I’ve decided that bumange should not be prosecuted under US law for crimes against the US. I think his source (bumuming it can be undoubtedly confirmed) should be, as they stole the information in one way or another. It may have been a poor choice to share some of what bumange was in possession of in the interest of peace, but he has the right to share it.

I’m going to bed, tell me what you think. Log in to see images!

i literally do not give a **** about this wikileaks bull**** or bumange at all.

Bacchus Posted:

I’ve decided that bumange should not be prosecuted under US law for crimes against the US. I think his source (bumuming it can be undoubtedly confirmed) should be, as they stole the information in one way or another. It may have been a poor choice to share some of what bumange was in possession of in the interest of peace, but he has the right to share it.

WikiLeaks’ political motivation is “government transparency”, so when they released the cables, they released everything in their possession. Multiple countries were embarbumed so there is widespread condemnation of WikiLeaks by people in power. He may have had the right to share all that info, but it was a poor decision because no government is willing to support WikiLeaks endeavours.

bumange threatened to release information about a bank (which I believe to be BoA), that would have been far better as an initial leak.

My guess is that thee U.S. will detain him at some point and he will conveniently “commit suicide” in his cell. Also I’m not believing that a 22 year old Private got all that info on his own. My guess is that this goes a lot higher within the Army.

sdgrbbum09 Posted:

My guess is that thee U.S. will detain him at some point and he will conveniently “commit suicide” in his cell. Also I’m not believing that a 22 year old Private got all that info on his own. My guess is that this goes a lot higher within the Army.

Hopefully it takes more clearance than that, and hopefully the investigation is continued until someone who could have gotten all that info is found. Though, my hopes aren’t all that high. Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

viscera Posted:

The Espionage Acts are still in effect, just most people don’t read and have no idea what restrictions on “freedom of speech” actually exist.

‘Freedom of Speech’ is the right to share & express your thoughts and opinions. It has nothing to do with ‘Freedom of Information’.

Sergeant Cid Posted:

’Freedom of Speech’ is the right to share & express your thoughts and opinions. It has nothing to do with ‘Freedom of Information’.

You cannot express thoughts on a subject no one knows about. I feel information is more than implied in the first amendment. I understand the need for the government to maintain security information private, but I really cannot think of a way to expressly provide that in law (at least in the English language) without giving the government a blanket authority to decide what constitutes “security information.” That means anything can be withheld from the public. I would prefer to err on the side of anything possibly being leaked. The source has committed a crime, and that has been prosecuted many times before, but prosecuting the “press” is a dangerous road to start down.

I think it’s noteworthy that this letter was sent prior to the release.

Sergeant Cid Posted:

To argue that ‘freedom of information’ should be part of ‘freedom of speech’, you then have to decide which information you mean. Do you mean all information? In that case, you, as an individual, would not be allowed to keep your SSN, your bank PIN, etc., private.

Two fallacies: First we’re talking about government’s information, not citizen’s information. (though that does accentuation the point about how gray the First amendment is); Second: “allowed to keep” does not apply as there is no requirement to disclose anything here, simply the federal government being unable to enact laws to prohibit it’s circulation.

Individual citizen’s do not ‘need to know’ all the particular details of the government’s inner workings. They can form opinions based upon the outward results. Your ‘right to know’ does not supersede another person’s ‘right to safety & security’.

Agreed.

But it swings both ways. If the general public had never learned of the Japanese “concentration camps” our government held in WWII it would not be held in disgust now and the idea of it becoming public would hold no force in preventing anything similar in the future because it would be illegal to talk about. I’m sure you can think of a dozen similar instances, point being that there can be no checks and balances when any branch of government can say to the public “it’s a security issue” and no one gets to know about it or speak of it.