage Act of 1917 because Schenk v United States created the “clear and present danger” premise, and we are not in formally-declared war against any nation.
I think Wikileaks, while intending to be noble, could greatly jeopardize the lives of US soldiers in current military operations. Currently, all it is doing is undermining the credibility of our government, and I think that it’s fine as long as their information is sound. If the government really is doing terrible things, then it should not be illegal to tell the public. The biggest problem is that at some point Wikileaks might let out information that endangers the lives of our soldiers abroad. By US law, we can’t stop anyone from letting “the cat out of the bag” but can only punish them afterwards. [Near v Minnesota prevents the government from placing “prior restraints” on the press. Yates v United States protects the right to publish radical and reactionary speech unless through your speech you have directly incited others into action towards the violent overthrow of the government. New York Times Co v United States let the press publish then-classified documents because they presented no clear and present danger.]
Wikileaks is wrong to point out the flaws in another nation’s government, but the most the US can do about it is get into the computer encryption and find out which people within the US government are leaking classified information (such as Bradley Manning) and prosecute them.
1. Since Julian Assange is the founder of Wikileaks, he is being held responsible for the allegations.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t really think that this a First Amendment issue because the first amendment does say that
you have the freedom of speech, but there is no guarantee that there aren’t consequences for
what is said. And I’m pretty sure that the preamble of the U.S. Constitution says, “We the people
of the United States”, and not, “Everybody on the United States Territory”. Plus, Julian Assange
isn’t even a U.S. citizen.
3. There could be a case brought against Wikileaks that says that they are in violation of the
Espionage Act just because the U.S. wants to cover its butt, but I don’t see why because of the
simple fact that the Espionage Act of 1917 and The First Amendment are in contradiction of
each other.
I agree with Diamond and Alex on their viewpoints for question number 3. I also agree with Ben
ReplyDeletefor saying that they should “kick him in the pants.”
1. At this time the blame is being put on Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks.
ReplyDelete2.I do not believe that this is a First Amendment issue.Yes, we have the freedom of speech, but this freedom does not mean that we can knowingly do something wrong and then throw this freedom in their face as a defense. Citizens are supposed to fight for their country not spill government secrets. "The First Amendment strongly shields the publication of truthful information, legally acquired," but this information was gotten illegally so will it still be protected? I am not exactly sure how this will turn out but I believe that the government has a strong case against Bradley Manning, who revealed the information, because he violated the Espionage Act.
3. "...yes, the espionage act can apply to WikiLeaks and I think that there's a pretty good argument that it would apply to WikiLeaks," is the answer I got from Mr. Abrams, an attorney who represented the New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers.
@ John- I like your response about Assange not being a citizen so he cant be held responsible.
ReplyDelete1. There are many people who are at fault here in some way or another, but legally if anyone was to be tried for leaking the information the ones who would most likely be accountable are Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. Bradley Manning is allegedly the person who downloaded the cables without permission or validation, therefore being the main target in pinpointing who leaked the information. Although Julian Assange has had less to do with this than most people think in my opinion (considering this would still have most likely been just as popular and widespread whether he had been involved or not), he has been crucial in the relaying of the information on independent sites and through multiple mainstream media sources. I think he may be held partially responsible for knowingly misusing classified military cables, but considering the New York Times Co. v. United States results in the Pentagon Papers, he may be held innocent since the New York Times was not held responsible for publishing the leaked briefs. The U.S. Government should also hold parts if not the entire department of the U.S. Department of Defense for letting this go so easily.
ReplyDelete2. I think this is a crucial First Amendment issue, since it could possibly determine the entire relationship of government and the people it serves. Since this country's birth the U.S. Government has systematically opted for and progressed into an extremely powerful establishment that while basing its system on how informative its electorates are in regards to electing leaders, withholds an incredible amount of information and government action for a so called democracy. This has been an underlining issue since the 60's. Some political activists feel justified in saying that the government should have no secrets from the people it serves if they are to be a true republic. It defeats the purpose of giving power to the people theory that this country is based upon. But it's necessity is the question. Leaks like this often expose government info or action that is publicly unpopular or condemned, such as the Pentagon Papers, therefore bringing up the issue that we need to know about government action so we can stop it if the country feels it's wrong. I personally feel that at this point, leaks such as these are more harmful than close to a breakthrough or anything like that. Although the government sometimes exerts a disturbing amount of power, we have trusted in our government and its system for as long as we have been around. Without any trust in our system we can fall to pieces, especially when the next administration tries to make progress with an overly suspicious and critical public. Our government has made mistakes, undoubtedly, but overall I feel confident that our system renders good results. I'm proud to be an American, and in two centuries we've become the most prominent nation in the world that others aspire to. So screw freedom of the press.
3. There is a case to be made for the Espionage Act of 1917 towards Bradley Manning at least. With the Pentagon Papers, the leaker was held responsible and indicted for his actions. Manning will most likely be found guilty for charges of stealing and holding secret documents. I don't think Assange will be punished too badly if at all considering the prior rulings of cases such as this towards the people who have played roles like his. But the Espionage Act should apply to the leakers at the least.
Just to elucidate on the issue further, not concerning the questions, I think the issue of transition into the 21st Century for the government is a big problem here. Maybe not in terms of the impact of the leaked cables, but the manner in which they were allegedly stolen. The U.S. Government has tried to upgrade its communication system tenfold after 9/11 due to huge lapses and miscues in what has become a terribly outdated communication system. So we've moved to an extremely centralized information base that gives easy access to around 3 million government personnel. The new information system is basically a special, classified internet for the government. Although this would make sharing information within the government remarkably faster and more widespread for a more cohesive effort in the government, you'd have to think that the U.S. Government be more careful with what it makes available, and what it puts on the system. They have to realize that since the loads of information can be accessed pretty easily, they can't just post up sensitive information for fear of a leak, and maybe even worse a hack from an enemy. Suppose Iran wanted to find out what we thought about them and their threat level as well as our plan to disarm their nuclear facilities. They can just go give an official two million bucks or plant an agent to look that up and boom, they know that we don't take them seriously so they decide to shoot a rocket at the moon or Africa or something. They need to change something so it's not so easy for a guy stationed in Iraq to just grow a conscience and start a movement to undermine the government's policies.
ReplyDelete@ Hayden
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand of the leakage, the manner in which Bradley acquired the sensitive information is through the U.S. classified SIPRNet. Basically the internet for government people so they can speed up communications drastically. The problem is that the cables were made available for Manning on this special internet. I don't know how he got the information logistically, since a private shouldn't have that kind of access, but regardless it was far too easy to get classified information on our government. I just don't think, from what has been shown thus far, it was someone directly above him within the military that screwed up, but the Department of Defense screwing up for making that available somehow.
1.) No one is sure of who is legally responsible for WikiLeaks, but Julian Assange is being held accountable.
ReplyDelete2.) From one article I read, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder stated that this case echoed the Pentagon Papers case. I do believe this is a First Amendment issue, but that being said, just because this type of information was available doesn't give "Julian Assange in question" to post it on the Internet.
3.) I absolutely believe that WikiLeaks is a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. It may provide crucial information to possible "enemies" of the U.S.
@ LNZ. Their interpretation of the Declaration of Independence? Did you mean Constitution, or am I just not getting it?
ReplyDelete1. The founder and members of Wikileaks are responsible for all content shown on that site. The founder is responsible by law directly, and the members are held responsible by the terms and agreements signed when registering for membership to the site.
ReplyDelete2. This is definitely a first amendment issue, the issue being, should Wikileaks be protected by the First Amendment? I think the answer is simply yes because Wikileaks has not proven to have violated the Espianoge act, and otherwise can talk about whatever it wants. The Pentagon Papers were suspected to violate the first amendment, but I don't see anything wrong with pointing out corruption in government, which could reasonably be the intention of Bradley Manning. Having said that, I still feel that the people responsible for leaking classified government information with absolutely no authority to do so is completely illegal in other ways, and those individuals should be punished to the full extent of the law. In accordance with their punishment, most likely WikiLeaks will cease to exist anyway.
3. I believe there could be made a case for this issue to be in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 if they can prove that Bradley Manning or Julian Assange or any other participant in the release of these classified military documents had the intent of interfering with the operations or success of US armed forces. I think this will be tricky to prove however because they released the documents publicly, not to a specific group or individual, like lets say an enemy of the US, which is the Act's main concern.
@ Everyone. Here is something that just makes me beam with pride in our government's security. (taken from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wikileaks-case-pvt-bradley-manningss-alleged-role-leaking/story?id=11254454&page=1)
ReplyDelete---
The young soldier wrote of how he downloaded the classified information.
"I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like 'Lady Gaga'," he told Lamo.
While pretending to sing along to Lady Gaga's hit "Telephone," Manning would actually be erasing the music from the CD and recording intelligence onto it instead.
"Yes, that is how he would do it," Lamo said. "Faking he was listening to Gaga."
1)Julian Assange is being held accountable for the wikileaks.
ReplyDelete2)This should not be a first amendment issue and I don't see it as one. The first amendment does in fact grant the freedom of speech but doing something intentionally and knowingly wrong and releasing this kind of information is not alright. The first amendment "shields the publication of truthful information legally acquired." However, since this information was acquired illegally it should not be protected and neither should the people that released it. I understand that the constitution was purposefully written in a vague way, but I feel like there should be laws specifically stating what exactly can and can't be said.
3) Yes. I feel like the act itself violates the first amendment, and because of that this case would face a very difficult and probably quite tedious process. However, law is law, and this does in fact violate that. I could be completely off base here but I think this case could possibly even be viewed as treason.
@ Jessica
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, Wikileaks was hosted by a domain in the US until this past week when paypal and that domain droped Wikileaks. Julian Assange then proceeded to find a domain in Switzerland. So in that sense the US Constitution did apply and should if tried by our court system. Also, although I personally agree with the "clear and present danger" definition, it has been eroded in past Espionage act cases, so it really comes down to the court's interpretation of the intent of the accused.
Otherwise I really liked your points about the possible impact of this issue.
@ Andrew:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing more info. You made me understand a lot more about how the info was leaked and how our government's communication system operates. I agree with you that we HAVE to place trust in our government and need to have faith that they are doing what's best. If we didn't, the country would fall and all the countries that rely on us would be wounded as well. Exposing government lies is important, but only to a certain extent. With things like the Pent. papers, since the Vietnam War was over, that leak was more like giving Americans a clearer view than history. But Wikileaks has the power to reveal things that truly don't need to be revealed. Because even if it is something the American people could benefit from knowing, global communication allows the rest of the world to know it too. The Wikileaks issue isn't about honesty, or even Freedom of Speech. It's about stolen info and crippling the US.
1. As of now, no one person is responsible for Wikileaks. However, the finger is being pointed at Julian Assange.
ReplyDelete2. I do not believe that WikiLeaks is in violation of the First Amendment. It seems to me that the site is just a different form of press that some governments weren't prepared for (China) and these governments and countries simply don't want their "dirty laundry" aired. According to Wikipedia, in the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse. Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the WikiLeaks project, noting that "Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East." This result came out of the Daniel Ellisburg "Pentagon Papers" situation. The way I see it, if a government or country wants to be seen as moral and ethically upstanding, then they should operate in that manner. Don't do behind closed doors what you don't want the world to see, because it will come out. Due to 21st centurey technology, it's obvious that this truth can be taken more literally than ever.
3.) The Espionage Act of 1917 stated that it was a crime to...:
-Convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.
-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 when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine or by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or both.
It is yet to be seen whether Wikileaks violate this law or not. Unfortunately, we could realize that it is in violation once we are attacked by another country and it is found that Wikileaks benefited them in their acts. So the question is do you wait for something like that to happen, or do you jump ahead of yourself and take away what as of now appears to be someone's First Amendment privledge? I say you have to remove Wikileaks because it could indeed prove to be in violation of the Espionage Act in the future. It would be a gesture not to take away our rights, but to protect us and our country.
@Mercedes I think that it isn't in violation of the Espionage Act, and from what you said you actually do to. You said it MAY provide crucial information to possible enemies of the U.S. However as of now, nobody knows whether it is or not. So until then, I don't see it as being in violation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Julian. I just looked deeper into where Wikileaks is hosted. I know Wikipedia is not the most trustworthy source of information, but I don't have a better consolidation of information. According to Wikipedia, Assange has servers spread in multiple countries and the central server in Sweden. From Reuters.com: on November 4 he told a Swiss TV station, TSR, that he was considering seeking political asylum and may move the site operations to Switzerland.
ReplyDelete1. It is not completely clear on who is responsible for WikiLeaks, but Julian Assanage is the frontman.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t necessarily think that this is a first amendment issue. This is like serious stuff, dealing with breaking the law. I think that the wikileaks are like a crime. It has caused a lot of controversy and blame on people. I read an article on CNN.com. It states that the “State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that Secretary Clinton "is responsible, but she was not the author of that particular document, and the contents of that came from outside the Department of State."
3. The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations. I think it DOES in fact violate this act because they’re leaking top secret information that may have to do with the military operations.
Based on my research, it seems that Frontman Julian Assonge would be the one deemed responsible for WikiLeaks. Swedes Paul Cavil and Jamie McClelland could also be responsible because they are the ones who redirected the main site after it was shut down. I do not believe that this is a first amendment issue. This isn't freedom of speech, petition, or religion; and this is way more serious than the average freedom of the press. I could consider this 21st century treason or a third edition of the Pentagon Papers situation. I do feel that this is a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Though it does not criticize overseas action, it does release vital information about it, which is mentioned in the Act.
ReplyDelete@Matt- Assanage has been accused of treason, but he can't really be charged because he is from another country.
ReplyDelete@ Michael Moss:
ReplyDeleteThe Espionage Act also states that "Whoever for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with the 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...or otherwise obtains information, concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense...shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years or both."
Now please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but from this I get that if the government FEELS or BELIEVES that one is leaking military information as an act of treason then you can be punished.
So I'm getting really interested in this issue.
ReplyDeleteAnd @ Jessica: Haha to the Gaga. But for real, it is terrifying that someone with such little credentials had so much access to sensitive gov't information.
And @ everyone:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/the-shameful-attacks-on-julian-assange/67440/
This article made me kind of mad. The fact that the journalist refers to Manning and Assange's actions as a "public service" makes me kind of nauseous.
^^ Actually, really nauseous.
ReplyDelete@ jessica
ReplyDeleteYes, I meant the constitution. I had a couple of brain farts earlier. Also, I revoke my statement about the Sedition Acts. I did more research and I was confused slightly about the difference, but I want to clarify that I do think it's in violation of the Espionage Act but I also agree that since he isn't a U.S. citizen, the first amendment doesn't really apply to him so I'm not really sure how this issue is going to be handled. I suppose we just have to wait and see.
@ Nancy: You have to realize that some people are completely against secrets of the government and lobby for a "transparent" government. To those types of people, Assange and Manning are heroes. They have taken and proved a point, and revealed information that some groups of people believe to be for the public to know. I don't think that should make you nauseous, if anything, it should open your mind and make you wonder exactly why would someone feel that way about the government and how it can be handled.
ReplyDelete@ Mercedes I agree with your responses, but do you think that this issue could possible go either way as far as the First Amendment and do you think it could make it to the Supreme Court?
ReplyDelete@ Deja- I agree with what you said about Julian Assange isn't even a citizen so he should have had the right to say anything at all.
ReplyDelete@ everyone--I'm starting to think that maybe Wikileaks is giving all the credit to Julian Assange so that it takes the focus off of trying to find out who else may be is behind it. Because even if they do catch Assange and there is a group of people running the site, more information can still be leaked.
ReplyDeleteLyndsey, I don't think this is a First Amendment issue at all considering the posts are illegal. The documents were classified and Manning was not allowed to share these documents. Also the Assange is not even a citizen under our Constitution.
ReplyDelete@ Chasity- i agree with you when said that the situation is a 1st amendment rights,but it wasnt Julians place to take it upon his self to say anything about what was going on. @ Lena i agree with you that they are giving all the credit to Julian.
ReplyDelete@ hayden
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing the actual website, It was a lot easier to form opinions after seeing the content of the site.
@Lena I agree that the wikileaks have put blame on Julian assnage
ReplyDelete1. Julian Assange, the founder is legally responsible for the wikileaks.
ReplyDelete2. This is and isn't a first amendment issue. I think is a first amendment issue because because he is entitled to freedom of speech. According to my research on ABC news is that only some private military documents were exposed. Because of this information I believe that he "Canceled-out" his first amendment rights because he violated our military in an huge way.
3. There is indeed a case to be made here. The Espionage Act of 1917 (USC 18, Pt 1, Ch 37) is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I. I clearly states that it prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions. In my opinion, the same ruling needs to be made in this case.
@Everyone who agreed that Julian Assange did violate the Espionage Act of 1917.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! In my opinion this should not even be debated! He violated the law therefore he should pay.