Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

  • News
  • Thread starter BobG
  • Start date
In summary, the release of US embassy cables by Wikileaks has sparked a global diplomatic crisis, with concerns over the exposure of confidential discussions hindering the real work of diplomacy. While some argue that it is beneficial for countries like North Korea and Iran to know the world's opinions of them, others believe that the leaked cables make official government statements harder to believe. There have been talks of resignations of top diplomats, but it is unlikely as they have not done anything wrong and have known about the release for a while. It has been reported that the next leak will include Russia's diplomatic communications, and there are concerns for the safety of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. However, the impact of the leaks on US foreign policy seems minimal, with many countries
  • #71
russ_watters said:
The Secretary of State works directly for the President, so it is up to him to decide to fire her. We don't have that power, only the power to not re-elect the President she works for.

Are you contending that popular opinion has no bearing on a public official's will to act on a situation? Regardless of anyone's opinion on Obama, but if the public was showing no confidence in Hilary Clinton to represent the US abroad, he would replace her.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
The proper term is espionage, not treason.

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act


Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html
 
  • #73
Does anyone know why we can't find the guy? Is he in a bunker somewhere?
 
  • #74
russ_watters said:
No actually the opinion of the average American is only tangentially relevant. The Secretary of State works directly for the President, so it is up to him to decide to fire her. We don't have that power, only the power to not re-elect the President she works for.

The SecState's job is all about international relations, so the most important "feeling" here is in how members of foreign governments view the US and SecState. If their respect is compromised, then her ability to do her job is compromised and she should be fired. But that is apparently not what is happening.

The public opinion on wether she should be fired will probably follow the sentiments of foreign governments: a black eye for her is a black eye for America and Americans wouldn't like that and would pressure Obama to fire her. But again, utlimately that is a reaction to the problem and not the problem itself.

fss said:
Are you contending that popular opinion has no bearing on a public official's will to act on a situation? Regardless of anyone's opinion on Obama, but if the public was showing no confidence in Hilary Clinton to represent the US abroad, he would replace her.

I think you skipped the most important parts of Russ's post.

And I think a few people miss the important part of this story. It's not about Assange, nor is it about the actual details that were revealed. It's an attack on the diplomatic process itself.

Watch what happens to some of the foreign government officials that had their comments leaked. Enough of them lose their jobs and Clinton will lose hers, too. As Russ mentioned, that doesn't seem to be happening yet (aside from Canada's ambassador offering to resign), but I'll be surprised if it doesn't start happening soon.
 
  • #75
Greg Bernhardt said:
Does anyone know why we can't find the guy? Is he in a bunker somewhere?
They say he changes locations every fews days, he's on the run.
 
  • #76
mheslep said:
Not that I want to defend them (him), but why isn't Wikileaks considered news media under the same law?
There is no law protecting 'news media' - there are first amendment considerations which mean that politicians (which in the US also means prosecutors) are generally unwilling to stand up in court and demand that a jury prosecute some one for printing the truth.

The 'official news media' term is a rather clever political trick to try and differentiate between major news networks, which you definitely don't want to upset, and individuals on the internet that you do want to prosecute.
It's the same way that you can arrest somebody for photographing the police by claiming it's wiretapping while leaving the major TV news crew next to them alone.
 
  • #77
russ_watters said:
No, it most certainly would not be an act of terrorism. What definition of terrorism are you using?

according to wikipedia, the definition is pretty broad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

but i think it's pretty clear that what is being discussed here is a political assassination. using violent means as a clear signal to others who might be thinking of doing the same. if you're a journalist, this would be a lot to think about.
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
I think he may not be concerned because:

1. He isn't talking like he's concerned.
2. He isn't taking action that implies he's concerned.
3. In the past, he's not just avoided looking concerned, but has actually not taken appropriate action so I don't have default trust in him like you apparently do. See: the Xmas bombing and Ft Hood incidents.
I'm not looking for fretting. The problem is itself largely an image problem so the overt response is a large part of what is important.

Why would he stand before a camera as POTUS, and tell our enemies that the information they have just obtained because of illegal acts, is indeed highly sensitive? Would that be smart, or useful to anyone but our enemies? And we have no way to know what is going on behind the scenes. [Perhaps wikileaks knows!]. Did you know Clinton had asked for DNA samples from world leaders? In spite of the rhetoric from the right, these people aren't stupid.

With Bob Gates as his Sec of Defense, [and Biden at his side for that matter] do you really think Obama doesn't understand any significant concerns about US security and the security of our allies?

I trust him because I know he is smart, dedicated, talented, he has good counsel, and I don't believe the nonsense generated by the right-wing media. No, as POTUS, he isn't going to be passive about US security interests.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
NobodySpecial said:
So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.

Prosecute America.

Prosecuting a nation vs. prosecuting a man... great comparisson.

Anyways if you gave a specific American who was guilty under some German espionage act or whatever they have over there in Germany they certainly COULD try to get that person. Key word is try. I don't even know why you are asking this question the answer is so obvious it seems rhetorical.
 
  • #81
NobodySpecial said:
There is no law protecting 'news media' - there are first amendment considerations which mean that politicians (which in the US also means prosecutors) are generally unwilling to stand up in court and demand that a jury prosecute some one for printing the truth.

The 'official news media' term is a rather clever political trick to try and differentiate between major news networks, which you definitely don't want to upset, and individuals on the internet that you do want to prosecute.
It's the same way that you can arrest somebody for photographing the police by claiming it's wiretapping while leaving the major TV news crew next to them alone.
There's more than a 'political trick' at work here. There are legal reasons, stemming from freedom of the press, that must define who is and who is not a press actor. The NYT published this stolen material. Wikileaks published the stolen material. The definition of published is not changed by the size and scope of the publisher.
 
  • #82
Ivan Seeking said:
Why would he stand before a camera as POTUS, and tell our enemies that the information they have just obtained because of illegal acts, is indeed highly sensitive? Would that be smart, or useful to anyone but our enemies? And we have no way to know what is going on behind the scenes. [Perhaps wikileaks knows!]. Did you know Clinton had asked for DNA samples from world leaders? In spite of the rhetoric from the right, these people aren't stupid.

With Bob Gates as his Sec of Defense, [and Biden at his side for that matter] do you really think Obama doesn't understand any significant concerns about US security and the security of our allies?

I trust him because I know he is smart, dedicated, and talented, and I don't believe the nonsense generated by the right-wing media. No, as POTUS, he isn't going to be passive about US security interests.
As far as I know the Obama administration has done basically everything short of sending the military after Assange to first stop him from releasing the files second to return the files and now to dampen the possible effects.

It's been mentioned in the news many times perhaps russ will only be satisfied if Obama makes a huge public speech about everything and then threaten Assange?
 
  • #83
mheslep said:
There's more than a 'political trick' at work here. There are legal reasons, stemming from freedom of the press, that must define who is and who is not a press actor. The NYT published this stolen material. Wikileaks published the stolen material. The definition of published is not changed by the size and scope of the publisher.

NYT co-operated with the US govn't and was not intending to cause any harm to America. Can you say the same about wikileaks?

This has already been addressed in this thread. The NYT is not guilty under the Espionage Act, wikileaks probably is but it's a case of showing intent to harm the nation. This precedent has already been set.

Another hurdle is whether the Espionage act is even constiuitional...
 
  • #84
zomgwtf said:
I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.
She speaks English so well that you wouldn't know that it's not her first language, it could just be not knowing the right term.
 
  • #85
NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge :eek: I'm fine with getting back on-topic with the espionage act now...
 
  • #86
I have a feeling that the wikileaks situation is going to be bumped up a notch after Assange claimed he had giga bytes on BOA


http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtourya...merica-shares-recover-from-wikileaks-assault/

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Forbes technology reporter Andy Greenberg he plans to release thousands of documents related to a major U.S. bank that could bring the institution down for good. I argued earlier this week the unlikeliness of that happening but speculation that Bank of America was likely the firm Assange was alluding to was enough to drive shares down.
 
  • #87
Mech_Engineer said:
NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge :eek: I'm fine with getting back on-topic with the espionage act now...

Not to defend what he was saying because I think it was a horrible analogy but he's not talking about treason. He's just talking about one nation prosecuting a person from another nation who isn't in the nation doing the prosecuting.
 
  • #88
Mech_Engineer said:
NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge
It was in response to the claim by various people that an australian national publishing US secrets in another country was somehow treason.
 
  • #89
NobodySpecial said:
It was in response to the claim by various people that an australian national publishing US secrets in another country was somehow treason.

No, it was a response to my post which said:
Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION. This man fully was attempting to do this he said things along those lines many times and it makes what he did fall fully under the Espionage Act.
Bolding mine.

Clearly, not talkin about treason here.
 
  • #90
Is that THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act Act? Again, how does that apply to people outside the US? Its not an international law. Its a US federal law, made for citizens, right?

Which international Espionage Act are you talking about violating? If he had committed these acts on US soil, then I could see its application. Otherwise I don't see any problem.
 
  • #91
Hepth said:
Is that THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act Act? Again, how does that apply to people outside the US? Its not an international law. Its a US federal law, made for citizens, right?

Which international Espionage Act are you talking about violating? If he had committed these acts on US soil, then I could see its application. Otherwise I don't see any problem.
Yes that is the one, no I am not talking about any international act.

Why do you assume America can not prosecute in this case? Do you have case precedent to back that up? Or any sources? There are plenty of people well studied in this that say there will be no problem the only problem now is building the case.

I mean did you even read the Act? Where does it say an American citizen? Espionage can be charged against foreign nationals that'd be rather stupid if it couldn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
What was posted on Wikileaks on the Indo-Pak-US scenario is what the Indians had suspected all along: US's unyielding support for Pakistan. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-us-backed-isi-demand-on-2611/136371-2.html?from=tn

I haven't gone through the entire thread, so I don't have any opinion on what should be Assange's fate. But if what Assange did was illegal then why can't the US government (and other nations) just request all the local and international media not to give further coverage to the leaked documents?
 
  • #93
Reshma said:
I haven't gone through the entire thread, so I don't have any opinion on what should be Assange's fate. But if what Assange did was illegal then why can't the US government (and other nations) just request all the local and international media not to give further coverage to the leaked documents?

Why would they listen?
 
  • #94
Office_Shredder said:
Why would they listen?
It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.
 
  • #95
zomgwtf said:
I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.
Evo said:
She speaks English so well that you wouldn't know that it's not her first language, it could just be not knowing the right term.
It was brought up in several English-speaking media, as you've read I know exactly what treason is and that it doesn't apply to Assange. Others appear to be more confused. I never ruled out that he could be trialed for Espionage, but in order to do so international governments first would have to turn him over to US custody. I'm curious to see how that is going to be handled, this is going to be all about politics.
Reshma said:
It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.
Exactly, don't blame the messenger.
 
  • #96
Reshma said:
It just seems like everyone conveniently wants to make Assange the scapegoat and the ones who actually leaked the classified data would get away with it.

Not sure what you mean. To quote BBC News:

No-one has been charged with passing the diplomatic files to Wikileaks but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of classified US documents.

While it is still not clear if Manning is responsible, he is clearly a suspect and if he will be found guilty, he will not "get away with it".
 
  • #97
Borek said:
Not sure what you mean. To quote BBC News:
I just don't quite agree with the way Assange is being made the epicentre of the diplomatic crisis. US diplomatic relations with Iran, North Korea and Indo-Pak have always been murky. The leaked files, IMO, have just shed further light into the situation and didn't come as a surprise to me at least on the Indian issues. The fact that cables from US embassies in several countries were leaked, means the espionage trail goes much deeper. What if the classified data appeared on some other website other than Wikileaks?

While it is still not clear if Manning is responsible, he is clearly a suspect and if he will be found guilty, he will not "get away with it".
Well the magnitude of the recent leaks seems much higher. I am sure there are several others responsible.
 
  • #98
I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.
 
  • #99
  • #100
Reshma said:
The fact that cables from US embassies in several countries were leaked, means the espionage trail goes much deeper. What if the classified data appeared on some other website other than Wikileaks?

Actually, it doesn't. One of the factors seen as contributing to 9/11 was that US federal agencies didn't communicate with each other very well. The response was to share information freely over classified networks. US government agencies have a one-stop location to find information from other US government agencies.

It improves information sharing, but also means a one-stop shop to steal and/or leak information. Which is why it only includes information up to Secret level - there's only so many risks the government is willing to take to improve information sharing. And only having access to Secret documents is why none of the information being leaked is incredibly shocking.
 
  • #101
Borek said:
I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.

Anyone think Assange, while a high profile target, won't be the end of leaks if caught? I feel this has a type of P2P stickiness around it.
 
  • #102
Borek said:
I agree Assange is the epicenter, but I am also more than sure every possible agency is investigating sources of the leaks. So while there is a lot of noise around Assange (not surprisingly, he obviously wants to be a face of wikileaks), I don't think he will be (in the end) the only one convicted.
The US soldier was turned in by a famous hacker that the soldier contacted because he wanted to hack the files but didn't know how. It is thought that Assange/Wikileaks were the ones that instructed him on how to hack the files.
 
  • #103
Greg Bernhardt said:
Anyone think Assange, while a high profile target, won't be the end of leaks if caught? I feel this has a type of P2P stickiness around it.
Assange is the one who stepped up to put a face to the Wikileaks organization, in response to people who falsely claimed to be part of the network. He's not running this by himself and I even doubt whether he is the sole mastermind behind all of it (I don't know enough about the history).

The complete file with all the documents is already widely spreading throughout the internet. You can download it from P2P networks, but currently it is secured with a code. In the case that people from the Wikileaks organization start to mysteriously disappearing, the code will be released and everyone in possession of the file will have access to all the information.

Ah, here is an interview by the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks
Isopod:
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization was anonymous?
This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you - "Julian Assange leaked documents", "Julian Assange is a terrorist", "Julian Assange alledgedly raped a woman", "Julian Assange should be assassinated", "Live Q&A qith Julian Assange" etc. Nobody talks about Wikileaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind Wikileaks, too.
And this, in my opinion, makes Wikileaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents to argue ad hominem. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then Wikileaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind Wikileaks, that you get so much credit.Julian Assange:
This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organisation to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightning rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
zomgwtf said:
NYT co-operated with the US govn't and was not intending to cause any harm to America. Can you say the same about wikileaks?
How can you or anyone in this thread possibly know the 'intent' of the the NYT?

This has already been addressed in this thread.
No, so far I've seen no detail in this thread on why Wikileaks should not be treated legally as is the NYT, or vice versa. Yes I read the http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/03/leak_consequences.html" piece provided up thread. I can imagine some reasons - perhaps because WikiL. first published the material, and thereby created first harm - but I don't know past speculation.
The NYT is not guilty under the Espionage Act, wikileaks probably is but it's a case of showing intent to harm the nation. This precedent has already been set.
Where in this thread has intent been established as critical to the assessment of espionage? For that matter, the detestable Assange could argue that by harming the current US government he was acting for the better good, much as the at-times detestable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program" , but instead went public with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105

Similar threads

News Is Wikileaks Justified in Exposing Tax Evaders?
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
HiWhat are these Wikileaks cables? Were these some paper/electronic
Replies
4
Views
2K
News WikiLeaks & Anonymous: "Hacktivism" & Freedom of the Internet
Replies
24
Views
5K
News Is WikiLeaks a Cyber-Terrorist or a Whistleblower?
Replies
9
Views
3K
News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security
10
Replies
338
Views
35K
News Did UK Civil Servants Secretly Contradict Gordon Brown on Trident Renewal?
Replies
1
Views
2K
News How should nations handle diplomatic relations with enemies?
Replies
7
Views
3K
State Dept Warns Students: Don't Discuss WikiLeaks on Social Media
4
Replies
133
Views
14K
News Condoleezza Rice named as Bush's nominee for new Sec. of State. Good god
Replies
33
Views
5K
News What are the potential solutions for the EU refugee crisis?
7
Replies
235
Views
21K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top