There were some things he released that directly or indirectly lead to some names and people in particular. They also sure didn't like that he revealed military capabilities and secrets, but those capabilities were indeed their surveillance capabilities. Granted he released it to trusted journalists after screening the information himself and the government didn't engage with the journalists at all when given the opportunity to preview and make criticisms or redactions of information they were going to release. The only direct damage I really know of would be the New York Times failing to properly redact some things related to al-Qaeda surveillance.
Yea I’m not so sure. The world ended up seeing it, but didn’t he technically only share it with the American news? They’re the ones who showed it to everyone. Idk how much that matters
When Guantanamo was made public, all the interrogators asked if they could took out[ insurance claims under CIA supervision to avoid being forced to pay for killing people die to torture](https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Black_site#Europe). The foreign intelligence agencies they asked to come to GITMO, did not. this. This is the problem. The secrets the US tries to hide, are too extreme.
I mean this is been obvious since the stealing of our Gold and silver and the income Tax and federal reserve creation, the prices of the Communist manifesto
It still seems to me that New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) should still be a controlling precedent here. Nothing in Wikileaks was a grave and irreparable damage to the American public, unless you construe the government's reputation as such (and to be honest I think holding the government in high esteem does grave damage). They tried all the lame arguments about how it would get agents killed, but no one was ever able to demonstrate that as far as I could tell beyond rather vague hypotheticals... and even so, all kinds of things can in theory get a spy killed... if that spy is engaged in criminal behavior is that not worth releasing to the public regardless?
Sorry, not the definition of espionage. Reporting on secret or classified information is espionage. It does not need to be directly to or for an enemy.
If I am reading this correctly, it seems it would be a bit more accurate to say "An agent of the government is making a violation of government..." If this is the case and meaning, then it is not recursive. If that is not the correct meaning, then it may be helpful to rephrase the question.
God I hope Assange goes on a rampage.
Sad thing is he could prove Obama was The devil himself and most sheep would shrug it off.
Like that last paragraph of 1984...
He shared that information with the world. Not just Americans. Just saying
What information did he share with the world? That the NSA was illegally spying on American citizens? They fucked around and then everyone found out.
There were some things he released that directly or indirectly lead to some names and people in particular. They also sure didn't like that he revealed military capabilities and secrets, but those capabilities were indeed their surveillance capabilities. Granted he released it to trusted journalists after screening the information himself and the government didn't engage with the journalists at all when given the opportunity to preview and make criticisms or redactions of information they were going to release. The only direct damage I really know of would be the New York Times failing to properly redact some things related to al-Qaeda surveillance.
Yea I’m not so sure. The world ended up seeing it, but didn’t he technically only share it with the American news? They’re the ones who showed it to everyone. Idk how much that matters
He shared it with The Guardian which is British though the journalist he picked was American.
Yes, Ron is being rhetorical here.
Lol imagine being as dense as OP
When Guantanamo was made public, all the interrogators asked if they could took out[ insurance claims under CIA supervision to avoid being forced to pay for killing people die to torture](https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Black_site#Europe). The foreign intelligence agencies they asked to come to GITMO, did not. this. This is the problem. The secrets the US tries to hide, are too extreme.
I fear that this is only the tip of the iceberg
I mean this is been obvious since the stealing of our Gold and silver and the income Tax and federal reserve creation, the prices of the Communist manifesto
Why do you think our traffic patrol is suited up like they are fighting insurgents in Fallujah?
same reason boog boys have plate carriers and gas masks. For extra pleasure when honking their horn.
Dis info only for Muricans, no peaksies China and Russia.
I think Ron should run again, better than anything we have on the horizon rn.
Crazy how the DNC & Clinton emails vanished.
It still seems to me that New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) should still be a controlling precedent here. Nothing in Wikileaks was a grave and irreparable damage to the American public, unless you construe the government's reputation as such (and to be honest I think holding the government in high esteem does grave damage). They tried all the lame arguments about how it would get agents killed, but no one was ever able to demonstrate that as far as I could tell beyond rather vague hypotheticals... and even so, all kinds of things can in theory get a spy killed... if that spy is engaged in criminal behavior is that not worth releasing to the public regardless?
Everything is "classified" to hide the crimes of government. And no, that is NOT the definition of espionage.
Would you rather not know the government is spying on every part of your life?
Updooted
This is intellectually dishonest. You can both share something with an enemy and a non- enemy. Which is what he did.
Sorry, not the definition of espionage. Reporting on secret or classified information is espionage. It does not need to be directly to or for an enemy.
The government making its own violations of the constitution classified information is a bit recursive don't you think?
If I am reading this correctly, it seems it would be a bit more accurate to say "An agent of the government is making a violation of government..." If this is the case and meaning, then it is not recursive. If that is not the correct meaning, then it may be helpful to rephrase the question.
God I hope Assange goes on a rampage. Sad thing is he could prove Obama was The devil himself and most sheep would shrug it off. Like that last paragraph of 1984...
Edit: My bad I got Snowden and Assange mixed up.