Former Bush speech writer calls for destruction of free speech to destroy Wikileaks - Polidicks

[highlight]Former Bush speech writer calls for destruction of free speech[/highlight] [url=http://blog.american.com/?page_id=17659]Source[/url] [release]In the Washington Post today, I write that the Obama administration has an obligation to stop WikiLeaks from releasing any more classified information that can endanger the lives of American troops and our allies. One important way to do so is to eliminate the legal protections foreign governments provide to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, operates in countries where he believes he enjoys the protection of “beneficial laws.” One of those countries is Iceland. During the past year, Assange has worked to strengthen the legal protections WikiLeaks enjoys, collaborating with Icelandic politicians to pass something called the “Icelandic Modern Media Initiative” (IMMI). This initiative, if enacted, would effectively turn Iceland into a legal safe haven for WikiLeaks. Assange is clearly the moving force behind this initiative. The BBC reported in February that Assange had “been in Iceland for a number of weeks and is advising MPs on the IMMI,” which, the BBC says, [quote]aims to pull together good practice from around the world and incorporate it into a single body of law. “We’ve found good laws in different countries but no country that has all of these laws put together,” said Mr. Assange. The proposal has been informed by Wikileaks’ experience in fighting legal threats to publication … At a meeting with a small group of Icelandic MPs about the IMMI, to which the BBC had exclusive access, Mr. Assange stressed how Iceland’s image would benefit from becoming a champion of free speech.[/quote] On June 16, the proposal was unanimously approved by the Icelandic parliament. Assange immediately took credit, sending out an email entitled “WikiLeaks inspired ‘New media haven’ proposal passes parliament.” It will reportedly come into force within the year. This effort may have appeared innocuous to Icelandic politicians… until last week, when Assange released 76,000 classified U.S. intelligence documents that have compromised the identities of covert intelligence operatives supporting NATO operations and more than 100 Afghans cooperating with NATO forces. Suddenly, Iceland, a NATO ally, finds itself providing safe haven to a criminal who has leaked documents that put the lives of NATO forces and our Afghan allies at risk. The United States must make clear to Iceland that it will not tolerate this. The Obama administration must bring the necessary diplomatic pressure to bear on Reykjavik to ensure Iceland repeals the IMMI. There is a successful model for making this happen. In 2003, Belgium’s parliament expanded the country’s “universal jurisdiction” law in a manner that permitted war crimes charges to be brought against American officials. Suits were filed under this law against General Tommy Franks, Colonel Brian McCoy, former President George H.W. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Colin Powell. In June 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers. (I had the pleasure of accompanying him on that trip). At a press conference at NATO headquarters, Rumsfeld delivered this statement: [quote]The United States rejects the presumed authority of Belgian courts to try General Franks, Colonel McCoy, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell and General Schwarzkopf, as well as former President Bush … By passing this law, Belgium has turned its legal system into a platform for divisive, politicized lawsuits against her NATO allies. Now, it’s obviously not for outsiders, non-Belgians, to tell the Belgian government what laws it should pass and what it should not pass. With respect to Belgium’s sovereignty, we respect it, even though Belgium appears not to respect the sovereignty of other countries. But Belgium needs to realize that there are consequences to its actions. This law calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to hold meetings in Belgium and whether senior U.S. officials, military and civilian, will be able to continue to visit international organizations in Belgium. I would submit that that could be the case for other NATO allies, as well. If the civilian and military leaders of member states cannot come to Belgium without fear of harassment by Belgian courts entertaining spurious charges by politicized prosecutors, then it calls into question Belgium’s attitude about its responsibilities as a host nation for NATO and allied forces. For our part, we will have to consider whether we can allow senior uniformed and civilian officials to come to … Belgium … Certainly until this matter is resolved we will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels until we know with certainty that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place for NATO to conduct its business, as it has been over so many years.[/quote] Belgium quickly got the message, and by August it had repealed its universal jurisdiction law. Human Rights Watch and other left-wing groups reacted with anger. But authorities in Brussels decided they valued their relationships with their NATO allies, and their responsibilities to the Atlantic alliance, more than they cared about placating left-wing activists. A similar message needs to be sent to Iceland. The IMMI calls into question Iceland’s seriousness as a NATO ally, and Iceland needs to realize there will be consequences for its actions. Whether the Obama administration is willing to send this message, and impose such consequences, will tell us a lot about how seriously they take this leak, and the threat posed by WikiLeaks. [/release]

The only people calling for his arrest are neocon fascists, as proven by this article.

Fuck you Bush Administration guy, Iceland has one of the coolest governments ever.

"destruction of free speech" Not gonna happen.

Despite we have similar laws in place to protect individuals...

Leaking identities of undercover elements is pretty uncool though, isn't it?

[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;23784319]Leaking identities of undercover elements is pretty uncool though, isn't it?[/QUOTE] Depends on what they're being used for. I doubt wikileaks would leak something that would hurt more people than it helped. Like they wouldn't leak info on a rescue operation.

[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;23784319]Leaking identities of undercover elements is pretty uncool though, isn't it?[/QUOTE] This. I can see why wikileaks is doing what it is doing, and I agree that the (secret) actions of governments should be exposed, but not when it puts lives at risk or compromises security. Imagine if wikileaks was active during WWII and was exposing, for example, the identities of resistance members/groups operating in Europe. Would that have been acceptable? For example: - A document revealing the unlawful killing of civilians by NATO forces [b]should[/b] be leaked. - A document revealing the identity of an Afghan informant [b]should not[/b] be leaked.

[QUOTE=windwakr;23784619]But they withheld 15,000 documents so they could scrub names out to stop that from happening.[/QUOTE] Then why has the Taliban stated that they are going to actively seek out those who have been identified by the leaks?

[QUOTE=David29;23784681]Then why has the Taliban stated that they are going to actively seek out those who have been identified by the leaks?[/QUOTE] To make people angry.

Wikileaks did the best they could. Pentagon and White House could have helped, but they didn't. [editline]10:59PM[/editline] They have confirmed in the chat that there are names that have slipped past the screening, though they have done the best they could, and will.

[QUOTE=David29;23784681]Then why has the Taliban stated that they are going to actively seek out those who have been identified by the leaks?[/QUOTE] The Taliban are a reliable source of information now? They'd say anything if it could scare people shit-less. Remember, the Taliban aren't stupid, and they know they don't have any real information on informants, but the average 13 year old forumite doesn't know that, nor the average potential voter.

[QUOTE=imadaman;23784787]They have confirmed in the chat that there are names that have slipped past the screening, though they have done the best they could, and will.[/QUOTE] But, when lives are the line, doing "the best they could" is not enough.

[quote][url=http://arabnews.com/world/article93019.ece]Source[/url] [quote]WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview aired Thursday that WikiLeaks had contacted the White House - via The New York Times acting as intermediary — and offered to let government officials go through the documents to make sure no innocent people were identified. The White House did not respond to the approach, he said. A Pentagon spokesman, Marine Col. David Lapan, said Friday it was "absolutely false" that WikiLeaks contacted the White House or other elements of the US government to offer a pre-release review. [/quote] [/quote] Say that to the US Government. They did nothing. [editline]11:07PM[/editline] Is that closer to being enough when lives are on the line?

[QUOTE=imadaman;23784787]Wikileaks did the best they could. Pentagon and White House could have helped, but they didn't.[/QUOTE] You're saying that Wikileaks should've gone to the same government they [B]STOLE[/B] the secret documents from for help to screen!?:psyboom:

I'm sorry but this is all bullshit. Any agents identity being discovered means they're automatically pulled out of combat situations, there is no 'real' risk, and 99% of names have been removed anyway. This is more bullshit from media outlets trying to get the people against wikileaks. People need to know how many civilians have died, or how many soldiers have been abusing their powers, and how many politicians have lied to us. How the hell can we have a democracy if free speech is not upheld? Or if NATO allies cannot hold each other to account over abuses? How can we fix relations between the West and the Middle East if more and more files like this have to be pillaged before the public knows?

[QUOTE=imadaman;23784982]Is that closer to being enough when lives are on the line?[/QUOTE] Fair enough then. However, one thing worth noting is that, going off your source, it is their word against the governments... I don't deny that the government are dicks - however I don't take everything in life at face value. I like to remain open minded, and it isn't completely impossible that wikileaks are simply lying to try and save their own skin (from a publicity point of view). Edit: Although it does strike me as odd that they would go back to the government after stealing information off them and ask them for help in preparing for being leaked. That's like stealing something and going back to the original owner to ask them to repair it so you can sell it.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23785039]I'm sorry but this is all bullshit. Any agents identity being discovered means they're automatically pulled out of combat situations, there is no 'real' risk, and 99% of names have been removed anyway. This is more bullshit from media outlets trying to get the people against wikileaks. People need to know how many civilians have died, or how many soldiers have been abusing their powers, and how many politicians have lied to us. How the hell can we have a democracy if free speech is not upheld? Or if NATO allies cannot hold each other to account over abuses? How can we fix relations between the West and the Middle East if more and more files like this have to be pillaged before the public knows?[/QUOTE] Because these files highlight rare cases and then those rare cases cause a bad image because the Army can't control everyone? Sorta like Vietnam and how the flower children treated Vietnam vets like shit afterword?

[QUOTE=Swilly;23785099]Because these files highlight rare cases and then those rare cases cause a bad image because the Army can't control everyone? Sorta like Vietnam and how the flower children treated Vietnam vets like shit afterword?[/QUOTE] This is hardly like Vietnam, the Media went out to crucify them, and the image of war was very new. Most outlets are pretty much on the side of the soldiers. I'm not happy with being given screened and altered facts and figures, this document sheds a light on the real casulties. Knowing what your authority figures are telling you or aren't telling you is important to making democratic decisions at the voting box. Military secrets should be secret, but abuses and casualty reports are not 'military secrets', only military embarrassments.

[QUOTE=David29;23785082]Edit: Although it does strike me as odd that they would go back to the government after stealing information off them and ask them for help in preparing for being leaked. That's like stealing something and going back to the original owner to ask them to repair it so you can sell it.[/QUOTE] Yes, because saving human lives is the same as repairing a stolen car. Flawed logic I see there.

Are the best party in support of this?

[QUOTE=imadaman;23785295]Yes, because saving human lives is the same as repairing a stolen car. Flawed logic I see there.[/QUOTE] Flawed ability to realise my point I see there.

They already had announced they were going to leak the documents, and asked for the Government to help them minimize possible losses created by it, but they went as far as denying that they had even been contacted. And I see what you're trying to say. Better example would have been "wl stole a bunch of apples from USG and after saying they're going to bake an apple pie of them, they ask USG help to make the crust for it."

fucks sake can't we keep it one thread

[quote]The United States must make clear to Iceland that it will not tolerate this.[/quote] The US: We will not tolerate this. Iceland: Why don't you try invading us, then? The US: We can't, Wikileaks leaked all of our Icelandic invasion plans

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23784856]The Taliban are a reliable source of information now? They'd say anything if it could scare people shit-less. Remember, the Taliban aren't stupid, and they know they don't have any real information on informants, but the average 13 year old forumite doesn't know that, nor the average potential voter.[/QUOTE] Informants get killed all the time, and now that the informants believe their at a even greater risk, it's going to be harder for US Soldiers to obtain valuable information.

Go Iceland. The world's been rapidly progressing towards opaque government and censorship, so it's good to see a country that has the people's rights in mind.