Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks In New Legal Battle
geegel writes "The US Justice Department is now fighting in court demands from three WikiLeaks associates to disclose the names of several electronic service platforms that received requests to hand over user information. This comes after Twitter obtained a court order to unseal the demands in order to notify the three persons. The current legal row has seen both the ACLU and the EFF provide legal assistance to the WikiLeaks associates."
If you want to post, you might get through using the https page:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/04/1650250/WikiLeaks-In-New-Legal-Battle
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The 503s are winning.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Have you turned over any records to the Feds concerning Wikileaks members (or any records, period)? If you can't comment on that, then perhaps you could outline what Slashdot's policy is for turning over records to law enforcement when not accompanied by a Federal warrant or National Security letter.
And regular newspapers absolutely never do that...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I'll bite.
What about the new york times and bazillions of other news organizations? How does the type of organization you are determine the legality of ones actions?
Years ago someone posted the "top secret" scientology documents into the comments and they were deleted. I can't recall if it was court ordered or merely a scare letter from an attorney.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
And people who aren't Freemasons can't wear the Freemason ring. However, since I'm not a Freemason, their prohibition doesn't affect me; therefore, I can wear their ring if I want to. The US's jurisdiction isn't supposed to reach outside its borders (even if it does in fact).
What they did was illegal. You can't post classified and / or stolen information.
Tell it to the New York Times, asshole posting as AC.
Or listen to the laughter if you tell it to any reputable news publication.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I believe in the EFF. I wish they never defended wikileaks. What they did was illegal. You can't post classified and / or stolen information. Pretty simple.
As your privacy is gradually stripped away, how many times have you heard the words "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear."
Why would the justice dept want to hide who it is asking records from.
If they are in the right.. well.. why hide it.
Even if you accept the US's jurisdiction as world-wide, what Wikileaks did wasn't illegal. It falls squarely under freedom of the press. What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it, but once the information is out there, the media has no obligation to cover it up.
I have no sympathy for Wikileaks when it comes to National Defense secrets. There is a whole magnitude of difference from corporate malfeasance in these leaks.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Cause if it is the law, then it is automatically moral and right, pure and simple, /sarcasm
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it
He has /already/ been punished and made an example of. I wander how history will remember Manning...
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it
He has /already/ been punished and made an example of. I wander how history will remember Manning...
Assuming you mean "wonder" and "wander" was a typo Manning's likely to be veiwed like all too many spies/oathbreakers: some will think he was useful at best maybe even sympathetic, but NEVER to be trusted or believed. And if it turns out Wikileaks is just Julian Assange's anti-US cult-of-personality, Manning will go down as a tool.
Not too many spies in history who divulged classified/secret data who are held in high esteem by anyone.
did you know there is.... a slashdot japan?
clearly, they are in with the 'globalist banksters'
because you can't.
there is no law banning the 'leaking' of classified information.
there are several different laws that ban specific types of information, some of it classified, in certain situations, by certain people.
the truth is that the vast majority of the documents that Manning released do not fall under any law simply becasue they are classified.
read his charge sheet, then look up the actual laws and read them. the civilian laws that he broke do not use the word 'classified'. at all. the Espionage Act (he has about 5 or so charges on this) is regarding 'national defense information'.
please tell me how information about Gadhafi's "hot nurses" are information vital to the national defense.
congress has been unwilling or unable to pass any law making a blanket ban on passing classified information.
or the Collateral Murder video. how does that rise to the level of the Espionage Act?
why is there no blanket anti-classified leaking law? because congress itself leaks classified information all the time, in order to fight political battles in the media. thats where all the 'senior officials who did not wish to be named' comments come from in news stories.
you can read about Ollie North's experience in the 80s, the whitehouse leaked, congress leaked, everyone leaked. it was part of their media strategy.
There is a great paper from the 1973 Columbia Law Journal by Schmidt and Edgar about this, you can read it online at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/index.html
Essentially, the American nation has put more faith in open debate and discussion than in government secrecy and its associated blatant lying and corruption (see Reynolds v. United States for a classic example).
this principle is slowly being chipped away by various underhanded tactics over the years, but the spirit of openness is like an unquenchable flame or some kind of endemic weed... the human condition is to ask questions and demand accounability from authority.
sir, with all due respect, don't you have better things to do than post on slashdot?
There is no privacy today for anyone. The only real privacy relied on good manners and a modicum of respect to others but these attributes are sadly absent today by anyone's standards. Whether it's a government agency or just some knucklehead publishing stolen customer information online privacy is gone.
have you been reading about it?
doesn't that make you a criminal too, technically, since you are 'retaining national defense information', which is covered by 18 USC 793 subparagraph (e) ?
WikiLeaks has proven the old school saying about 'being cleared for Ridiculous'.
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
What wikileaks did was illegal? Please, cite some laws that they broke. If you actually find some laws that you think that they broke, then PLEASE follow up with your rationale for US jurisdiction over wikileaks and/or Julian Assange. I would really prefer if you could keep it rational, and paint a nice clear picture for dummies to understand.
Before you start, allow me to point out that Julian is not a US citizen, nor is wikileaks a US company, corporation, organization, nonprofit, or any other such entity. That should both simplify, and complicate your task - but if you really understand that they are not subject to US jurisdiction, then you'll appreciate my effort here.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Wow. What a story. Got any bears left? I haven't had a bear steak in ages. Don't ruin those good bears with gay little vienna sausages though - I'll pass on them!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Yeah, but why should the US constitution apply world-wide only because its other laws do?
(+1, Disagree)
What Manning did was illegal, ...
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He is still only a suspect ...
The only law I can see anyone possibly breaking would be accepting stolen property and then selling it for profit which Wiki leaks has been doing. In normal situations a journalist or news outlet is protected by law when it comes to questioning the source of their information. In this case everyone knows where the information came from and the US is attempting to refine their knowledge on the actually path the information took once it was stolen. I don't really think they will be able to do anything but stranger things have happened and the released information has not caused any real harm yet other than embarrassing some diplomats and government leaders around the world.
Not all those who wander are lost.
even if you look at the military charges...
they are things like 'moving information from a classified system to an unclassified system', or 'using a computer for its non-intended purpose'. it doesnt have anything about 'passing classified information to wikileaks'. it might say a lot of things, but thats one thing it doesnt say.
you have also mentioned 'stolen' information. this i find very hard to understand. all US government work is uncopyrightable, it is in the public domain. where does the 'value' then derive? that is the langauge of 18 USC 641, 'theft of government property'. how can you steal something that is free? is the information only valuable because nobody knows it? if so, then how can passing it to wikileaks be considered stealing, since it has lost all of its 'scarcity' by being posted on the internet? the last Espionage case that involved Theft of Government property that i know of (the Amerasia case) resulted in a slap on the wrist of the defendants for 641 violations.. they had ver batim put classified government reports into a magazine.
As for 'aiding the enemy', this UCMJ law doesn't mention the word 'classified', at all. yes it is a potentially capital crime, but the prosecution has indicated they will not pursue this.
this brings me to another question - why hasn't he been charged with the UCMJ Espionage law? Why did they use the much less harsh civilian Espionage law, and subparagraph (e) to boot? That paragraph is usually reserved for people like the AIPAC case, the Pentagon Papers case, guys who take home boxes of stuff (Ford), the Morison case, etc. If Manning truly 'aided the enemy' why dont they charge him with the full gamut of UCMJ violations?
He is not charged with Treason either. Why not? Could it be that the 'worst leaker in US military history' didnt leak anything all that important? Could it be that the state department over-classifies most of its material for political reasons?
Could it be the 'collateral murder' video is merely embarassing, and not vital national defense information?
If you chop away at the 34 counts against him, you will find there are only a handful of charges actually related to battlefield information. The rest of it is... what? If he gets convicted on every last count, then it sets a precedent that makes a large percentage of current war reporting basically illegal and punishable by felonies. it also makes communicating with reporters a crime. is that really what we want our future to be?
18 USC 793 (Espionage Act)
subparagraph (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it;
i.e. if you have 'national defense' information on your computer, that you downloaded with your web browser, you are 'retaining' it.
You can also look at 18 USC 1030(a)(1), the "Computer Espionage" act, which broadens the language even further.
The recent Jane Mayer story on the Thomas Drake case flat out says that his 5 espionage charges, if successfully prosecuted by the government, would set a precedent that makes a lot of reporting a criminal activity, because reporters have to take notes about sensitive information and keep it on their persons to write their stories.
How does Mayer know? She wrote the book (The Dark Side) on the government's torture program - where it came from, how it made it's way from the Korean war to the Navy Seal survivial training (SERE), and from there to a couple of psychologists, and directly into Bybee's torture memos ... which directly influenced activities at Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, and in the 'black prisons' across the world.
she discovered all this by asking a lot of government officials a lot of questions and taking a lot of notes. notes that she wont be able to if the current spate of 6 non-spying Espionage Act prosecutions set precedent
Wow. You are upset they are trying him for crimes he likely committed, rather than crimes he likely did not?
He is not charged with Treason either. Why not? Could it be that the 'worst leaker in US military history' didnt leak anything all that important? Could it be that the state department over-classifies most of its material for political reasons?
No, it's because Treason is a crime specifically defined in the US Constitution. Manning's circumstances don't meet the Constitutional test for treason.
As far as I recall or know, only one person has been charged with treason since WW2.
$1 million for arrest of American al Qaeda charged with treason
But think about it, he is charged with aiding the enemy. That is treason by any common understanding of the word, and would constitutie treason in most countries, it just does not meet the US Constitutional meaning.
The State Department has been relocating diplomats and warning activists and sources around the world after Wikileaks outed them. This has been very disruptive.
WikiLeaks sparks worldwide diplomatic crisis
WikiLeaks cables prompt US to move diplomatic sources
Wikileaks: US will have to reshuffle diplomats following revelations
You might want to go back and look at some of those issues in your post using different sources, you're heading in the wrong direction in many cases.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
because the media has painted him as the 'worst leaker in history' when the charges do not justify this portrayal
because the anger against wikileaks and Manning, stoked by illogical and incorrect assertions regarding his actions and the legality or illegality of them, will result in bad legal precedent, if he is convicted on all counts
because that precedent will then be used to target many, many other people for things like leaking embarassing videos.
If Manning's precedent stands on the Collateral Murder video for example, then the Abu Grahib photo leaks would be prosecutable under the Espionage Act.
The first article you linked to discusses a lot of allegations in the wikileaks info - it doesnt go into much detail about the disruption caused.
The second article you linked to says this: "The repercussions for US diplomats, some of whom have written colourful descriptions of their host countries and leaders, have so far been relatively minor."
"It said officials believed the disclosure of the cables had affected contacts in some countries between US diplomats and human rights activists, who were now wary lest their names and views emerge in the future."
The third article says this:"We're going to have to pull out some of our best people – the diplomats who best represented the United States and were the most thoughtful in their analysis – because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve."
As for the first article - a lot of that was known before wikileaks dumped it, by old fashioned reporting.
As for the second article - that is troubling. however after reading "Dirty Diplomacy" by Craig Murray, i do not automatically assume that US ambassadors care about human rights or report the truth back home. Especially after allying with people like Karamov of Uzbekistan, who has somehow managed to make life more repressive than it was during Soviet times but got US support because of the airbase at K2 for a number of years. (we no longer are so friendly with him)
As for the third article ... diplomats are shuffled around all the time. In fact every time there is a new president, a bunch of his campaign contributors and cronies are posted as diplomatic staff. It is the 'spoils system' in the modern era, is it not?
Maybe it is more 'disruptive' than, say, the Iraq War, which outraged almost the entire world against us. But 'disruption' is not a crime is it?
As someone already pointed out, you can't really steal information that is in the public domain to begin with. As for WikiLeaks selling the intel, I would be very sceptical of such reports. There's a lot of disinfo mixed in with the real information regarding WikiLeaks.
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
It this technique not winnow and chaffe?
Fill the pipe with bullshit and real info... only the cleared monkies know which his which.
Which one is the verb, “is fighting” or “demands”?
What Manning did was illegal, and he'll be punished for it
What Manning allegedly did.
That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition. This doesn't mean the car is suddenly in the public domain. Any one taking the car would be charged as an accessory to the original crime or charged with accepting stolen property. In this case the military information was acquired illegally under US law. The military documents were definitely not in the public domain. I imagine that the only people who could be charged are those that released the material first. After the information was released publicly once it was then in the public domain and I don't think any crimes were broken in that instance. The guy charged with the theft has so far only been charged in respect to the military material. The punishment for breaking these laws are sever and I am afraid they guy is going to be at the mercy of the military prosecutor who will ultimately make the decision on exactly which charges they are going to be pursuing when it gets to trial. The government is probably using the charges which have the harshest penalties such as execution in an attempt to gain his cooperation. Personally I hope the military and government prosecutors show some restraint if the guy is convicted.
That's like saying I can steal your car and then leave it in parking lot some where with the keys in the ignition.
Here we are talking about intellectual property, as opposed to tangible goods.
The military documents were definitely not in the public domain.
On one hand, you have information as completely abstract concept which is not a property, and you have documents (classified or otherwise) which are tangible copyrightable work of the US agencies. Since US has a rule that government-produced work cannot be copyrighted it does not enjoy the level of protection that other copyrighted works enjoy. This applies to all documents produced within the government. Military documents are, naturally, covered by this, as well as documents produced by CIA, NSA, and any other government agency, with a few exceptions like USPTO.
I imagine that the only people who could be charged are those that released the material first.
You'd have to find out who wrote the original law, then. :)
The guy charged with the theft has so far only been charged in respect to the military material.
Manning is charged with lots and lots of stuff. These include not only unauthorized transmission of classified documents (breaking the rules of handling classified documents, right?) but also aiding the enemy, and other stuff like illegal installation of software to extract the documents, etc. If you care, look up "Bradley Manning charges" and you'll find many articles on the topic.
The protection of government documents is facilitated through the system of classification. This system prescribes storage options and handling rules to all government subjects depending on the level of classification and their level of clearance. So, if someone leaves a document out there "with the keys in the ignition", he is breaking the handling procedure, not the copyright law. The documents are already in public domain, so they can't break copyright laws. Therefore, those documents are not stolen, but mishandled. The crimes of mishandling do not (at least should not) extend to non-government people, and especially not the press.
The government is probably using the charges which have the harshest penalties such as execution in an attempt to gain his cooperation. Personally I hope the military and government prosecutors show some restraint if the guy is convicted.
The reason the military and the government have not shown any restraint whatsoever when treating Manning in a way that borders on torture is that they needed to make it clear that they won't tolerate such leaks. He was more of a message to others working within the government.
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance. They went directly to classifying the material protected under the laws governing military and state secrets. Even if copyright laws were being applied the theft and dissemination of the information would be like hacking into a publishers library and downloading a new unreleased novel or song before it was officially released under the applicable copyright laws. Basically encouraging theft for the purpose of avoiding the restrictions of copyright laws. The really sad thing in this whole situation is that none of the material released so far has been of any great importance or impact. No grand conspiracies or lies exposed that are worthy of spending 1 year let alone 25 years in jail.
IP can be considered tangible goods in every since of the word. But I seriously doubt the military gives a damn about the nuances of copyright law in this instance.
And you're right. Military doesn't give a shit about copyright protection because there is none. They do care about copyrighted work of their contractors, but that's a different matter, and certainly has nothing to do with diplomatic cables in question. Diplomatic staff are all government people, so whatever material they produce is considered public domain, regardless of their classification. So, they cannot care about copyright laws even if they wanted to. What they do care about is the way classified documents are treated.
They went directly to classifying the material protected under the laws governing military and state secrets.
Exactly.
If copyright laws would be applied the theft and dissemination of the classified government documents it would be like hacking into a publishers library and downloading a new unreleased novel or song before it was officially released under the applicable copyright laws.
Fixed it for you. And no, it would not be the same, because an unreleased novel is protected by copyright law the moment it is put on paper (or an eletronic document, like LaTeX source). This doesn't hold true for government documents, and hence your analogy fails.
Basically encouraging theft for the purpose of avoiding the restrictions of copyright laws.
No. They don't encourage theft. They encourage secrecy. Which is withholding information from "we the People". Some argue that this is justified in some circumstances, some argue that it is not, but that's what they are doing, basically. Personally, I do not agree they should, but I'm not from US, so I don't care too much either.
The really sad thing in this whole situation is that none of the material released so far has been of any great importance or impact. No grand conspiracies or lies exposed that are worthy of spending 1 year let alone 25 years in jail.
Obviously the US government doesn't think so, right?
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
i would say the vast majority do not understand or care about what you are talking about. if the police come asking for stuff, their first instinct is to be helpful and get rid of the 'bad people'.
libraries are top down bureaucracies that make corporate life seem like a montessori school. independent thought is not allowed, especially regarding "the computers", control of which many library administrators cling to as some kind of ailment for middle age.