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.
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?