Do you approve of Wikileaks?

[sabrina 1]

CNN conducted a poll on Wikileaks and found that 'Wikileaks has few fans in the U.S.' Apparently they claim that Liberals and Democrats do not support Wikileaks either.

CNN Poll on Wikileaks

How would you have answered the question 'do you support Wikileaks'?

[Iggo]

1. Yes.

[Ken Burch]

2. Without Wikileaks, what chance would we EVER have to find out what our rulers are doing?

We all know Congress will never vote to defy the National Security State and let us find out the truth.

[rucky]

3. So far.

I'm not sure anybody knows where this is going yet or how it'll all play out, but it's important to find out - even if it only turns out to be a testing of limits.

[kgnu_fan]

4. The voting link for the first choice is disabled!!!! Why?

[Kaleko]

5. It works for me, kgnu.

[kgnu_fan]

6. For me, it is disabled so I can not vote, two links below works but I dont' want to vote for them

[Kaleko]

9. Weird...

If one of the options is disabled for some, this poll is useless, unfortunately.

[sabrina 1]

11. Which one isn't working?

'yes' or 'no'?

I can't vote and I don't know what to do to fix it if there is a problem though.

[kgnu_fan]

12. The first one on the list, "Yes" is the one I can not vote.

[sabrina 1]

15. That's strange. Does anyone know what the problem might be?

I'm really sorry, I have no idea why you are having a problem. Would the browser make a difference?

[sabrina 1]

18. kgnu_fan, TexasGal just said that you

have to be donor to vote in polls. I didn't remember that. Can't remember if I ever tried before I was a donor. Sorry, I wish I could fix it.

[Texasgal]

16. I believe you have to be a donor

to vote on polls.

[sabrina 1]

17. I didn't know that.

Thanks for the explanation though, that would explain it.

[flying rabbit]

43. No you don't

you have to be a donor to start polls.

[sabrina 1]

53. Thanks, then I wonder what the problem was? Doesn't seem like

anyone else had a problem though. Could it be a browser problem? Sometimes I have trouble when I use IE, eg, I cannot log into DU lately on IE.

[kgnu_fan]

66. Thank you for caring.... I don't know what is the problem. My main browser is Firefox...

[sabrina 1]

69. I am using Google Chrome now.

I do have problems with IE as I said so don't use it anymore. And I did have problems with Firefox a while ago, although I like it. It crashed for some reason and I haven't used it since.

Maybe try Google Chrome? I don't know a thing about technology btw, so I'm just guessing :-)

[kgnu_fan]

111. You know what? I was able to click it now so I voted. Thank you and I am going to try Chrome soon.

[sabrina 1]

114. I'm glad you were able to vote ~

:-)

[smiley]

127. I'm not a donor

and I voted yes

[MrModerate]

7. I'm kind of on the fence about this one. On the whole . . .

I think you need to chasten governments periodically lest they go too far down the path toward black ops even in activities where transparency would be the best policy. So, good on you, Wikileaks!

However, such breaks are typically effected by zealots and amateurs, because they're the ones motivated to do so. Which is a problem. Due to sheer volume and cross-discipline complexity, the releases are not subject to reliable judgment about what is instructive to reveal and what is destructive.

Of course, if you leave it up to the experts, nothing would ever be reavealed. All governments are far too quick to put the "Secret" stamp on what they're up to; at the same time, all governments need to ensure confidentiality for the majority of their transactions, particularly with other States.

I'm pulled both ways.

[sabrina 1]

50. That's a reasonable and thoughtful post.

I think Wikileaks itself was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of leaks it was getting from the U.S. at first and acknowledged that it did make a mistake by not redacting material in the initial publishing . But, like all new organizations they were learning and since then have taken great care, (the reason for the amount of time taken with these cables and the involvement of five major news organizations who have the expertize and the staff to carefully sift through the documents and remove any possible harmful information) not to publish information that might cause harm to individuals. Eg, they did ask the Pentagon to redact names etc. that might place others in jeopardy. An offer the Pentagon refused.

There is clearly a need for an organization where whistle-blowers can safely pass along information about corrupt governments and corporations. They are in effect, doing the job the MSM did not do over the past number of years.

Their main goal is to inform the public of what their governments are doing behind closed doors that they should not be doing. If a government is operating in an honest way, leaks will not harm them.

Also, if governments know that what they are doing might make its way into the press it serves as a deterrent to rogue governments such as the Bush Administration eg. But with the U.S. media's hands completely tied, the American public was completely mis-informed about the need to go to war and as a result supported something they would not have supported had they known the truth.

Any harm leaks might have done, pales compared to the harm done by these two wars. So, as always, what the press decides to publish has to be weighed with the harm done by publishing against the harm done by not publishing.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Think of it this way, if Wikileaks has the info, you can be sure that every intelligence community

in the world had the info a year earlier.

The only people really being informed, are we the people!

Not only that, but it serves as a red flag to our spies that they really need to tighten up their protocols.

They are claiming that one person had access to release hundreds of thousands of documents. Why would you ever give access to such a large group of documents to one person, unless it was one of the branch heads or the president or congress? It was a bad system, let's hope they fixed it.

[realisticphish]

91. +1

precisely my views

[Recursion]

8. "Support"?

I wouldn't say I "support" them, though I think talking about prosecuting Assange is just silly.

[Iggo]

22. The question in the subject line was 'Do you approve...'

That's the one I answered Yes to.

[Time for change]

10. In my opinion the CNN poll was misleadingly phrased

I think it should more appropriately have been phrased:

As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of U.S. government documents that expose crimes by the U.S. government and private corporations, such as torture, financial fraud, and untruthful propaganda meant to gain public support for war. Do you approve or disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?

I'll bet the results would have been quite different.

:)

[sabrina 1]

13. Definitely how the questions are framed plus the

information the people being polled have, will affect the outcome. Since CNN has participated in the mis-information about Wikileaks, I imagine they framed the question to get the results the wanted.

But I could be wrong ~ :-)

[Still a Democrat]

23. Because your wording intentionally builds in bias

and you're more than smart enough to know that.

The CNN question was objective. It didn't allude to potential benefit or harm.

[Time for change]

24. My example DID NOT allude ot potential benefit or harm

It simply stated a fact about the nature of the leaks -- a fact that I contend is just as important or more important than the fact that the leaks involved confidential information -- especially since the vast majority of that information should not have been confidential.

[Still a Democrat]

27. Just as some contend lives are endangered and American interests compromised

But both sides have their claims. The poll stated undisputed facts, you didn't like the results, so you want to see your arguments baked into the question.

[Time for change]

31. Which one of the facts that I stated do you think is disputed?

What if I used the word "alleged" to modify crimes? Would that satisfy you?

[sabrina 1]

41. Both sides have claims, but only one side has facts.

The Pentagon has stated that no one has been harmed by the leaks. That is a fact. So any claim that says otherwise is simply wrong.

Also, Wikileaks gave the Pentagon the option to redact any information that might be harmful to anyone and they refused to do so. So, if any harm did come to anyone, it would not be the fault of Wikileaks.

[seabeyond]

61. when did they say this? when they first came out. like biden claimed.

a day ro two after they came out? have you heard recently repercussions they are having to adjust to, now that time has gone by, repercussions of some of the cables?

[sabrina 1]

75. Just take the helicopter video alone!

Can you count how many war crimes took place in that action alone? How many murders? Children wounded and maimed for life. A good samaritan trying to help a wounded reporter, blown away in front of his children. And a worse and more evil and cowardly war crime, the gunning down of an innocent, wounded man. Totally against the Geneva Conventions.

I cannot count the number of crimes in just that one video alone, but from start to finish, it was a massive war crime in action. Even two of the soldiers who were there, have tried to apologize for it although neither of them actually participated, they still carry the guilt of just being a part of it all.

It's very revealing that this country can ignore such brutal war crimes, yet call Assange a criminal for revealing them.

And that's just from the video. That doesn't even deal with the crimes of torture revealed, eg.

But you asked, what crimes? That is a beginning. Those little children are scarred for life, both physically and emotionally as you could see on the little girl's face.

Kudos also to Wikileaks for helping to find the family and giving them back their humanity, their names and addressing their grief. They are NOT 'collateral damage', they are human beings and this is one of the goals of Wikileaks to restore human rights to those from whom they have been taken away.

I'm wondering why you asked 'what crimes'. You did say you were informed about the leaks. So, is it that you do not view that video as a war crime in action then? And if it is not, why did the U.S. try to keep it from being published, even from showing it to the news agency Reuters whose two journalists were killed that day?

[Smarmie Doofus]

116. Thank you. Sometimes I think people forget what we're talking about.

>>>>And if it is not, why did the U.S. try to keep it from being published, even from showing it to the news agency Reuters whose two journalists were killed that day?>>>>>

[sabrina 1]

117. To say that Wikileaks has not exposed crimes is

say that what happened that day was not a crime. Even if that was their only leak, major war crimes were committed that day. Two of the soldiers who were not in the helicopter, but among the ground troops, have apologized to the Iraqis for being part of these crimes perpetrated on the people of Iraq. They state that what we saw in that video happens on a regular basis. They rescued the two children and clearly did not lose THEIR humanity despite what they were exposed to.

But to see people in this country totally dismiss these crimes, including the U.S. government shows how far we have gone to the dark side. Many people in this country with children of their own, who could watch the interview with those two beautiful children and not call what happened to them in their own country, on their way to a normal day's activities, are people with no soul, imho.

That little girl will haunt me for a long time, the frightened look on her face as she showed the scars from the wounds she received that day, should have caused some stirring of conscience in even the hardest hearted person who witnessed it. The British journalist, a veteran journalist, cried when he spoke about it.

I think you are right, 'I think people forget what we're talking about'. Or do not want to remember, for political reasons.

[Still a Democrat]

79. self delete

self delete

[sabrina 1]

83. From Robert Gates:

Gates on Leaks, Wiki and Otherwise

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

“So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

[seabeyond]

60. 1000's of crimes? i have not seen even a kinda close to that number. tell me ten crimes. nt

[JackRiddler]

86. Why don't you follow the link I recommended for you where you can read many of the stories...

that have developed as a result of the cables release, showing evidence of corruption and crime, not just by the US but by the corporations it supports and by other governments?

The DU thread itself consists of links compiled by DUers. Everyone can read and do further research for themselves, including READ THE ACTUAL CABLES.

It's the first link in my signature line.

[seabeyond]

95. why do you ASSUME i have not followed the link. challenging the 1000's of crimes the poster

still has not shared with us, .... jack. once again, a specific question ignored by you yet challenging me with assumptions.

the poster says THOUSANDS of crimes. that isnt true. not what we have seen. you know it. i know it. the poster, maybe or not. but it is an absurdly incorrect statement that some chose to ignore. good for some to throw out absurdities but a down right sin for others. that

is

hypocrisy

[JackRiddler]

96. This assumption is based on your complete failure to ever address what's in the cables...

and your constant repetition (on the other thread) of one tired trope ("Putin as Alpha Dog.") Either you haven't informed yourself about the cable stories to date or you don't feel like dealing with it, merely pushing the same talking point that there's nothing in there over and over and over. Sorry, but that's the impression your posts promote.

[seabeyond]

104. he says thousands of crimes. there arent. i call it. you pissed. the other was

the cables are corruption and war crimes. that is no more true than the problem with the poll others were suggesting. i call tht, you throw tantrum.

the repetitive is your lack of ability to seem to GET what i am challenging.

if you are all about being informed, i think you would correct a poster that thinks THOUSANDS of crimes have been uncovered. that simply is not even close to being true.

but

we know truth or being informed is not your goal. your goal is an all consuming worship of wiki or the ass, without concern for accurate info

[JackRiddler]

105. Fine. You say ZERO. This is definitely less accurate.

I daresay the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs document thousands of crimes, by the way. Every death or injury to a civilian in an unnecessary war is a crime, for starters.

[seabeyond]

106. link to where i ever said ZERO. oh, i know. i didnt. you MADE it UP.

wtf

[JackRiddler]

107. Have you discovered one? Please tell us.

[sabrina 1]

109. I have answered your question, twice I believe.

Wikileaks has provided documentation of tens of thousands of crimes, so the commenter you are castigating and insulting is not incorrect.

What is your point btw? You started out denying that crimes were revealed by Wikileaks. I pointed you towards just one leak, the Helicopter Video which shows dozens of crimes that should be charged. At least one charge of murder for each of the dead civilians and the dead Reuters Reporters.

Then there was the murder of the father of the children, the wounding of the children themselves, the destruction of property, the war crime of killing a wounded and unarmed man who happened to be a journalist. Lawyers for the victims I'm sure will point out all of the crimes committed in that one video alone.

This video was leaked to Wikileaks. Reuters had demanded the video from the Military but was unable to get it.

You asked for proof the Wikileaks revealed crimes, I provided it, you ignored it. So, like the above commenter, I am beginning to believe you don't really want an answer so this is my last attempt to provide it. And if you really have studied the leaks, you would know that thousands of crimes WERE confirmed by them, both in the Iraq and the Afghanistan war logs.

[sabrina 1]

101. Have thousands of innocent civilians not died in Iraq?

Each of those lives counts as a war crime when the very premise of the war itself was illegal. Unless we don't value them as human beings, which apparently we are expected to go along with. We are supposed to view them as 'collateral damage' whatever that is.

In fact more than 'thousands' of crimes have been committed. According to the Wikileaks War Logs the military itself actually did keep a record of civilian deaths, despite us being told that 'we don't do body counts'.

What the Wikileaks War Logs revealed was that even by the U.S. Military's own 'body count' over one hundred thousand Iraqis died in this illegal war. That is way, way more than just 'thousands' and each one of those deaths is a war crime. Because the war itself was illegal.

Then there is the crime of torture, also revealed in the leaks. How many crimes involved in those revelations? We need investigations to get an actual number, but we now have proof that those crimes were and still are being committed.

I hope that answers your question. There are more crimes revealed such as the crimes of corruption etc. So, yes, untold numbers of crimes have been committed, and these leaks have documented many of them. Yet, the U.S. government is making no effort to investigate them, they are going after the editor and publisher of a news organization instead.

[JackRiddler]

85. The CNN question was not objective.

First of all, I have no problem with the idea that most Americans in the current environment disapprove of Wikileaks. That's likely to be true. Most Americans are woefully uninformed or misinformed about Wikileaks at a time when it is under heavy media attack.

The CNN question:

"As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of confidential U.S. government
documents concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or disapprove of the
Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"

There is no such thing as an objective question. To say "documents concerning US diplomatic and military policies" is very different from saying, "documents from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and from the State Department."

A truly scientific poll would provide a control for the tool employed, which in this case is the question asked.

This is possible by asking different questions of different sample groups (sorry if that costs more money) and comparing the results.

It is not a false statement, for example, to say that the cables released by Wikileaks "in part expose government corruption and corporate malfeasance," or "secrets about what the government is doing abroad," or "secrets the government would prefer not to see published." These phrases are no less "objective" than CNN's, as objectivity itself is contested. Regardless, they are factually true phrases.

If they'd included one of those phrases, the numbers would very likely be higher in approval. You would at the least have a basis for determining how much of the answer depends on how the question is phrased. You would better know what the bedrock approval is at this time.

It is also not a false statement to say that "Wikileaks' release of the cables has been condemned by the US government." If they included that, the approval numbers would probably be lower.

Furthermore, a scientific survey would endeavor to see how well informed people were about the subject in the first place. If this is the first people are hearing about Wikileaks (true of many of them, without a doubt), they will be more likely to disapprove. This needs to be preceded by questions about whether one recognizes the name of Wikileaks, can say accurately what it is (a Web site that releases confidential information fed to it by anonymous whistleblowers), can say what it has released (Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, State Department cables), and so forth. If they did that, you would know the differences between relatively informed and uninformed opinion.

To repeat, Wikileaks and Assange have been bombarded with continuous attacks in the corporate media, and Assange has been called a TERRORIST!!! by the likes of Biden. It's little surprise that when the corporate media create an atmosphere, they get predictable results when they pretend to measure it.

Please recall what happened to ACORN when they were subjected to a media vilification campaign. The disapproval numbers for them were even worse.

The good news in the CNN poll is that TWENTY PERCENT of Americans have not bought the corporate media snow-job about Wikileaks and, as more stories from the cables come out and as people become better informed, that is likely to improve.

[grahamhgreen]

63. +1

[leeroysphitz]

14. I agree with almost anything that stirs up the shit for TPTB.

The elites, both political and corporate, have had things all their own way for far far too long.

Even if we can't hope to win why should we make it easy for them?

[sabrina 1]

45. You're a rabble rouser, you are! Lol!

But I agree with you 100%. More harm comes from governments being too secretive than could ever come from too much transparency.

[Still a Democrat]

19. Assange doesn't have the protection of the First Amendment

So it's disingenuous to talk about freedom of the press - it doesn't apply.

[sabrina 1]

20. Are you serious or is that snark?

[Still a Democrat]

21. Completely serious

As far as this country's dealings with him, the First Amendment doesn't apply.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. There is a reason that the first ten amendments is called the Bill Of Rights.

They are RIGHTS. They are not privileges granted by the government, but rights inherent in being a part of civilized society. He is simply excercising his RIGHT to freedom of speech, whether he has legal protection or not. If he is denied that right by his own country, that is that country's problem. The right exists, nevertheless. It is the ultimate hypocrisy on the part of the US to deny him the right of freedom of speech, when it is THE fundamental right enshrined in our constitution.

That is what is the real travesty behind 'extraordinary rendition' - it treats the first, fourth, and fifth amendments as mere legalisms, to be circumvented when inconvenient, instead of as RIGHTS.

Either you believe in freedom of speech, or you don't.

[sabrina 1]

40. Thank you, good post. Rights, people seem so willing to give

up our rights, and for the worst of reasons. For purely political reasons, not even for a real threat.

[sabrina 1]

26. Wait, so what you are saying is that the U.S.

has control over the free press in foreign nations? Iow, if the Guardian, eg, publishes information on the U.S. that the U.S. government does not like, the U.S. has the right to silence the Guardian?

You know that Wikileaks is an International News Org and therefore not answerable to the U.S. or any other country, such as say China?

You are saying that China then, could silence the U.S. press if it publishes news that the Chinese Government doesn't like?

All democracies have freedom of the press, without which they would not be democracies.

If what you are saying were true, then we in the U.S. would be subject to prosecution by foreign nations for exercising our rights to freedom of the press.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, so if you can explain how this would work, I would appreciate it.

[Still a Democrat]

30. Assange as a member of the "press" in another country

enjoys no legal protections as a member of the media. If he is compromising our interests by trading in state secrets, we have to employ different methods than with an American journalist.

The American journalist can be brought to court and a judgment made, balancing freedom of the press with national interests and security. In Assange's case, as a foreigner, we no such recourse. Therefore, we pursue him, if necessary, though other channels. We wouldn't be constrained by the first amendment, but by things such as political and diplomatic barriers, international law, and the extent of our ability to stop him by force.

[Kaleko]

33. You couldn't be more wrong.

For the umpteenth time, the argument that Assange should be pursued and stopped by force by a "we" that you obviously identify with, doesn't hold water. All the newspapers that have published leaked information from ANY source then need to be likewise pursued and stopped by force.

[sabrina 1]

39. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand.

Even sane Republicans on the Judiciary Committee agreed that to pursue any journalist for political reasons, and that's what this would be, would be going down a very 'slippery slope'.

More than anything else, Wikileaks has revealed some real problems in this country regarding our democracy, over and above the leaks themselves. We are in very great danger of losing this democracy if the very loud minority, unfortunately supported by this administration, are allowed to prevail. For exposing these threats to our democracy, we owe a lot to Wikileaks, imho.

[Still a Democrat]

54. The "we" is the United States

As for the newspapers, their role is more a reporting function, while Assange is more involved in the actual harvesting and distribution of the information. There are also more political and diplomatic constraints to pursuing newspapers, they tend to exercise discretion, and they are really after the fact.

The earlier in the food chain, the more aggressive you are. People like Manning are the root of the problem and are dealt with most vigorously. I would associate Assange more with him than the mainstream media outlets.

[JackRiddler]

108. My United States is very clearly not yours. "We" is propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

36. Thank you for your response.

There are a few problems with what you say though.

First, in a bi-partisan hearing of the Judiciary Committee about a week ago on 'Wikileaks and the Constitution', Rep. Conyers, the chair of the committee, in his opening statement, declared that 'Wikileaks has done nothing illegal'. The consensus of the Committee, and it was a very interesting discussion with several legal experts present, was an agreement with that assessment especially considering the ramifications of going after one News Organization for political purposes. If you have time, I will be happy to provide a link to that hearing as it basically answered this question pretty thoroughly.

Second, what happens when another government, like China eg, is as outraged over something the foreign press does as we are over Wikileaks?

Just recently eg, Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident currently imprisoned in China for "suspicion of inciting subversion of state power", was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and hailed around the world as a hero. China was outraged and objected, claiming this interfered with their sovereign right to decide who is a threat to their national security and who is not. President Obama congratulated Liu and many western journalists wrote scathing articles on China's oppressive government.

The Chinese threatened Norway and demanded that the prize not be awarded to a person they consider to be a traitor.

By your logic, China could prosecute a U.S. journalist from the NYT for threatening their national security, under their laws. Why then has China NOT done so, we know they would if they could?

Third, the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of the press. It does no specify only the American press. But even if it did, there are other protections for the free press that are agreed upon internationally.

And since what Assange and Wikileaks have done is standard journalism no laws anywhere have been broken. So any attempt to prosecute him would be rightfully seen as a political prosecution and no European country could agree to an extradition under such circumstances according to the treaties on extradition.

If he is compromising our interests by trading in state secrets, we have to employ different methods than with an American journalist.

I'm glad you said 'if', because of course he is not 'trading in state secrets'. He received information from a whistle-blower as journalists do every day and he published it. If that ever becomes a crime here, which some are trying to do, including Joe Lieberman, then we are no longer a democracy.

I do not believe there will be any charges against Assange. The whole world's press would rise up against such an attempt, in fact it has already begun. It would be a very foolish thing to try to do as it would fail. I'm sorry, but what you are proposing is a threat to democracy, NOT what Wikileaks is doing.

[Still a Democrat]

64. Quite welcome

It seems the key element here is whether Wikileaks should be viewed as part of the initial compromising of the information or a media outlet reporting on same after it's presented to them. They're not really in the business of reporting as much as passing on documents. It's really as if they're "laundering" the information, for lack of a better word. Your posting is causing me to reconsider how I view them.

There are large portions of information passed on by Wikileaks that aren't whistle blowing. They don't involve any kind of crime or corruption, so they can't be defended on that basis.

I completely disagree about the Constitution applying outside of this country - it doesn't.

China is an oppressive regime objecting to the honoring of a dissident. How far their reach extends in suppressing this recognition is pretty dubious. It's not a very close comparison.

[sabrina 1]

68. Well, again, a news organization publishes news. Even though

many of the cables so far do not show evidence of crimes, they are news. Public figures make news and news organizations report on them so it's not necessary that the news involve crimes.

As for China, yes it is an oppressive regime, and some of the Wikileaks cables regarding China have penetrated their censorship giving the rest of the world a small glimpse into how they censored the internet, eg. How they were dealing with Google. Those leaks were very valuable, especially to the U.S. But not to China of course.

Still, we cannot demand that the world accept our efforts to censor news, and then criticize China for doing the same thing. In fact that is now a criticism by China of the U.S. who, they claim, do not respect their right to censor information that in their view, threatens their national security, while doing the exact same thing themselves.

Which is why it is better to apply the same standards to everyone. News is news, and it is the duty of journalists to report it when they know about it.

The Constitution is the law of the land. Bush' theory was that foreigners had no rights under our Constitution also. I disagree with that. If someone commits a crime in a foreign country, the laws of that country certainly do apply. Eg, if you speak out in China against the government there, you will be tried under their laws, not ours. So their laws also apply to foreigners.

If Assange were charged with a crime here, what would it be? Which of our laws make publishing information obtained from a whistle-blower, a crime?

A final question, did you agree with the Bush administration that the detainees in Gunatanamo had not right to access our judicial system?

[Still a Democrat]

78. As far as crimes Assange would face if he were an American citizen, it depends

if it could be shown he encouraged or enabled the leaks. As far as his passing on what he was given, I imagine the bar would be pretty high as far as what the government could suppress. I'm no lawyer, for sure.

As far as Guantanamo detainees are concerned, no, I don't believe they have constitutional rights. There should be some type of process to determine their innocence or guilt. The indefinite detention doesn't sit well with me.

[sabrina 1]

80. Okay, but since the Constitution IS the law of the land

if someone from a foreign country is arrested here, for say, robbing a bank, should they not be tried under our laws? Isn't that what we do normally? If you break our laws, you are tried according to those laws? Bush's claim that this does not apply to a select group of people was a new idea which as we have seen, brought about gross injustices whereby hundreds of people from various countries around the world, were detained without charges or trials and subjected to torture then finally released, often after years, because there were no crimes involved. The only crimes committed in those instances were the violations of the Geneva Conventions by this government.

I am not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that if a foreigner commits a crime in this or any other country, that crime is against the people of that country and they are tried according the existing laws there. What other laws would we try people under?

Take eg, a civil case. Let's say a foreign person libels someone in this country to the point of causing them harm. Libel cases are hard to prove mainly because they are often argued based on the 1st Amendment. Would such a case, because the defendant is a foreigner, have to eliminate the 1st Amendment as a defense simply because the accused is not American?

[sabrina 1]

42. One more thing. You must not be aware of the history of

bringing American journalists to trial in this country in attempts to use 'national security' as an excuse to silence the press.

The courts in this country are very, very reluctant to silence the press and it would take something of an extreme nature to get even close to a conviction of an American journalist on any charges that come up against the 1st Amendment.

There is a long, legal history showing how rare it is to win a case that involves the freedom of the press.

The case of the U.S. Govt V The NYT in the Pentagon papers case pretty much decided this issue. The Govt. lost even that case. So, even if Assange was an American, it would be foolish and wrong to try to prosecute him for doing what the press is supposed to do.

[bowens43]

29. wow.

This kind of ignorance is dangerous

[elias7]

35. See explanatory argument in post #30, neither ignorant, nor dangerous

[EFerrari]

38. It's both and wrong. n/t

[elias7]

44. care to explain?

Explaining why the first amendment doesn't apply to a foreigner is neither ignorant or dangerous. Explaining what a government would need to do to go after one it deemed spilling state secrets doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees with what the government is doing, it is just the description of a process.

[sabrina 1]

46. Should China have the power to go after American journalists

for what they call endangering their national security? We know they want to, but why haven't they? Should they go after Wikileaks? Wikileaks was started by Chinese dissidents because of the censorship of the press in that country. But China has laws also. If an American journalist violates those laws, what is to stop them from exercising the same rights you are claiming for the U.S.?

[elias7]

87. I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about what's happening now

The statement from post #30 was, "...In Assange's case, as a foreigner, we no such recourse. Therefore, we pursue him, if necessary, though other channels. We wouldn't be constrained by the first amendment, but by things such as political and diplomatic barriers, international law, and the extent of our ability to stop him by force."

I merely responded to someone calling that statement ignorant and dangerous.

We are pursuing Assange, we are engaged in a witchhunt or frame job or call-it-what-you will. If our government wants to get Assange, they will find a way, legal or not, ethical or not, they just can't use the first amendment. But I'm watching us try to stop him by force.

Maybe I'm ignorant too for a misinterpretation of the statement in post #30. But I'm not making an argument for US taking action against Assange or wikileaks, I'm watching what we're trying to do and realize that's how our government operates.

Perhaps you've mistaken my defending of a statement as a personal stance against wikileaks. People around here make a lot of assumptions these days on hot button issues. If it helps, I see wikileaks as a media outlet doing the job that our media is not doing, and I fully support the process as Assange has described it, and fully support the intent and actions thus far.

[sabrina 1]

98. I guess I did misunderstand your post, so thanks for the

explanation. My point was that if we prosecute someone, we would have to use our own laws to do so. That is why the DOJ is searching for a 'crime' to charge him with.

The statement from post #30 was, "...In Assange's case, as a foreigner, we no such recourse. Therefore, we pursue him, if necessary, though other channels. We wouldn't be constrained by the first amendment, but by things such as political and diplomatic barriers, international law, and the extent of our ability to stop him by force."

But what other channels would we use? Unless the statement means to make up charges, such as accusing him of theft or reckless endangerment eg. But even then, it would still have to be under our laws as they are claiming he acted against the laws of this country.

'We wouldn't be constrained by the 1st Amendment'. I think we would, if the charges involve the publishing of the material or even if they were able to charge him with communicating with his source, Bradley Manning. None of that is illegal under our laws and it does involve the 1st Amendment IF he is charged with violating our laws.

Am I missing something? It's possible there are 'other channels' I am not thinking of.

[elias7]

115. The channel I was alluding to would be outside of our legal system

I would find it hard to believe that we don't have a hand in Assange's current legal troubles. I know it's kind of silly if we do, since I believe wikileaks or some similar incarnation is here to stay, regardless of the fate of Mr Assange.

[sabrina 1]

118. Oh, okay, I see what you mean.

And I agree, regarding the current legal troubles. They did promise something like this as a means of discrediting him. But as you say, if so, it is silly as a vast majority of the people of the world, suspect the same thing and are not taking those legal troubles too seriously.

As for Wikileaks or copy cat organizations being here to stay, I agree with that also. A Chinese group has set up a similar operation although Assange feels it could be very dangerous to whistle-blowers if it is not done right. He has offered to work with them in order to help get it right, but they are not interested I suppose. But I do see his point. I could, eg, imagine governments setting up traps for whistle-blowers, by setting up similar organizations. And just the thought of that is likely to scare a lot of people.

[EFerrari]

48. The first amendment applies to the government's behavior:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of expression is also a human right recognized by members of the United Nations. There isn't one standard of human rights for Americans and another standard of human rights for everyone else.

[elias7]

89. Not sure I understand your post

I'm not arguing for or against first amendment rights. I merely agreed with a post that said that Assange, as a US citizen, is not subject to our laws, and that if our government is intent on stopping him, other means must be used.

What opinion do you think I am expressing here?

[sabrina 1]

90. But if we charge him we would be charging him under our laws

wouldn't we? And that would MAKE him subject to our laws. Don't we do this on a regular basis. Eg, when a foreigner commits murder her, we don't look for 'other means' to prosecute that individual, we prosecute them under our laws. Why would it be different for Assange? We are talking about a violation of OUR laws and as such, if we make that claim, then those are the laws that must be applied I believe.

[Luminous Animal]

37. Really. So we as citizens have no rigtht to access the foreign press?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rucky]

56. Is it disingenuous to bring up the Fourth Amendment

when discussing Guantanamo?

[qb]

28. It is the duty of journalists to keep government honest. US media has FAILED.

Wikileaks journalists are doing their duty.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. That 13% seems weirdly hyperactive here.

Something about this issue strikes the "crazy" equivalent of the funny bone.

Very strange.

[JackRiddler]

110. There is an active authoritarian element among Democrats as everywhere else.

The existence of a Wikileaks (and what it holds for the future) is a big challenge to all who put authority and hierarchy above the rights of themselves and of the people. It's not showing obedience to the chain of command and being too successful doing so.

[Cleita]

34. Yes, and I'm not a big believer in keeping government

secrets any way. Rarely, is it necessary and it just leads to all kinds of abuses of power over time.

[clyrc]

47. I approve

And I have to say I am a bit surprised at how effectively the issue has pointed out the authoritarians in our midst.

[old mark]

49. YES! Only place to get the real news....nt

[Mojeoux]

52. Hell Yes ! nt

[Robb]

55. This is a flawed poll, with no room for a reasonable answer.

For example, I do not approve of the release of the latest cables, but I approve of the Iraq video's release. And I believe, regardless of my approval or disapproval, Wikileaks had/has every right to publish whatever they care to.

The CNN poll was flawed as well, for different reasons thoroughly covered in the other thread.

For better data, I suggest the Pew Research Center's December 8 poll on the matter.

... A link: http://people-press.org/report/682/

... Some charts and graphs:

[sabrina 1]

65. Wikleaks is an idea. My question was whether

or not Liberals and Democrats approve of the idea. CNN said they do not.

There will always be things an organization does that people do not agree with, like the Democratic Party eg, but still fully support the idea. I wanted to know if CNN was right or wrong since personally I don't know a single Democrat who does not support the idea of Wikileaks even if they don't agree with all of the leaks.

Thank you for the link to the Pew poll. I would also like to see them ask whether or not people basically support the overall idea, THEN go into this kind of detail.

The results are not surprising with Dems more supportive most likely because they are more informed for one thing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

72. Just because it doesn't have "Robb is a dingbat" as an option doesn't mean it's flawed..

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

:hi:

[Azathoth]

57. I think WikiLeaks would be a lot better if it wasn't being run by a preening egomaniac n/t

[JackRiddler]

88. Thanks for focusing on what really matters. Me, I get all my news from People magazine and Gawker.

[BzaDem]

58. Dumb poll. One can disapprove of what Wikileaks did without believing they had no right to publish

the information.

[sabrina 1]

71. Well, that was the question. CNN claims that democrats

do not approve of the idea of Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started by people such as Chinese dissidents who believed that censorship is dangerous to democracy.

My question was merely to see if democrats actually do oppose the Wikileaks idea as CNN claims.

[walldude]

73. Yes but...

your poll is biased you see. The CNN poll was not biased because it says that 60% of Liberals and 80% of Democrats disapprove of Wikileaks.

However your poll shows that 86% Democrats support Wikileaks so it must be biased. Either that or DU is not so full of Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

84. Yes, and that didn't make sense to me since

I have not found a democrat, liberal, who opposes the idea of a free press. I would like to know who those democrats/liberals CNN spoke to on the phone ~ :eyes:

[DailyGrind51]

59. Better "Wiki" than waterheater!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. I approve and hope that more WikiLeaks clones will provide more.

Keep the bosses looking over their shoulders.

[Codeine]

70. These choices don't work for me.

The issue is - like most things in life - a good deal more nuanced than you've presented it.

[sabrina 1]

74. The question is about the idea of Wikileaks. CNN claims

democrats do not support that idea.

The idea that the censorship of news around the world is bad for society as a whole, and the failure of the press to report on important news, such as the lead up to the Iraq War which has had an effect on most of the world, was the reason for Wikileaks in the first place.

Had the press done its job, there would be no need for Wikileaks, but in so many places around the world, including here (remember Ashley Banfield, Donohue, the cancellation of Bill Mayer's show and so many others) the press either does not or cannot do its job.

The organization was started by over a thousand people, some of the Chinese dissidents who know a little about the evils of censorship, and given a choice, is even more transparency than actually needed preferable to too much secrecy? Which causes the most harm?

I found it hard to believe that Democrats would oppose transparency even with the possibility of some harm being done as opposed to too much secrecy, as with the Iraq War eg, which led over 70% of Americans to support a war based on lies which were not exposed by the media. The harm done by that alone, is pretty much incalculable. Remembering the calls for the media to 'do its job' under Bush, I found it incredible that democrats would not be supportive of the idea of Wikileaks.

Once you support the idea, then you can disagree about the implementation of the idea. Robb posted a Pew Poll above that deals with that aspect of it.

There will always be disagreements as to how to implement even a good idea. But this poll wasn't about that, it was about whether democrats supported the idea itself.

[Turborama]

122. I was about to post a long reply on Monday about how this is eerily similar to the Iraq polls

But my connection died literally just as I pressed send.

I'm glad this OP has been kept alive so I can finally reply.

First off. Any links you can find to stories about polls prior to and just after the illegal invasion make screenshots,, copy and paste into a word doc, print as a PDF or save some other way as they seem to be few and far between these days.

Notice how few links in the references there are here now, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

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

This is the only article I can find about this poll, too...

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Full article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

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

Can't find an article about the December poll this one mentions...

August 30, 2002

Support for sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq to oust President Saddam Hussein has dropped from 70 percent in December to 51 percent today, spurred more by practical concerns than ethical ones, according to a new CNN/ Time poll.
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-30/us/cnn.poll.iraq_1_iraq-military-action-ground-troops?_s=PM:US

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

I can't remember what else I said in that lost post I wrote but it was along the lines of "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

Happy new year, my dear friend! :hi:


PS Well I'll be damned, it just happened again. Tried to send but the connection went. True story! I've followed my own advice and made a copy this time, though. pressing send one more time in hope it's 3rd time lucky...

[sabrina 1]

131. Hi Turbo, I am sorry about the problems you had

with posting. That is so frustrating, especially you haven't saved your post.

Excellent research and proof of how our media actually works to promote the government's POV.

I also remember, and it would probably be impossible to find now, but before the real propaganda began, the numbers were reversed in some polls. People did not want to go to war by approx. 70%. I think those were just test polls to see how much work had to be done to turn people around. And as soon as the media went to work spreading the Bush lies, the polls changed.

Later, after the frenzy of propaganda, the attacks on anyone who dissented, the Dixie Chicks eg, the cries of 'traitor' to those opposed to the war, when it became clear that those dissenting were right when no WMDs were found, I remember ONE newspaper apologizing for not doing its job.

But while I blame the media mostly, I also blame the people. They don't try to find the facts for themselves. Support for the wars is down now, but it doesn't matter, the deal is done.

Interesting that you say it's hard to find links to the polls back them. I'm sure the pollsters have them archived somewhere.

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

I remember the despair I felt when rightwingers pointed these polls out to me. And the anger and frustration I felt watching the Sunday Shows with Condi and Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, repeating their lies with little or no challenge from our 'most respected journalists' like Tim Russert eg.


This CNN poll on Wikileaks is worthless, just as the Iraq War Polls were worthless, for the same reasons. The propaganda here about Wikileaks in the media has been successful, and when you ask a person a question about a topic they know nothing about, and you frame the question a certain way, this is the result.

Here, people are more informed, so we got a different result, in this thread and in Bobthedrummer's thread.

Thank you so much for your research, this should be an OP.

And Happy New Year to you and your loved ones also, Turborama! :hi:

[freshwest]

76. YES times however many things they revealed!

[fascisthunter]

77. it's good to see a majority approving of Wikileaks here

[lunatica]

81. Why would anyone prefer to be lied to and kept in the dark and fooled?

People really surprise me sometimes. And not in a good way either. It looks like some people prefer to be made fools of rather than to be told the truth, even after being told the truth.

[xchrom]

82. I strongly approve of wikileaks. Nt

[upi402]

92. Obama wont investigate the war crimes, so the media represses opinion on Wikileaks too

I smell something pretty damn bad.

[ismnotwasm]

93. I don't think it make one damn bit of difference

But I'm one of those who doesn't know that much about them. I'm the mother of two combat veterans so if it is endangering soldiers, I'll be pissed and fuck no I won't approve.

What my impression is, is that it feeds blogs, websites and conspiracy theories. Enough leaks out to jump on and complain about topics, but not enough to actually make any difference one way or the other politically.

[BOG PERSON]

94. who on earth would disapprove of wikileaks except some government hack?

unless you are in the employ of the government there is absolutely no reason for you to want to see wikileaks suppressed.

[kgnu_fan]

112. I think we have many people on DU list who are sent here and tasked to sway opinions of citizens...

[treestar]

97. Why not just put yes and no?

And what has it got to do with the First Amendment? The First Amendment allows anyone to say anything politically; it is not without limitations. It does not mean there is no such thing as classified information. Classified information has a purpose. It is so ignorant to invoke the First Amendment, or transparency, in this context.

Anyone supporting thing does not realize what they are advocating. If we can have no classified information while other countries do, we are at a disadvantage.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of the press.."

Is the "except for classified documents" part in some other section of the First Amendment?

[JackRiddler]

100. On DU, it makes no difference. These answers probably show bedrock values for approve/disapprove.

[sabrina 1]

103. I think your comment is directed to me?

There is no mention of the 1st Amendment in the OP, so I'm not sure what you mean. I mentioned 'freedom of the press' because the U.S. is not the only country that has laws protecting that principle. And no one said, including Wikileaks, that countries do not have a right to protect some classified information.

Where did Wikileaks or anyone here who supports the idea of a Free Press, make the claim that we do not have a right to protect classified material? What we do not have a right to is to protect criminal and corrupt behavior by governments, any government.

Wikileaks eg, has revealed information about China's attempts to censor the internet and the possible involvement of top Chinese Government officials in the hacking of Google. This information is valuable to the U.S. while it may enrage the Chinese. Should Wikileaks NOT have released it? Don't we want to know if China is hacking into our 'secrets' or, if we are to agree with you, China too has a right to keep that information secret.

[juajen]

102. You bet I approve. We need new sunshine laws in this country, for sure. NT

[Warren Stupidity]

113. No I think the gummint should hide all the foul shit it is doing so I can pretend

that we are the good guys.

[sabrina 1]

119. So where did CNN find all those Democrats and Liberals

who don't approve of Wikileaks?

[Liberal Communist]

120. Julian Assange is a true hero

Not just that I support Wikileaks, but I also consider Julian Assange a true hero of our era.

[sabrina 1]

121. I agree and welcome to DU ~

[Jack Rabbit]

123. Yes, but with a qualification

Over thirty years ago, I had a military intelligence MOS in the Army. I know how to handle classified documents and know enough to keep my mouth shut and why.

However, much of what is classified is done to save someone from embarrassment or to prevent public outrage in the US. Concerning the gunning down of Iraqi civilians from a helicopter, I can think of no legitimate reason why that should have been classified. That wasn't intelligence work; that was a cover up.

What the government is afraid of about Wikileaks is that the people will discover that wars are fought with consideration of corporate profits, that war is not used as a last resort and that the Bush administration lied about why it went into Iraq and knew that it didn't know for certain whether or not Saddam had a biochemical arsenal. Of course, we already know that, but imagine the national state shock when we read the memos confirming those facts. Dick Cheney will have to turn himself in to be tried for war crimes in order to avoid becoming a lamppost ornament.

Speaking of corporate profits, I'm going to have fun reading the Bank of America memos. Does any one think that fear of Wikileaks in the corporate suites isn't what is driving the government's push to shut it down?

No, I approve of Wikileaks because I do not trust my government to play straight with me or my fellow citizens. Republican Bush lied, people died, a Democratic Congress fails to impeach and a Democratic administration fails to prosecute.

I support Wikileaks because I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more.

[sabrina 1]

126. Very interesting post.

I just read Turborama's post below regarding the polls on the Iraq War lies. CNN's poll was aimed at a uninformed public and got the desired result, just as the Iraq War polls did.

I completely agree that the anger of this government directed at Wikileaks is fear of the coming revelations about the financial industry.

No, I approve of Wikileaks because I do not trust my government to play straight with me or my fellow citizens. Republican Bush lied, people died, a Democratic Congress fails to impeach and a Democratic administration fails to prosecute.

I couldn't have said it better. The lack of a free press in this country has had devastating effects on, not only this country, but on the whole world seeing as how, again revealed in the Wikileaks cables, we are so involved in every country on the planet, and not mostly in a good way.

Thanks for you post, Jack Rabbit, and your explanation for your support.

[WillyT]

129. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:patriot:

:hi:

:kick:

[bobthedrummer]

124. It's consistent with my recent check-in thread,sabrina 1. I approve of the truth getting to US n/t

[sabrina 1]

130. Yes, I saw your thread and checked in

bobthedrummer. I see a few people are checking in to say 'no' in this poll. I wonder how anyone can object to the truth being told to the American people. None of the reasons I've seen make any sense, and lack information on both Wikileaks and on the fact that Manning DID report to his superiors when he witnessed war crimes, but was ignored.

[okieinpain]

125. i voted no, that was some of the dumb crap ever, well not ever

but it's up the list.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

128. I saw that. I thought that was odd.

:shrug:

[yurbud]

132. governments have the right to keep certain things secret when they consistently look after

the interests of their citizens.

It has been clear for at least the last ten years that that is not the case here.

[EFerrari]

133. I don't think governments have a right to secrecy.

Ours doesn't, does it? Did the National Security Act give it one explicitly? They have the obligation to protect the nation. Which isn't the same thing when you think about it.

[sabrina 1]

135. I think you are right. They have a right to keep some things secret

like movements of the military in a time of war eg. But outside of anything to do with actual military operations and/or weapons eg, I can't think of anything else that needs or even should be, kept secret.

And even those things should only be kept secret for a specific amount of time. We pay for all of this and have a right to know what our government has done and is doing. And that will keep them on their toes, knowing that whatever decisions they make, even if they are protected at the time, we will learn about eventually.

[sabrina 1]

134. 'When they consistently look after the interests of their citizens'.

Yes, I agree and so would any reasonable person. What Manning exposed were crimes. No government had the right to claim 'national security' to hide war crimes.