Atrios writes of establishment media reaction to Wikileaks:
It isn’t exactly the same thing, but moments like this I’m reminded of a time years ago when I was talking at a conference about internets and stuff to a not entirely plugged in audience and a man stood up and said something like, “You mean, people can just say whatever they want on the internet? Don’t we need to do something about that?”
I think the Moore Awards/Hewitt Awards etc. that John rightly mocked come from the same place, they’re about deciding who should and who shouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s a way of maintaining status, a way of differentiating “serious” bloggers like those at the Atlantic from the vituperative, foul-mouthed masses. When you take into consideration that the Atlantic is essentially a neocon millionaire’s vanity project (and that Sullivan got his start at another neocon millionaire’s vanity project), this all starts to look pretty sinister.
Likewise, the establishment journalists who attack Wikileaks mostly work for media outfits that are owned by large companies that have their own interest in controlling dialogue. And of course these journalists are also interested in maintaining their own status and turf (which is inextricably linked with that of the companies they work for).
Shouting down outsiders with a large corporate megaphone should not be considered a honorable journalistic enterprise, not in my opinion.
Update. This isn’t about right/left. I’d prefer Erick Erickson not be shouted down either. I wouldn’t give him a CNN gig, but I support his right to be heard at RedState and I generally find him much less frightening than Bill Kristol (I read RedState and I find it silly and sometimes offensive but mostly not that bad).
Quaker in a Basement
Shouting down outsiders should not be considered a honorable journalistic enterprise
You’re expecting honorable journalism from a fellow who spent the better part of a year looking up Ms. Palin’s hoohoo?
kommrade reproductive vigor
Some people just can’t stop trying to create a clique to make up for the pain of being excluded by the cool kids in high school.
thomas Levenson
This is, as lots have noted, exactly what the Net Neutrality fight is all about.
freelancer
@thomas Levenson:
But what about the business community?
Anya
Except for his support of the immoral and illegal Iraq war — which all the cool kids were supporting at the time, David Bradley doesn’t sound all that horrible.
c u n d gulag
My favorite moment was when Jeffrey Toobin (not usually a total idiot – but going up fast with a bullet) was asked what the difference was between what WikiLeaks does and Bob Woodward, and he was kind of stuck for an anwer. Maybe because there isn’t any, but BOB is PART OF THE CLUB, and
JULIAN ASSANGE ISN’T, so you can get your hate out on him?
LISTEN, you DUMBASS FUCKING SHITHEADS in the MSM – WikiLeaks is doing what YOU SHOULD BE FUCKING DOING, YOU FUCKING MORONS!!! FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK FUCKS!!!
And Congress, TOO! YOU FUCKING MORONS!!! FUCKING FUCKETY FUCK FUCK FUCKS!!!
Whew, glad that’s off my chest.
Sorry about all of the capital letters screaming atchya.
Also, do you think maybe it was one “FUCK” too many for Sully to quote me, or do you think I’m ok? I do so want that assholes approval.
Redshirt
So many lessons to learn from Orwell’s 1984, but chief among them is, if you control the message you control the truth – you in fact create the truth.
Thus, the importance of the Net Neutrality issue.
gene108
Can’t we just vent our fascist tendencies without a bunch of whining internet tough guys bitching about it?
Seriously, what’s wrong with a little collaboration between government and industry?
I mean journalism is an industry, after all.
Tattoosydney
I was interested to read the letter which a large number of very senior Australian journalists sent to our Prime Minister in support of Wikileaks and Assange (I think DougJ may even have mentioned it). It contains such goodies as:
and
and
I was even more interested to note that it includes the chiefs of a very significant number of Murdoch owned papers.
/edited slightly for accuracy.
Keith G
I fear this is how our experiment in self-government will end. Not with a bang, but with a tire swing.
The Grand Panjandrum
DougJ defending the Far Left Agenda again!
Jewish Steel
Carne Rossvs old man Keller.
I know it was posted here before, but germane. Keller comes off as a toadying lickspittle.
kc
@c u n d gulag:
My favorite moment was when Jeffrey Toobin (not usually a total idiot – but going up fast with a bullet) was asked what the difference was between what WikiLeaks does and Bob Woodward, and he was kind of stuck for an anwer. Maybe because there isn’t any
Bob gets paid?
Keith G
@Tattoosydney: Early this AM, I read your “dick head” dialogue. God, it was funny. You caused me to laugh loud enough to wake my guy and the kittehs who were all sleeping in the next room.
Great stuff.
kc
I’d prefer Erick Erickson not be shouted down either.
Me neither. I’d rather see him get smacked in the face with a cream pie.
Kidding, of course. That would be wrong . . .
srv
I think David Broder needs to strap a suicide vest on and go do something about this Assange fellow.
StringonaStick
I don’t read the “official” bloggers for the same reason that I no longer read establishment media; I have had enough corporate-humping propaganda to last me for the rest of my life.
eemom
I have no quarrel with the post, and I’m not in favor of shutting down or silencing ANYBODY,* but I do have this question:
How is Assange a “journalist”?
Journalism, afaik, equals investigation plus writing. I.e., digging up information that the general public doesn’t know and presenting it in a coherent narrative that the general public can understand.
That is just not the same thing as hurling entire databases into the public domain and saying, in effect, “Here. YOU find the good shit.”
And I have heard Assange describe that as his mission, in slightly different words.
*cue a shitstream of idiots calling names without regard to what I actually said. Have at it.
Zifnab
Well, yes. But everyone does these at the end of the year. From Times Magazine to The Daily Beast to SadlyNo to Billy Bob’s Peanut Blog. The annual listing of “People We Like/Don’t Like” is a tradition that spans the ages.
If Sullivan wants to call TBogg a mean-spirited, unserious, hyperbolic nitwit for wishing Bill Kristol would catch a rare and deadly form of eyeball herpes and fall off a cliff – who freak’n cares? Oh no! Someone is saying something not nice on the internet?
Just call Sullivan out as a neo-con war fluffer and move on with your lives. Just because he puts the words “TOP 10” or “Award” in a post title doesn’t mean you have to take it any more seriously than every other one of his concern troll blog posts.
burnspbesq
Wake me up when the vituperative, foul-mouthed masses bring something beyond vituperation and foul mouths.
Cacti
And publishing classified information should not reflexively qualify one for accolades of heroism. Particularly when the stooge who did all the heavy lifting sits in a jail cell, while the mastermind is as free as a bird.
The latter is how any organized criminal enterprise operates.
Peter J
And this is the reason why the Wikileaks model is superior to the OpenLeaks model.
The idea of just leaking to various news entities just means that the entities will then censor what they release based on pressure from the governments and from the companies that own them.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, stupid idea.
Stillwater
Not to get all up in it, but Chomsky has been saying this stuff for a years. He even wrote a book about! I’d recommend it, but that would prolly offend your conception as a self-determining free-thinker untainted by radical writings from the far left.
DougJ
@eemom:
I see where you’re coming from but I don’t think everyone would agree with this definition.
Glinda
Perhaps I take the MSM media much more seriously because the great journalists in the MSM would never use a shoddy source like Wikipedia for their “facts” without checking further.
The key word missing from the Wikipedia entry for David Bradley is the past tense. From the article:
In fact when you read the entire article in context, it is apparent that he is not a neocon at all and likely never was. He seems to be using that term as a sort of “sackcloth and ashes” for his former gung-ho support of the Iraq war.
Context is everything. Good journalists know that and know how to dig to get the truth. Blogs tend to blather opinion with cursory attention to getting all the facts. Even the good ones. JMHO.
Zifnab
@eemom:
Wikileaks does a little of both. The web page highlights points of interest and information it considers relevant. But it also reveals its source material and (with the exception of some redactions they decided to keep private) lets the public see the entire information source they are pulling from.
That CNN and ABC decide to focus on Qaddafi’s sexiest medical assistant and overlook everything else is hardly Assange’s fault.
DougJ
@Stillwater:
I know Chomsky has been saying this for years. I didn’t put that in the post because his name is a bit of a red flag to people. Also too, I haven’t read enough of his stuff to comment intelligently on it at all.
burnspbesq
@Tattoosydney:
What you’ve failed to catch is that the entire premise of the letter is a strawman. No one in the US or Australian governments is suggesting that any media outlet can or should be punished for publishing anything they get their hands on. But when the material is stolen, the thieves, and anyone who conspired with or aided and abetted the thieves, should be brought to justice. Surely that distinction isn’t hard to understand.
dr. bloor
@eemom:
Using this definition, most journalists aren’t journalists, either.
Interesting question though. I give Assange the “journalist” tag because he’s presenting information not otherwise available to the public. The rest–which the current NYT talking points emphasize includes exercising their expert editorial judgment (coughjudithmillercough)–is arguably editorializing and censorship in nice clothes.
DougJ
@Glinda:
He bought Jeff Goldberg’s kids a pony to get Goldberg to work at Atlantic, because he liked Goldberg’s pro-Iraq War propaganda so much.
If that doesn’t make you a neocon I don’t know what does.
Zifnab
@Cacti:
Assange isn’t free because the US hasn’t tried to capture him. And I wouldn’t qualify being out on bond pending a rape investigation as “free as a bird”.
Peter J
@eemom:
There are still journalist that actually investigate or dig up information? Are the parrots in the White House press corps still journalists?
About Assange, him defining himself as a journalist has a lot to do with him seeking extra protection. Which I totally understand considering what’s being done to pin something on him.
eemom
@DougJ:
speaking of Chomsky, here is a fine thought-provoking piece from TNC on a related point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/concision-and-the-public-intellectual/68596/
eemom
@DougJ:
Let us then discuss what the definition of a journalist is, and see if we can find one that most people would agree with.
burnspbesq
@Zifnab:
As a matter of fact, the US hasn’t yet sought to arrest or extradite Assange. That will come if, and only if, he is indicted. And one assumes that he will only be indicted if and when DOJ concludes that it has an airtight case against him.
The criminal justice system, WAI.
Dennis SGMM
@eemom:
Sounds wonderful. When are they going to start doing this?
freelancer
@DougJ:
Literally? As in he literally bought them a literal, actual, no-shit, for reals pony?
Zifnab
@burnspbesq:
Gee, I just hope they don’t give him the Scooter Libby treatment. That would be awful.
burnspbesq
@Dennis SGMM:
Happens more often than most folks around here would care to admit, because it’s an inconvenient fact that fucks up their pre-conceived narrative. Our very own LA Times commits journalism on a regular basis. “Bell” ring any bells? Or how about their series earlier this year on deficiencies in the licensing and supervision of nurses?
PS
@eemom: Assange does have interesting, largely anarchic, personal views on the propriety of organizational (not just governmental) secrecy, and has essentially said that he would like everything to be out in the open (what you call, rather dismissively, “hurling entire databases into the public domain”). However, that is not what Wikileaks has actually done. To an extent, you are attacking a straw man, though Assange was somewhat complicit in its construction.
In the long term, will the actions of Wikileaks lead to more or less organizational secrecy? That’s an interesting question. At a minimum, they have highlighted the extent to which such secrecy already exists, which many people did not know. The consequences of that remain to be discovered. On the whole, I think they will be healthy. I do think that far too much is routinely classified “Secret” and some of that is done for very bad reasons, such as covering up errors and crimes. None of that is new, but it has to be revealed every generation.
jacy
@eemom:
I think that one of the problem is, in the US at least, on a national level “journalism” doesn’t really exist any more. It tends to be a lot of shouting and theater and one-upmanship and “tut-tut” backslapping on the one hand, or on the other hand mass consumption glitter-filled tripe meant to appeal to the least common denominator.
Even when you get good journalism, it tends to be wrapped in a brand and then becomes a chew toy for the “left” or the “right” to fight over.
On a local level and on a national level in the non-US you can still find journalism committed regularly, but here not so much. So I guess what I’m saying is calling someone a “journalist” has lost some of it’s meaning, unfortunately.
DougJ
@freelancer:
Yes.
freelancer
@freelancer:
Nevermind, apparently this incident was well-documented. Sheesh.
Cacti
@Zifnab:
Well, I guess Jesus Harold Christ Assange should be a little more careful about where he dips his wick.
burnspbesq
@Zifnab:
“Gee, I just hope they don’t give him the Scooter Libby treatment. That would be awful.”
Not sure exactly what you mean by “the Scooter Libby treatment,” but I don’t think there is any reason to believe that Assange will be pardoned or have his sentence commuted if he is eventually convicted.
Dennis SGMM
@burnspbesq:
Other than the fact that the narrative often seems to be predetermined rather than derived from the investigation, ya’ got me.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@eemom: I’m going to go with whomever is causing powerful interests the most discomfort. And that would go to Wikileaks and not the “journalists” you think are real journalists.
eemom
you know, these dumb shit cool-cynic responses snickering “oh, well, if THAT’s what a journalist is, then NOBODY being published today is a journalist” are just that — dumb shit that takes us nowhere.
You can have a reasonable discussion about principles and definitions, and how those apply to what is actually out there — or you can just turn this into another sheep-bleating thread about how everything sucks and then we die.
Tattoosydney
@Keith G:
Thanks. It was fun writing it too. I think I killed Kenneth.
PS
@burnspbesq: It is not always the case that DOJ indicts when and only when it “concludes that it has an airtight case” — sometimes indictments are made for less worthy reasons, such as politics. And sometimes they are not made for similar unworthy reasons. Life can be complicated.
Another Bob
I’m not sure how much difference it makes in our nation’s drunken walk towards catastrophic failure, but at least there’s a small, smart community of lefty bloggers who have no vested interests against calling it like it is. I love having a venue where a person — if they needed to add a critical bit of nuance to a comment by saying things like “Fuckety Fuck Fuck” — can just go a head and do that. I’ve just gotten so sick and tired of beltway poobahs who cling to their stodgy, self-important sense of decorum even when they’re advocating what amounts to mass murder and other crimes against humanity. And I love having someone like Greenwald, Digby, and the crew here who can take a chunk out of Klein or Sullivan or Politico and not have to immediately apologize to Rush Limbaugh or claim that “both sides do it.” I love it when a shill like Megan McArdle is forced by whatever impulse to wade into her comments section and get pwned in full view, and then have to waste more of her time making up bogus excuses for why she got it wrong in the first place. Rock on, lefty bloggers.
parenthetical
Sullivan’s annual awards are “sinister”? I’m sorry, but give me a f-in’ break! It’s just an end-of-year “look who said the stupidest thing” award.
I agree with John’s point that the “Moore Award” people are small fish for the most part (though I did vote for Olbermann) compared to the Malkin/Hewitt folks (the right wingers do get TWO awards, though…). But this post is a fridge too far.
It’s not about “shouting down” people. It’s about having a look back at the year that was, in all it’s stupidity, insanity, depravity and magnamity (plus graphs and bad pop songs). Sinister, it is not.
Does anyone care who wins the awards, really? Does it affect the recipient in the least? As you may know, both Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin are *no longer elligible* for their eponymous awards because they’ve won too many times. Last I checked, both of them were still going “strong”.
Do we need a DougJ award for pointless hyperventilating?
Ruckus
@freelancer:
Seems like a real pony.
And one didn’t used to have to be a rich fuck to hire a pony for a day. Don’t know if that’s still the case. I had a pony in my back yard for my sixth birthday party. And my family and I fall way, way short of being/having been rich.
MattR
@burnspbesq:
That is a meaningless distinction given that we are talking about journalists exposing government secrects where improper access to goverment materials (what you call stealing) is a normal, vital part of that process. Or to put it another way, if journalists are not allowed to publish any material that they were not supposed to have access to, how are they supposed to serve as a watchdog?
@eemom:
That depends. Why did you question whether or not he was a journalist? For example, if you were going to argue that Assange does not deserve the protections that we afford journalists, then it is very relevant to point out that we afford those protections to others who do not meet your criteria to qualify as a journalist.
El Cid
Assange isn’t a journalist. He doesn’t have to be. It doesn’t in and of itself make what he has done / is doing right or wrong.
For at least the early period and I’m assuming so far, the releases have been conducted via establishment news publications, so he / Wikileaks is more of an independent source, and like any source is perfectly capable of releasing the information possessed selectively or publicly in its entirety.
Second, the notion that there’s a “serious” set of journalists and pundits measured by some definition outside their demonstrated body of work (and not just one or a few pieces and perhaps only in the past).
Just on the subject of war and foreign policy, the norm is for journalists to be liars and hacks for the foreign policy establishment, and are in no way committing “journalism”.
Credentialed or not, the title of “journalist” is not a title implying any degree of actual seriousness and worthiness in itself. Certainly this doesn’t mean that those committing blatant acts of actual journalism shouldn’t be honored, praised, promoted, featured, etc.
It means that each journalistic ‘product’ by a journalist or group of journalists must, in the end, be evaluated on a case by case overall, alongside the use of a record of demonstrated worth (with occasional errors) in terms or prior reporting.
eemom
@Another Bob:
that is most steal-worthy in its painful accuracy.
The Other Chuck
Is it just me or has LGF become unreadable these days? I know Charles Johnson never did the full John Cole, but I was still more than satisfied with him as a real voice of reason. But lately it seems all he knows how to do is grind an axe over and over and over and over until it’s nothing but filings. He hates Wikileaks, so every single last thing he posts about them is an attack on Assange (and rarely ever Wikileaks). He hates Pamela Gellar and RS McCain, so what does he do? Elevates them to prominence by endlessly republishing their content for them.
Even Phillip Glass manages occasionally to play a different note. Oh well at least there’s the Lizard Collection.
Brachiator
@eemom:
You have just disqualifie what? 75% of the newspapers and media outlets in the world from doing journalism. The last time I turned on my TeeVee, I was bombarded with a largely incoherent rehash of what everybody already knew, along with the latest on the Miley Cyrus Bong Hits.
It’s a start. So, you have the NY Times going through the WikiLeaks material, finding the good shit and proclaiming, “Eureka! Journalism.”
But then, the obvious question is, “Well, Fancypants NY Times Journalists, how come you couldn’t get off your asses and get to the heart of this material the first time around?”
And even though I think the sentiment is both wrongheaded and naive, you do have those people who think that, especially with the Internets, they no longer need the filter that journalists provide. These folks want the raw data and the responsibility for deciding for themselves what the news is.
If I have to choose between stupid, lazy, corrupt and co-opted “journalists” deciding what I should know, or data dumps from the WikiLeaks “non-journalists,” then I am going with WikiLeaks. Every time.
Tattoosydney
@burnspbesq:
I’m conflicted about Assange, and don’t necessarily think it was a perfect letter, or even a good one. I was mostly interested just to see journalists at least pushing back on the government/corporate line. I’m also tired and should be in bed.
Ken
@eemom:
A journalist produces material which can be displayed in conjunction with advertisements, thereby potentially inducing people to examine the advertisements; said advertisements being the revenue source of the newspaper, magazine, television station, or other corporation which purchases the journalist’s product.
This needs tweaking, as by this definition Garfield and the horoscope column are journalism, but it captures the essence of the profession.
El Cid
It isn’t a strawman for journalists to evaluate potential threats to their work with illegally obtained documents and information based upon governmental responses to Wikileaks.
They might be wrong, someone might dismiss this as clearly unrelated to the present case, that no one has currently or directly threatened the ability of credentialed journalists to continue to carry out investigations using illegally obtained information.
But they aren’t using a strawman as a basis for their complaints and fears — they are seeing what they believe is a precedent which will or at least is highly likely to affect their work as well.
Stillwater
@eemom: That is just not the same thing as hurling entire databases into the public domain and saying, in effect, “Here. YOU find the good shit.” And I have heard Assange describe that as his mission, in slightly different words.
This is kind of ancillary to your bigger point, but my understanding is that he didn’t intend for WL to function this way. Initially, he viewed his role as facilitating leaks to other media outlets – bloggers, small market trad.med. etc – who would then write up and present the findings to the public. But that never happened. So he decided to put WL at the forefront of the journalism chain, and invite people to go directly to the site and read the leaks unfiltered. He ostensibly became the public face of WL to create greater interest in the leaks themselves, which no one was taking much interest in.
4tehlulz
If he was talking about libel, that’s a legitimate point.
Cacti
@MattR:
Whether Assange will face criminal charges will hinge on whether he received and published the information after it had already been/was going to be illegally obtained, or whether he solicitated Manning to illegally obtain information for him.
There is no first amendment right to solicit the commission of a crime.
DougJ
@The Other Chuck:
I like reading obsessive interest blogs. I read Daily Howler every day for three years when all he wrote about was the 2000 election and stopped when he expanded his interests to include his hatred of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.
Peter J
On the topic of the media and the government, you should all read about what has happened in Hungary.
The winners in the election in April won enough seats to modify laws and the Hungarian constitution.
So they have now created a new media law that creates powers to monitor and fine the media. And the authority that gets these powers is controlled by politicians from the majority party.
Chilling…
Three-nineteen
@eemom #18, @Ken #60:
You aren’t counting editors, producers, and publishers in your definition of journalist. I think that if a producer/editor receives information from his own source and gives it to a reporter to write up or present on camera, that is also the work of a journalist. To me, Assange falls more into this category. A reporter can find out all the info they want, but if nobody spends the time/money to put it out there, it doesn’t do anyone any good.
Bex
@cacti@44
Guilty until proven guilty, eh?
Cacti
@Bex:
AFAIK, he hasn’t been charged with a crime.
His publication of voluminous amounts of classified material is prima facie evidence that a crime was committed by someone at some point.
PS
@Stillwater: Yes, it’s notable that Wikileaks really hit the headlines big-time when (a) gossip was published (some of the diplomatic material, which caused far more press than the atrocities previously documented) and (b) a star was created, to be hero or villain depending on your perspective.
And it is downright ironic (unlike rain on my wedding day) that the legal trouble Assange is actually in appears to derive from the access to sexual favors, and with it the possibility of abuse, that in our culture normally accompanies stardom.
burnspbesq
@PS:
Agreed, but in this particular case the potential fallout from an acquittal could reasonably be seen as worse than the potential fallout from not proceeding, so I don’t think they will pull the trigger without a high degree of confidence that they will win.
Brachiator
@Peter J:
Very interesting stuff (Hungary passes law boosting government control over media).
Thanks for the tip on this story. Some of these laws remind me of the FCC regulations and fines regarding offensive speech, etc.
This also seems to be related to a center-right power grab in the country.
I imagine that the new Congress might feel inspired by these changes, and see it as a model for the Republicans to emulate.
adolphus
@parenthetical:
Exactly. When is pointing out what a fool you think someone is being as “shouting down”? If Sullivan is “shouting down” his award nominees, then Balloon Juice shouts down people everyday. (and thank the GSD for it)
When Sullivan actually starts calling for the boycott, firing, arrest, or blockage of people call me. Until then let the nominees defend themselves. Let a thousand flowery rants bloom.
Jinchi
Atrios doesn’t need to look back to a time years ago to find some guy saying
The New York Times published an editorial just last month saying pretty much the exact same thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html
burnspbesq
@MattR:
Ever heard of FOIA? What about the Federal Register?
In the vast majority of leaks, the reporter is being played by the leaker. Especially in Washington, leaks are a way for the loser in a policy decision to reopen the war on a different front. There is rarely anything noble about it.
sukabi
I usually don’t pay any attention to what Sullivan says… because I find him to be a gigantic, condescending asshole whether he’s right or wrong about the topic he’s going off on at any particular moment… but curiosity got the better of me wrt these “awards”… this looks to be another one of his “vanity” projects (which is to say, it’s completely meaningless to the world at large, except for Sully and his fan boys)… there is one category that seems to be conveniently left out, and that is the category for biggest asshole, but as I noted earlier Sully’s got that one permanently locked up.
dr. bloor
@burnspbesq:
If you’re suggesting that leakers often have impure motives and/or that journalists who source them sometimes get played, then one answer would be, “Yeah, but Pentagon Papers.” If you’re suggesting illegally obtained materials are never an appropriate source for journalists, then I suspect your understanding of a vigorous press is quite at odds with the beliefs of most commenters in these parts.
handy
@Jinchi:
That guy is obviously not aware of all internet traditions, first of which is: ignore the trolls.
Barry
@Cacti: “Whether Assange will face criminal charges will hinge on whether he received and published the information after it had already been/was going to be illegally obtained, or whether he solicitated Manning to illegally obtain information for him.”
BS – it’ll be whether or not the US government can lay hands on him. They’ll prosecute.
Andy K
@PS:
Are you saying that WikiLeaks is keeping secrets?
jh
Right, because the powers that be have proven themselves exceedingly dilligent about declassifying information and making it available via the FOIA within timeframes which might allow the electorate to have oversight of current governmental actions and policies.
NOT.
Andy K
@MattR:
Which is all well and good when we’re discussing abuses of a system of classification which was created at the behest of the governed via their elected representatives. I beg you to spell out for me how releasing cables that discuss the Saudi and Israeli positions on Iran and the Chinese position on North and South Korea expose any sort of abuse.
burnspbesq
@dr. bloor:
It is, and I’m right and they are wrong. The First Amendment is a license to print, not a license to steal.
Cacti
@Barry:
Cauthe itth all a conthhpirathy maaaan!
burnspbesq
@Barry:
“BS – it’ll be whether or not the US government can lay hands on him. They’ll prosecute.”
You’ve got that exactly backwards.
The United States’ ability to get Assange if it decides it wants him is not in doubt. There are extradition treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom, and between the United States and Sweden, and the offenses with which Assange is likely to be charged if he is charged with anything are offenses for which he can be extradited.
What’s your basis for assuming that DOJ would seek an indictment even if the facts don’t support it?
Cacti
@burnspbesq:
It really seems to come down to the belief of some that laws are freely violable as long as it’s done for the “real” right reasons, which are the ones our side likes.
The “fake” right reasons are the ones the other side likes.
PS
@Andy K: Yes!
Joey Maloney
@burnspbesq:
Ask Don Siegelman.
Andy K
@PS:
Well ain’t that ironic? Who elected Assange (or elected his boss) to be the arbiter of what should and shouldn’t be secret?
jh
@Cacti:
Umm yeah.
That’s what the Civil Rights movement was.
People looking around at the tapestry of atrocities, injustices and wrongs which were at the time deemed legal and saying “this is bullshit” and then engaging in civil disobedience.
If American history teaches anything, legality doesn’t necessarily equal “right”.
The security state, in conjuction with attendant components of government, have decided to deliberately keep the voting public in the dark about actions; many of which are indefensible under law, let alone any measure of a civilized society, which are done its name, and funded with its tax dollars… forever and ever amen.
Or at least until the perpetrators and victims are long dead or too old to do anything about it or face justice.
Systems such as this, based as they are on inequity and asymetry of information, always produce people like Assange.
Invariably they will be unhinged, or a little crazy and most times they will not terribly concerned about the “proper” way to go about reforming systems .
The other lesson of history is that the greater the inequity, the more radical the (anarchic) forces resisting it will become.
MLK was an anomoly and even he was branded a communist, and rabblerouser. (Nor was he a morally pristine crusader as would be revealed later), . He was the exception, not the rule.
No, the future is guys like Assange and when they manage to take him out, those who follow him will be worse**.
**Seasons 3 and 4 of the Wire with the Barksdale / Marlow story arc are perfect allegory for this.
Dan
Let me get this straight, the Dish gives out awards, some of which make fun of liberals, and there’s “something sinister” about it?
What I typically like about this site is that the bloggers on it seem to do a good job cutting through the bullshit and hyperbole of much of the rest of the news media/blogs. But the second the Atlantic or New Republic come up, all that goes out the window. Is Andrew Sullivan stifling debate by awarding a Moore award? really?! you’ve gotta be kidding me.
there are so many bigger, more significant targets, seems like a waste to take pot shots at the Atlantic. Also, Sullivan may have been a neocon at one point, but he’s written scathingly on the Iraq war and the Iran nuclear issue over the last few years. If that is the Atlantic’s neoconservatism, I don’t think you have too much to worry about.
MattR
@burnspbesq: So Daniel Ellsberg should not have stolen the Pentagon Papers? The NY Times should not have published that stolen material? Or perhaps more accurately, should both Ellsberg and the NY Times have been tried and convicted for their actions?
More to the point, how do you have a watchdog press in that world? FOIA requests and the Federal Registry are not very helpful when the government can classify the information. Our government has a history of using the national security argument to avoid embarassment or to hide mistakes or imperfections from the public (and/or our enemies) and the courts have a history of being overly deferential. This goes all the way back to the creation of the State Secrets privilege. It is amazing to see what people testified to in court and then compare that to the actual information that became public when the documents were routinely declassified years later.
burnspbesq
@Joey Maloney:
Different Administration, different AG (and the justly maligned Public Integrity Section is not going to be a player in any decision whether to charge Assange).
Nice try, though.
Stillwater
@Joey Maloney: Ask Don Siegelman.
Why do I get the feeling that what you wrote won’t be, when it reallyreally should be, the last word on the matter?
ETA: Sure enough, Burnsy tries to advance the ball downfield!!
Mark S.
@Andy K:
God, can we lose this meme? It is seriously a stupid argument that burnsie usually makes. 96% of the world’s population has no say in the election of our president, but it sure as hell affects them.
Andy K
@MattR:
What he did was illegal. Had Nixon not sent the Plumbers after Ellsberg, the case wouldn’t have been dismissed. Had the Plumbers not fouled up everything so completely, charges would have likely been re-filed, and Ellsberg would have, most probably, been convicted. Then Ford or Carter would have granted Ellsberg either clemency or a pardon, because although what Ellsberg did was illegal, it was also moral.
Don’t confuse the decision that upheld the right of the Times and the WaPo to print the Pentagon Papers with the case against Ellsberg. Now if Assange/WikiLeaks actively conspired with (alleged leaker) Bradley Manning to download the files in their possession, the protections that the Times and WaPo had wouldn’t apply: Ellsberg took the Pentagon Papers all by himself and shared them later.
And don’t confuse Ellsberg with (alleged leaker) Bradley Manning. Ellsberg worked for State in Vietnam, in the AID program, and did stints at RAND before and after his time in AID. Ellsberg knew inside and out what was in the Pentagon Papers. Manning allegedly downloaded 250K files that were well outside his area of expertise. Even if 3K of those files might substantiate abuse of the classification apparatus, there would still be 252K that were justifiably classified.
Andy K
@Mark S.:
Yes, and they almost all have security apparatuses of their own over which WE have no say. Unless, that is, you think that Indian, Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies answer to us.
Sorry, Mark, you greatly overestimate our power in this field.
burnspbesq
@MattR:
No, he shouldn’t have. No one should ever steal anything that is not properly theirs. That said, I have on more than one occasion explained why I see a distinction between Ellsberg and Assange. Ellsberg admitted that he committed a crime, and stood ready to take the punishment for his crime. Assange has set out to place himself outside and above the law.
As I said earlier today, the First Amendment is a license to publish, not a license to steal. If the facts had shown that the New York Times conspired with Ellsberg, or aided and abetted his theft, then yes, it should have been tried. There was no evidence that supported either a conspiracy or an aiding-and-abetting charge, so it wasn’t.
I have also said on more than one occasion that I think that where media defendants are concerned, application of the “receiving” prong of 18 USC 641 is Constitutionally troublesome.
Note the following laungage from the Black/Douglas concurring opinion in the Pentagon Papers case:
“Censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.” Doesn’t say anything about criminal prosecution, because that was not at issue in the case. My personal view is that media actors shouldn’t be involved in stealing Government documents. I would draw the line between “aiding and abetting” and “receiving.” YMMV.
Mark S.
@Andy K:
Not really. I would guess that the Russians, Chinese, and Indians don’t allow privates to access their entire diplomatic cables.
Besides, Assange is Australian. Why exactly he should be subject to our Espionage Act isn’t clear to me. If some American journalist published sensitive Chinese documents, would we extradict him or her just because the Chinese wanted us to?
MattR
@burnspbesq: Are you saying that the First Ammendment grants the media the right to print information but does not protect them from being jailed for printing that information?
I also don’t see any reason to compare Ellsberg and Assange. Any comparison should be between Ellsberg and Manning and between the NY Times and Assange.
I am also realizing that part of our disconnect is that your statements seem to assume that Assange was in some way involved in the actual theft while I assume the exact opposite.
@burnspbesq:
You are really this much of an absolutist? There is never an acceptable reason to steal something? Even if it is a matter of life or death and wont significantly harm the other party?
Government lies must be allowed to continue unchecked if the only means of proving the lie is in documents that the government has deemed secret?
Andy K
@Andy K:
Please pardon the McMath.
burnspbesq
@Mark S.:
Not sure about the Espionage Act, but there’s no issue about jurisdiction to try Assange for conspiracy. At least one overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy (i.e., Manning’s theft) occurred in the United States, and it’s hornbook law that the acts of one conspirator are imputed to all of the conspirators.
burnspbesq
@MattR:
The portions of the Manning chat logs that have been made public so far are ambiguous (and are known to be incomplete), but I think they provide marginally more support to my view than to yours. Further, I have said on a number of occasions, and continue to believe, that Manning’s behavior was irrational if he hadn’t pre-arranged a distribution channel for what he was going to steal.
I imagine we’ll know soon enough. At some point, it’s going to occur to Manning and his counsel that it’s in Manning’s interest to roll over on Assange. That’s the only leverage he has. If it were my call I’d seriously consider offering Manning immunity. He’s the equivalent of the 14-year-old kid who stands on the corner, takes your money, and comes back five minutes later with your drugs. Assange is the head of the cartel.
Andy K
@Mark S.:
Yes, and neither did the US until shortly after 9/11/01. Put the decision to throw State and DoD intel together on SIPRNet on Bush II, Stupor Mundi. But don’t try to use that to justify stealing those files. Swiping $1000 in a deposit bag casually left on the counter of your local pharmacy is no different than swiping it from the til.
First: Don’t confuse Espionage with Treason.
Second: If WikiLeaks conspired with any leakers to obtain secure, classified material- rather than the leaker obtaining the material on his or her own, without outside consultations from another party- then WikiLeaks and/or its agents who conspired with the leaker would share guilt in the theft. And the fact that WikiLeaks, shortly after Manning’s arrest, yanked down its plea for leakers to send in any and all documents, however obtained, tells me that their lawyers found that plea uncomfortably close to conspiracy.
eemom
@burnspbesq:
this is why it matters whether Assange/Wikileaks is a “journalist” (aka “the press”) or not, right?
Because a random anarchist who happened to get hold of classified material, made copies, and handed them out to passers-by on the the street would not be protected by the First Amendment, correct? Nor would a random anarchist who published them on his blog, anarchist.com?
Or is having a blog enough to make one a journalist, aka “the press” for 1st Amendment purposes?
I am not an expert in this area of law, so I am really interested in the answers to these questions.
I’ve read that Wikileaks has been making a noticeable effort to make itself look more like a “news” site, so I assume that the issue of whether or not it qualifies as “the press” will be very much an issue if and when Assange is charged with a crime.
Andy K
@Mark S.:
Grrr…I’ve got a reply awaiting moderation…But, suffice to say, it’s mostly the same as burnspesq’s, without the fancy, lawerly words like impute.
burnspbesq
@MattR:
Yes. That’s a statement of moral philosophy. It’s also in the Ten Commandments, which my faith treats as the received Word of God.
I do get that we live in a world that is somewhat hostile to the reflexive application of moral absolutes. But if you’re going to have a system of generally applicable criminal laws, you need to be a little parsimonious in handing out get out of jail free cards, or respect for the law eventually goes away.
MattR
@burnspbesq:
This is kind of a grey area for me. It makes sense that Manning would make sure beforehand that he had a way to distribute the information once he got it. I don’t know if there is a legal distinction, but in my mind there is a difference between Assange actively pushing Manning to get the information (or even worse, actively assisting in obtaining the information) and Assange simply agreeing to publish the information if Manning does obtain it.
@eemom:
An anarchist handing out pamphlets on the street espousing his viewpoint is considered journalism and is protected by the First Ammendment. So why would he stop being considered a journalist if those pamplets contain classified information (or even wholly consist of classified information)?
burnspbesq
@eemom:
What qualifies as the “press” at any given point in time has to evolve as our ways of communicating evolve. The Framers certainly didn’t know about radio, television, or the Internet.
The soft-originalist view would be that anything that performs the same function in society that the press performed in 1789 counts as the “press.” And under that view, I could argue that Wikileaks is the “press.”
maus
@Andy K:
The same people who elected America to be “the world’s boss” and define what is and is not freedom?
dr. bloor
@burnspbesq:
This is so full of prejudiced assumptions as to be laughable. You have no clue as to Manning’s motives. Curiously, you seem eager to cut some slack to the guy whose fingerprints are all over the theft to convict the guy that the US Federal Fucking Government can’t seem to find enough evidence against to indict.
No chat logs, no case. They can shove a tape recorder up Manning’s ass with anything they like and play it back at Assange’s hypothetical trial. He’d be the most easily discredited witness on the planet.
Andy K
@MattR:
From my moderated comment:
If WikiLeaks conspired with any leakers to obtain secure, classified material- rather than the leaker obtaining the material on his or her own, without outside consultations from another party- then WikiLeaks and/or its agents who conspired with the leaker would share guilt in the theft. And the fact that WikiLeaks, shortly after Manning’s arrest, yanked down its plea for leakers to send in any and all documents, however obtained, tells me that their lawyers found that plea uncomfortably close to conspiracy.
Please allow me some time to find a link for that bolded segment. I’m getting ready for work.
Stillwater
@burnspbesq: At least one overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy (i.e., Manning’s theft) occurred in the United States, and it’s hornbook law that the acts of one conspirator are imputed to all of the conspirators.
But look, if what you say here is right, then the case is easy peasy. WL is a publisher of classified (or otherwise protected) stolen documents/data. That’s its purpose – probably written in its mission statement. So re: the publication of Manning’s data, they are definitionally co-conspirators. It strikes me as analogous to the relationship between a cat-burglar and his fence. In my view, there are clearly other issues at play.
Andy K
@dr. bloor:
Ah, yes, Adrian Lamo, tried and convicted by Glenn Greenwald’s court of public opinion.
You should read Glenn more closely- not for what he writes, but for that which he omits. Like Manning’s sanity board hearing, which the prosecution denies having requested, a request which the defense counsel has addressed with neither denial or confirmation of having made when questioned. There’s your length of wait and your suicide watch right there.
burnspbesq
@MattR:
The essence of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement. Here’s the governing statute, 18 USC section 371.
The Federal statute is a departure from the common-law definition of conspiracy, because it requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
dr. bloor
@Andy K:
Hyperbolic on my part, and I don’t profess to know anything about whether Assange is guilty of anything or not. It was in response to Burn’s opinion that Assange is the “head of the cartel,” which he seems to hold so dearly that he’d consider granting Manning immunity. All while the government hasn’t even presented an indictment.
And, for your file under unjustified assumptions, I don’t read Greenwald.
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
Not quite. You still have to prove the existence of an agreement. If defendants have their shit together in terms of not leaving a paper trail, and nobody rolls over, that can be difficult.
eemom
@burnspbesq:
What you say makes sense, but I’m assuming there is also case law on what constitutes “the press” for purposes of First Amendment protection in this modern era of communications media that could never have been imagined in 1787.
I suspect, though I don’t know, that the term is not broad enough to extend to someone handing out copies of documents (classified or not) on a street corner, or any person who sets up a blog.
I would love to research the issue if I didn’t have hours to bill to less interesting legal inquiries.
ETA: the anarchist handing out stuff on the street, or the blogger, would be protected by the First Amendment, but not as “the press.” That would be simple freedom of speech. I don’t think that extends to the disclosure of classified material.
Andy K
@dr. bloor:
Well, whether you read Greenwald or not, that’s where the war on the chat logs really began.
As for burnspesq and Assange: It’s theoretical, ain’t it? Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn’t, but if it were to happen, that’s how it would go. I’m not an attorney (and now, at 4:37 pm, I leave for work), but I figured that out a while ago.
burnspbesq
@dr. bloor:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy
dr. bloor
@burnspbesq:
That’s the best you can do?
C’mon, tell us how you know that Assange is the ringleader here. Give us the evidence for portraying Manning as a dupe, and your assumption that he wouldn’t have taken the stuff without a pre-arranged outlet.
Bex
@Cacti: Your Honor, a crime was committed by someone at some point! Judge: Off with somebody’s head! Somewhere. Sometime. Case closed!
MattR
@burnspbesq: Does that mean that anytime a reporter is talking to a source and asks if they have documentation for a claim they just made and the source replies that they will get it, that reporter has just entered into a conspiracy to steal that document? That would seem to make a significant portion of all investigative journalism criminal and the only reason it is not being prosecuted is that the details are not inthe public domain (unlike this one).
eemom
@eemom:
“Congress shall make no law . . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ”
Thus, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two different things.
Cacti
@jh:
Why is a comparison to the civil rights movement always the first resort of every
whitenetroots Assange fellater?They aren’t in the same ball park, aren’t in the same league, and are barely even the same sport.
What personal and immediate injustice was suffered by Assange by the classified status of the documents that he leaked, as opposed to say, the real, tangible injustices suffered every damn day by people of color living under a Jim Crow legal system?
Comparing a document leaker with a messiah complex to people who literally had their heads beaten in for sitting a “no coloreds” lunch counter is pretty damned insulting to the latter.
Cacti
@Bex:
Speaking of shithouse lawyers…
If an unauthorized source is in possession of classified material, laws have been broken to bring it about.
Pretty novel concept isn’t it?
Hurp Durp!
Stillwater
@Cacti: If an unauthorized source is in possession of classified material, laws have been broken to bring it about.
So the whole game of international espionage is illegal? How many CIA operatives leaking secret info to us should we lock up to correct this miscarriage of justice?
Cacti
@Stillwater:
Other people do it, so it’s okay!
Hurp Durp! CIA!
Stillwater
@Cacti: Other people do it, so it’s okay!
So when a bunch of people get together and agree to do something illegal, it isn’t? Yay!
Bex
@Cacti: “Speaking of shithouse lawyers…”
I’ll have you know I’m a fully qualified shithouse lawyer. And keep yer filthy hands off my credentials. Also. Too.
eemom
@Bex:
Ahem. As a devout disparager of all things Greenwald, my shithouse lawyer credentials are second to none.
I reckon the blog is big enough for both of us, however.
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
Now you’re being silly.
Yes, if a CIA agent steals classified information from the Italian government, you bet your ass it’s a violation of Italian law. And if the Italians catch him or her, and he or she doesn’t have diplomatic immunity, you bet your ass they will prosecute. But the US doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce Italian law, and US law doesn’t define stealing the property of other governments as a crime.
burnspbesq
@MattR:
Each case is different, but your hypothetical reporter has gotten into an interesting pickle. If it’s a confidential or classified document, there may or may not be a violation of law (there are probably ways of asking the question that wouldn’t be seen by a jury as the kind of agreement necessary to support a conspiracy charge), and whether it would ever be prosecuted is an open question. If it’s just something that the employee came to have in the performance of his or her duties, and it’s not exempt from disclosure under FOIA, then I think the employee is going to get fired unless protected by a whistle-blower law, but the reporter is in the clear. Tax information is different, because there is a specific statute that makes unauthorized disclosure of return information a crime.
burnspbesq
@Stillwater:
So when a bunch of people get together and agree to do something illegal, it isn’t? Yay!
Isn’t that a working definition of “government?” ;-)
LevelB
As a government employee, I understand that emergency services can function just fine in the absence of the governor. But you must remember that theater is an important aspect of political leadership. I did not care for the ‘Bullhorn Moment’, or ‘Mission Accomplished’, or worst of all, the flight back in the middle of the night to sign the Schiavo legislation, but I do understand why they occurred. I think this is just part of the package, and a large part of a politicians success or failure depends on how well these things are managed. Just my two bits.
Bex
@eemom: See ya down by the corral at dawn, mom.
Glinda
@DougJ: Because a “millionaire [who has a] vanity project [magazine]” (I’ll concede you that, even though it isn’t 100% correct to call it a vanity project) wants to increase his readership among the “high end” consumers that his magazine’s advertisers so desire to boost his magazine’s profits at a difficult time in the publishing industry and thus “likes” and “courts” a conservative, but accessible “neocon” voice that published in one of the most respectable intellectual publications in the US (the New Yorker) …(my goddess! this is a long sentence) … because of that, Bradley must be a “neocon”??!!
That’s the logic here? Sheesh!
Bradley is far more complex than your cartoon caricature of him. I don’t love him but I appreciate his complexity: the reason his magazine is so compelling
maus
@Cacti:
hurf durf the laws don’t necessarily apply to wikileaks and Assange.
jh
@Cacti:
Too many bad assumptions here. The first being the race of a commenter here on BJ (we have commenters of all ethnicities from what I’m told)
I believe this falls under the category of “how Cacti feels”.
Puerile. And ahistorical.
What personal and immediate injustice did Michael Shwermer or Andrew Goodman, middle class Jewish kids from New York, suffer that would inspire them to compel others to engage in illegal acts (Civil Disobedience) in the segregated south?
Your point doesn’t hold any water.
Bullshit. It’s not about Assange, its about the right of the electorate to know what its government is doing its name. Period.
Assange is something of a sideshow and as the Pentagon Papers illustrated, the body count that piles up in a system such as ours can run into the millions.
That Assange is a comprimised asshole doesn’t take away from the fact that the entire edifice of “classified information” in our government, with its attendant framework of laws and circular justifications could not produce a more open invitation for institutional corruption and malfesance with no oversight or accountability.
And for the record, I’m African-American. Make of that what you will.
Cacti
@jh:
My apologies.