Columbia University Reverses Anti-WikiLeaks Guidance

[RLENT]

As to what I did in my career, I cannot verify it, prove or anything, so, by your standards, it must not have happened, right?

Incorrect (logical fallacy)

 

[cheri1122]

Regarding the subject matter of this thread's title - I think it would be a great idea if the students could examine the WikiLeaks subject matter, considering that it's all public information now.
However, the only way it would be a truly productive learning experience for the kids at CU is for them to be exposed equally to both sides of the debate. It's safe to say that the conservative side will most certainly be disallowed or shouted down by those in the intelligentsia in Columbia's faculty who claim to be the champions of free speech. An amusing irony on most any large university these days - freedom of speech is protected and encouraged, so long as it's the type of speech of which the liberals approve.
Can you back those statements with anything like facts, or is is just what 'everyone' knows?

Another frustrating characteristic of these freedom of speech and press debates is that so many of the liberal participants just don't get it - they simply don't understand the concept as explained by Oliver Wendell Holmes example of yelling "fire in a crowded theater". These naive people think that freedom of speech means anything goes, and everyone should have the rights of access to anyone's business.
That statement is just amazingly asinine, especially from one who seems to be fairly intelligent.
They don't understand the necessity for our government to conduct a lot of the nation's business in confidence, and that without that confidentiality our position in the world is severely jeopardized.
Oh, 'they' understand, all right. But they also suspect that a large amount of the secrecy is covering up illegal acts, ineptitude, and arrogant ["We are the greatest!"] stupidity. Based on the abuses we've already seen perpetrated in the 'War on Terror', that suspicion is well justified.

So for those who think that Julian Assange is some sort of hero, allow me to offer this modest proposal: the next time you're at your company's home office talk to one of the secretaries or administrators and offer them several thousand dollars to steal the listing of your company's top 300 customers, along with their contracted rates, the terms of the contracts, and names of key contacts and their phone numbers and e-mails. I'll set up a website called ExpeLeaks and put this information out for all other expedited freight companies to read, evaluate, and then send their salesmen beating down the doors of your top customers with offers of better service and cheaper prices. When a bunch of your major customers are picked off by your competitors and you're down to about 500 miles a week you'll still have the warm and fuzzy feeling from having stood up for the public's right to know; and when you start talking to the recruiters from competitive fleets, I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms for being such a champion of the people
Apples & oranges, straw man defense. Assange isn't accused of buying or selling anything, is he?

Of course you might have a different outlook if you were one of the owners or key managers that helped start the business from scratch, and spent years investing your money, sweat and years of 60-70 hour weeks making the venture successful.
How come every business is begun with years of sweat & long hours? How come none are begun with stolen ideas, by dishonest folks? [Read up on Thomas Edison, a true 'success story', and also a pretty dishonorable businessman, for just one example.]
Likewise, those who have sacrificed their blood, sweat, tears, etc for their country have a different viewpoint than the noisy jackals who sit back and enjoy the freedoms for which others have sacrificed so much to insure. All done to protect the freedoms that allow these nitwits with their bloated sense of entitlement the right to aid and abet a traitor and coward like Julian Assange.

I'm sure that those who sacrificed for the US have a vested interest in believing that they're fighting on the side of right - but what if they're not? What if all the noble platitudes are just a coverup of some slimy objectives? What if the freedom they're fighting to preserve is that of the politicians and megacorporations to conduct business 'as usual'? Don't we have the right to know that? We are, after all, financing it.
Personally, every nitwit with a bloated sense of entitlement I've ever seen was either a politician or a corporate 'bigwig'. Us ordinary folks just want the truth, is all, and we don't trust the government to provide it.

 

[greg334]

However, the only way it would be a truly productive learning experience for the kids at CU is for them to be exposed equally to both sides of the debate. It's safe to say that the conservative side will most certainly be disallowed or shouted down by those in the intelligentsia in Columbia's faculty who claim to be the champions of free speech. An amusing irony on most any large university these days - freedom of speech is protected and encouraged, so long as it's the type of speech of which the liberals approve.

The proof is all around, go to a campus like Columbia and see for yourself.

If you want further proof, look into what a lot of people who get booked to talk at campus' go through - Ann Coulter is my primary example.

Another frustrating characteristic of these freedom of speech and press debates is that so many of the liberal participants just don't get it - they simply don't understand the concept as explained by Oliver Wendell Holmes example of yelling "fire in a crowded theater". These naive people think that freedom of speech means anything goes, and everyone should have the rights of access to anyone's business.

Actually Cheri, this is a very accurate statement.

Again I will repeat this, freedom of the press and speech has both accountability and responsibility involved. The press can't hide from something a regular citizen can't because they are equal to every citizen. This is due to the fact that the founding fathers didn't define the press as an institution which qualifies people to be in it but rather put forth that anyone and everyone is the press.

 

[cheri1122]

The proof is all around, go to a campus like Columbia and see for yourself.
If the proof is all around, why aren't you citing it? Why are you telling me to go somewhere to prove that someone's statement is true or false? The person who makes the statement needs to prove it, not tell those who challenge it to go somewhere.

If you want further proof, look into what a lot of people who get booked to talk at campus' go through - Ann Coulter is my primary example.
How about YOU provide details on what you allege to be truth?



Actually Cheri, this is a very accurate statement.
Puhleeze - your killing me!

Again I will repeat this, freedom of the press and speech has both accountability and responsibility involved. The press can't hide from something a regular citizen can't because they are equal to every citizen. This is due to the fact that the founding fathers didn't define the press as an institution which qualifies people to be in it but rather put forth that anyone and everyone is the press.

Did you used to write insurance policies? Cos that sounds a lot like them: I understand the words, but it doesn't make sense.

 

[Turtle]

On about 90 campuses, meanwhile, students have joined Students for Academic Freedom, created four months ago by leftist turned conservative activist David Horowitz. They argue that campuses are overwhelmingly liberal and demand that administrations seek a more balanced point of view among faculty and in programs such as lecture series.

On some campuses, specific incidents have prompted an uproar. A senior at California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo sued campus officials in September, on a claim that he was unfairly punished after he tried to post a flier promoting a speech by a black author whose conservative ideas a group of black students found offensive. At Citrus College in California, a speech instructor offered extra credit to students if they wrote to President Bush protesting the war in Iraq.

But many students, like recent Shippensburg University graduate Ellen Wray, say they are simply frustrated by policies that dismiss or ignore conservative points of view.

"I wanted to help all the students that felt oppressed like I did," says Wray, 22, who sued the school. "All my professors were liberal except one, and he retired the first year I was there." After professors belittled her, "I finally just stopped raising my hand." She works for a Republican organization in Washington, D.C.

There's a lot more in the USA Today article, USATODAY - On campus: Free speech for you but not for me? and I encourage anyone who is not aware of the lack of free speech on college campus read the entire thing.

The article is dated, but things are worse now than they were then. If you like, I can cite those examples, too, but a Google search for "freedom of speech on campus" will yield quite a bit.

 

[witness23]

If you want further proof, look into what a lot of people who get booked to talk at campus' go through - Ann Coulter is my primary example.

You had made a good argument up until you asked to use Ann Coulter as an example.

 

[RLENT]

Did you used to write insurance policies? Cos that sounds a lot like them: I understand the words, but it doesn't make sense.

Jeezuz ..... and here I thought it was just me ....

 

[Pilgrim]

Another frustrating characteristic of these freedom of speech and press debates is that so many of the liberal participants just don't get it - they simply don't understand the concept as explained by Oliver Wendell Holmes example of yelling "fire in a crowded theater". These naive people think that freedom of speech means anything goes, and everyone should have the rights of access to anyone's business.
That statement is just amazingly asinine, especially from one who seems to be fairly intelligent.
it.

If this point of view doesn't illustrate my point about liberals not getting it, nothing ever will; and Cheri is the most reasonable liberal on the site. But before we paint all liberals with a broad brush, let's take a look at this outstanding article from yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I'm sure everyone - especially our liberal friends - will recognize the author and appreciate her expertise on the matter and her legal background.

"Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions. But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt...
As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."

Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com

Apples & oranges, straw man defense. Assange isn't accused of buying or selling anything, is he?

OK, lets forget about the money for the sake of argument - although don't think for a minute he's doing this solely as his idea of a noble cause. If there's collusion to distribute the proprietary information of your company the same argument holds true - apples and apples. It's also not just coincidence that he surrendered himself shortly after his funding sources were cut off; in the final analysis, it's ALWAYS about the money.

 

[cheri1122]

"Reasonable liberal"? I would have thought you would call that an oxymoron - or are you ****ing me with faint praise?
Normally, I'd agree on the money, but I'm just dewy eyed enough to believe that not everything or everyone is always about the money [Mother Teresa?] I'm not, though it is easier when there aren't large amounts of it at stake, I concede.
Assange may be, I don't know - but I've seen no sign of it yet.

 

[RLENT]

If this point of view doesn't illustrate my point about liberals not getting it, nothing ever will; and Cheri is the most reasonable liberal on the site.

The above is from the dude* that on EO openly called for the mass extinction of the inhabitants of Palestine (aka "the Palestinian people") ...... without any shame or remorse whatsoever, I might add ....

Uhhh ... I believe that's called genocide and is the kind of stuff that is considered a crime against humanity ... like they handled back at Nuremburg ....

* I used the word dude above rather than yutz because I wanted to be polite ....

 

[LDB]

"Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions. But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt...
As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."

Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com

Pigs are flying somewhere. Feinstein actually got something right.

 

[RLENT]

Pigs are flying somewhere.

That should have been your tip-off - whenever the two sides at opposite ends of the political spectrum agree .... be afraid ..... very, very afraid:

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

On the pig thing - turn around ..... and then look just slightly down .....

 

[witness23]

* I used the word dude above rather than yutz because I wanted to be polite ....

Yutz I love that word and have not heard it in quite sometime.

I am totally using it today.

 

[Pilgrim]

OK, here's the whole article so everybody can read it without having to click the mouse a couple of extra times:

Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act By DIANNE FEINSTEIN

When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove—more than 250,000 secret State Department cables—he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.
The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "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."
The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
No doubt aware of this law, and despite firm warnings, Mr. Assange went ahead and released the cables on Nov. 28.
In a letter sent to Mr. Assange and his lawyer on Nov. 27, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh warned in strong terms that the documents had been obtained "in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action."
Mr. Koh's letter said that publication of the documents in Mr. Assange's possession would, at minimum:
• "Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals—from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;
• "Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,
• "Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries—partners, allies and common stakeholders—to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability."
WSJ Europe editorial page editor Brian Carney isn't so sure the WikiLeaks founder is being treated fairly.
None of this stopped Mr. Assange. That he is breaking the law and must be stopped from doing more harm is clear. I also believe a prosecution would be successful.
In an October analysis of earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, the Congressional Research Service reported that "it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated."
Both elements exist in this case. The "damage to national security" is beyond question. As for intent, Mr. Assange's own words paint a ****ing picture.
In June, the New Yorker reported that Mr. Assange has asserted that a "social movement" set on revealing secrets could "bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the U.S. administration." The same piece revealed Mr. Assange's stunning disregard for the grave harm his actions could bring to innocent people, which he dismisses as "collateral damage."
Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions. But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt.
As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.
This latest WikiLeaks release demonstrates Mr. Assange's willingness to disseminate plans, comments, discussions and other communications that compromise our country. And let there be no doubt about the depth of the harm. Consider the sobering assessment, delivered in an email to employees of U.S. intelligence agencies late last month, by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: "The actions taken by WikiLeaks are not only deplorable, irresponsible, and reprehensible—they could have major impacts on our national security. The disclosure of classified documents puts at risk our troops, law enforcement, diplomats, and especially the American people."
Mrs. Feinstein, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from California and chairman of the Senate

Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com

This article makes the case against Assange and WikiLeaks better than anything I've seen so far.

Finally, for anyone gullible or naive enough to accept the mission statement from WikiLeaks at its face value - I've got some beach property in Arkansas you need to check out.

 

[Pilgrim]

The above is from the dude* that on EO openly called for the mass extinction of the inhabitants of Palestine (aka "the Palestinian people") ...... without any shame or remorse whatsoever, I might add ....

Uhhh ... I believe that's called genocide and is the kind of stuff that is considered a crime against humanity ... like they handled back at Nuremburg ....

* I used the word dude above rather than yutz because I wanted to be polite ....

If you're going to make that assertion, than it would only be fair to at least link to the post to which you refer lest someone think that you're making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

 

[RLENT]

If you're going to make that assertion, than it would only be fair to at least link to the post to which you refer lest someone think that you're making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

That's an entirely fair point

I should probably do it for my own benefit as well - so that I don't inadvertently mischaracterize yours (or anyone else's) statement.

So, when I get a chance, I'll look it up and bookmark it, along with a similar one from chefdennis, that Dreamer locked almost immediately (but sadly, left up), that I accidently found one day while looking for something else .....

In the meantime, I will attempt to refrain from using it .... you can help in this matter ...... by avoiding calling for wanton death and destruction, so that I don't feel prompted to use it .....

 

[Turtle]

That's part of that whole dragging into the current thread, something from outside, ah, never mind. <shrug> <sigh> Whatayagonnado.

As for the flying Pigs.... Downtown Cincinnati, Fountain Square, they always have flying pigs there.

 

[RLENT]

This article makes the case against Assange and WikiLeaks better than anything I've seen so far.

Finally, for anyone gullible or naive enough to accept the mission statement from WikiLeaks at its face value ......

Well, while we are talking about gullibility and naivete, let's talk about someone who would be so gullible that they would suck the Koolaid directly out of the teat of their mortal enemy - yet another quite liberal blowhard politician ... simply because it happens to agree with what they really, really desperately wanna believe will happen (actual laws and the Constitution be ****ed)

Now there's quite a funny picture ......

Instead, let's skip the glazed eyes and the associated drool in gleeful anticipation of potential violence, and try to take a little more rational approach - perhaps something from Congress' own research service, the CRS. The job of this non-partisan legal office is to provide objective, balanced memos to Congress on important legal issues, free from the often hysteric hyperbole of other government officials.

The linked document outlines the issue with respect to Wikileaks, and was, in fact, issued just this past Monday. It does require something more than a mere facile and glib reading, if ones wishes to truly understand what the lay of the legal landscape actually is:

Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information

Bon Appetite !

 

[witness23]

The linked document outlines the issue with respect to Wikileaks, and was, in fact, issued just this past Monday. It does require something more than a mere facile and glib reading, if ones wishes to truly understand what the lay of the legal landscape actually is:

Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information

Bon Appetite !

Thank you for the link. This is not going to be an open and shut case, in my opinion. Again, intent will be the deciding factor if the Private and Mr. Assange have any luck surviving serious judgement.

As far as I know, we haven't even charged him with a crime yet. The Brit's have him, the Swedes are trying to extradite him and the U.S. want's him on our soil. This is going to be messy.

 

[witness23]

By the way, when I say,"serious judgement", I mean a life sentence or death penalty. Which I think neither will get, especially since the precedence has already been set.