Politics Do you think Wikileaks should be stopped?

[HegemonKhan]

commiting an act of war (such as epsionage or as an accomplice to espionage), makes you an enemy combatant and thus subject to being legally killed, that's my understanding of wikileaks as being an "accomplice-in-espionage".

also, unlawful material (such as classifed documents) is unlawful, wikileaks as a 3rd party is committing crimes by publishing and distrubuting unlawful material, and should be charged with whatever the crime(s) is(are).

 

[Roflkopt3r]

my understanding is that wikileaks has committed espionage (accomplice to it in the very least, which makes it just as guilty), and espionage is an act of war, making wikileaks now an enemy combatant, which the U.S. can shoot dead/kill at any time it wishes.

it is publishing and distributing unlawful (classified) material as well, so it is guilty of many crimes as well.

commiting an act of war, makes you an enemy combatant and thus subject to being legally killed, that's my understanding of wikileaks.

There is indeed the (often critizised) "Espionage Act", applying

(...) where aiding and abetting the enemy by conveying information that will assist the enemy or conveying false information that interferes with the successful conduct of the war were declared high crimes.

However, the U.S. are not officially "at war" anymore to my knowledge. they only were when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but after that they were just "aiding" the local governments in counter-insurgency. An actual traditional war is held between two nations/countries, not between a nation and private persons (such as Talib, Al Qaida and other terrorists).

Also the information distributed was not actually assisting "enemies" of the U.S. in war. The diplomatic documents were not "war relevant", and all Afghanistan/Iraq documents were even cleared of relevant names (such as those of undercover sources) and only contained documentary about previous actions.

Sure, the information was severely embarassing for the U.S., but not uncovering security relevant data.

More about that: http://www.examiner.com/economy-in-...d-wikileaks-protected-by-the-u-s-constitution

 

[HegemonKhan]

in my common sense:

if someone commits an act of war against you, you're at war with them, and they are an enemy combatant that you have the legal right to kill.

---------

terrorists committed multiple military attacks (acts of war) upon the U.S. (well before 9-11, and continuing still today), so we are at war with them (as well as the entire world is at war with terrorists, as they are trying to blow up the entire world of humans, terrorists are enemies of the entire world, yet the rest of the countries of the world don't care at all, and so we're stuck with fkn protecting the entire fkn world, argh).

also, a country is just a group of people, exactly as is a terror network, I don't see any conflict here. a group is a group, they created a war with us, and thus we are at war with them.

we are at war with the borderless country called Terrorism and its people, Terrorists, hehe

they have declared war with/on us and have attacked us multiple times militarily, and so we are by default at war with them

--------

and obviously "traditional" wars have gone extinct (unless two super powers decide to wage war against each other again, and the only ones left, are: Russia, China, and the U.S., as Europe's not ever going to wage war ever again with the way that it is now. so the only way we could have a tradition war again, is if Russia and/or China wages war against the U.S. or we do with them or one of them), as with our modern technology, even a single person can be as dangerous as an entire country, nowadays

we live in a completely different environment than the "old days - ~70 years ago - with their traditional wars".

------------------------

here's how wikileaks is guilty of espionage:

1. we are at war with terrorists.
2. to wage war against terrorists we need help and diplomacy (state craft) from other countries (mostly dictatorships, as they have been suppressing terrorism<->islam<->arabs for a very long time in the middle east, so they are already good at it and can be of great help to us, and we both have a common enemy, terrorists).
3. wikilinks has made publically available state craft CLASSIFIED documents
4. these documents hurt our diplomacy and state craft with these (dictatorship) countries
5. wikilinks is directly damaging and hampering our war effort against terrorism
6. wikilinks is guilty of espionage
7. U.S. has legal right to act with deadly force against wikilinks, as espionage is an act of war, a military act, making them be enemy combatants to the U.S., and thus they can be legally killed by the U.S.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

in my common sense:

if someone commits an act of war against you, you're at war with them, and they are an enemy combatant that you have the legal right to kill.

---------

terrorists committed a miltary attack (it is NOT a mere criminal act) upon the U.S., so we are at war with them (as well as the entire world, as they are trying to blow up the entire world of humans).

Wikileaks did not commit an act of war against the USA. This definition is absolutely not applicable here.

The al qaida bombings were just a criminal act, because it is nothing but a private, non-governmental organisation. All they can do is acting like criminals, because they don't have a national infrastructure they could rely on.

Obviously it became impossible to measure modern wars on old scales, but this still was not a war... the terrorists don't have an "army", either, and are absolutely inferior in terms of fighting power. They can be fought just like mafia organisations, though it requires international cooperation.

 

[benelori]

I see where U come from...the reason I posted those stuff, was to answer the question in the title...
About the examples U brought up...I don't really know, because I'm not really following wikileaks, but there was a wikileaks scandal here in romania not long ago...and reliable sources were mixed with unreliable ones...but I say it again...it's not wikileaks that should be stopped here, but the unreliable sources

 

[HegemonKhan]

terrorists (whatever the group) do not commit crimes, they commit acts of war (actually genocide, war atrocities), so you're incorrect here.

it is a war, so you're incorrect with this as well.

terrorists are soldiers, they are an army, they engage in warfare as they are comitting military acts, so you're incorrect here as well.

(I added to my previous post, I explained how wikilinks is guilty of espionage, and added in some more comments as well)

 

[Roflkopt3r]

here's how wikileaks is guilty of espionage:

1. we are at war with terrorists.
2. to wage war against terrorists we need help and diplomacy (state craft) from other countries (mostly dictatorships, as they have been suppressing terrorism<->islam<->arabs for a very long time in the middle east, so they are already good at it and can be of great help to us, and we both have a common enemy, terrorists).
3. wikilinks has made publically available state craft CLASSIFIED documents
4. these documents hurt our diplomacy and state craft with these (dictatorship) countries
5. wikilinks is directly damaging and hampering our war effort against terrorism
6. wikilinks is guilty of espionage
7. U.S. has legal right to act with deadly force against wikilinks, as espionage is an act of war, a military act, making them be enemy combatants to the U.S., and thus they can be legally killed by the U.S.

Writing uncomfortable truths often hurts diplomacy, and the US behaved very clumpsy with their writings about foreign governments.

I don't see how revealing this akwardness would be relevant to any kind of war though. It was just plain stupid by U.S. diplomacy to write such things.
If you see such intel as relevant to war, than everything akward about US politics is relevant to war, and every kind of journalism could be declared war relevant.

And still, to my knowledge the U.S. are not officially at war. It's just a detail, but I'ld really like to know the "official state" on this.

 

[HegemonKhan]

now that I'm thinking about this...

first of all, terrorists are working for countries/governments... cough cough pakistan and soudi arabia and iran and syria and etc cough cough

and actually there's quite the perfect historical example of terrorists:

privateers, pretending to be non-offiliated with any country, while they actually were, like Sir Francis Drake, waging the "terrorism" of their day against the spanish ships for england.

terrorists are the modern equivalent of privateers, except far more atrocious, privateers were engaged in warfare, and so are terrorists (well warfare+genocide/war atrocities).

---

official state: U.S. is at war with Terrorists and Terrorism, and they are at war with us, the U.S.

we were attacked militarily in an act of war, by the terrorists engaged in war against the U.S., so by default alone, we are officially at war with terrorism and terrorists

-------------------------

in our brainless PC/stupdity world, congress no longer ever declares war anymore, and we really don't care anyways, lol. war is war, so who cares whether congress declares war or not, the president goes to war regardless of congress not declaring war.

a miltary action, is an act of war, so we are waging war, so we are at war, just as it is the same with the terrorists, as they commit military actions, commit acts of war, and so they are waging war as well.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

now that I'm thinking about this...

first of all, terrorists are working for countries/governments... cough cough pakistan and soudi arabia and iran and syria and etc cough cough

<hr noshade size="1">
official state: U.S. is at war with Terrorists and Terrorism and they are at war with us, the U.S.

we were attacked militarily in an act of war, by the terrorists engaged in war against the U.S., so by default alone, we are officially at war with terrorism and terrorists

Can you provide me with a link for that official state? Usually a State of Emergency contains many special rules for nations, because they are made for the case of beeing attacked by a different country.

Then, Wikileaks is still protected by the first Constitutional Admendmend. There has never been a legal charge against Wikileaks - because they did nothing illegal.

Just hunting them down without even having declared them guilty of a crime? That's nothing different to tyranny and is absolutely forbidden for a constitional democracy that has signed human rights!

Also: These terrorists do not act for a nation.
Saudi Arabia? Bin Laden declared war on Saudi Arabia, and they are doing everything they can against Al Qaida.
Pakistan? Even though pakistani military is partially said to be Al Qaida sympathizers, they are actively fighting Al Qaida (for example during the huge offensive in Swat Valley)

Both Syria and Iran are not known for assisting Al Qaida. Syria supports organisations like Hamas that fight against Israel and Iran is said to have assisted Taliban and Iraqi resistance, but not Al Qaida.

 

[HegemonKhan]

1. official statement of being at war:

9-11, U.S.S. Cole, killing our soldiers, killing our civilians too and not abiding by POW rules (war atrocities/genocide), all of their failed attempts, beheading our Press (Daniel Pearl), etc, etc, etc, so many acts of war that I can't remember them all!

2. the constitution gives no sanctuary to the high crime of espionage which wikilinks has committed, at least in my understanding anyways. in fact, I think it is the constitution they says that high crimes (such as espionage by our own citizens or government officials, which would actually be the highest crime of all, treason) are punishable by death, by a non-citizen it's an act of war, and we can legally kill them as they're a combatant. spies comitting espionage are like snipers, they can be legally killed. wikilinks is an accomplice to those spies, and are just as guilty, they can be legally killed too.

3. hunting down an killing an enemy combatant is not tyranny, it's called war, and it's fully legal.

4. Hamas is a terrorist and his group is a terror network. most of the resistance was NOT iraqi's or afghans, but foreigners, terrorists. Hamas is engaged in terrorism against isreal.

5. let's not be blind to the obvious, let's not actually believe such utter non-sense!

Pakistan's+Soudi Arabia's+Iran's secret armies that are waging war against the U.S., is the terrorists. the terrorists are privateers working for Pakistan+soudi arabia+iran+whoever else.

these countries are funding+suporting+arming+etc the terrorists against the U.S., just as england was funding+suporting+arming the privateers against spain.

terrorists = islam/arabs

middle east = islam/arabs

terrorists = middle east

middle east (practically every arab/muslim country there) is using terrorists to wage war against the U.S.

just as England used the privateers to wage war against spain.

the middle east countries' (except isreal of course) armies are the terrorists