U.S. Rejects Talks with WikiLeaks

[Hissyspit]

Source: AFP

US rejects talks with WikiLeaks
November 28, 2010 - 4:19PM
AFP

The United States rejected talks with WikiLeaks over its planned release of confidential US documents late on Saturday, saying the whistle-blower website was holding them in violation of US law. The US State Department set out its position in a letter to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his lawyer that was released to the media.

"We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained US government classified materials," State Department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote.

"As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorisation, they were provided in violation of US law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action," Koh continued. "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing."

US officials said Assange had sent a letter to the Department of State on Friday, in which he tried to address US concerns that WikiLeaks' planned release of classified documents placed individual persons at risk. In his letter, Assange said he wanted information regarding individuals who might be "at significant risk of harm" because of WikiLeaks' actions, the officials said.

Read more: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-rejects-talks-with-wikileaks-20101128-18c57.html

[Abq_Sarah]

1. Uh-huh

In his letter, Assange said he wanted information regarding individuals who might be "at significant risk of harm" because of WikiLeaks' actions, the officials said.

And I'm sure he'd never disseminate that information.

[Hissyspit]

2. Uh-huh

And if the U.S. were really concerned, they would talk to him. Apparently, the information is going to be disseminated ANYWAY, if is true that there is information like that and it is in the documents.

This is the same lip service and talking point they have used in the past. Damage to individuals at the level of "significant harm" still undocumented. Not that it couldn't happen, but no evidence of it that I've seen. We shall see with the new stuff, but if the U.S. wants redaction of names, Assange showed with the Iraq leak that he will do it. Why won't they talk to him?

[mike_c]

3. U.S. officials have zero credibility in this matter-- they lie reflexively....

It's ironic that the U.S. refuses to engage in honest negotiation with regard to leaked documents that apparently detail its prior patterns of dishonest diplomacy.

[Lasher]

4. Too bad the Department of State didn't take that position against Bob Novak.

But that was under a different presidency.

[seafan]

33. delete--wrong place

[boppers]

5. "authorisation"? Huh?

How very not-American of them to use a British spelling.... Hm.

[NutmegYankee]

6. It's an Australian paper... nt

[dipsydoodle]

7. Report is from an Oz paper

Most English speaking countries never resorted to simplified spelling.

[boppers]

8. It's in quotes.

Do Oz papers regular change content inside of quotes?

[dipsydoodle]

9. Quotes simply express

what was said and its natural as a result to use conventional english spelling as opposed to simplified.

[boppers]

10. Really now... no '[sic]'?

Well, that's interesting.

I wonder how this plays out with translation errors (wrt intent vs. direct quoting).

[No Elephants]

15. Self delete. Dupe.

[No Elephants]

16. In this case, quotes express what was written, not what was said. Spoken words

have no indicated spelling. Written words do. Changing the spelling of something written by the U.S. government without any indication of a change would be improper.

[jberryhill]

25. Yes, if editors still roamed the earth as in the days of dinosaurs

Nowadays all copy is run through spell checking software, which doesn't care about quotes.

In some word processing systems, you have to put up a real fight to accurately quote a mis-spelling from a written document.

[No Elephants]

29. Um, humans still read copy at newspapers.

And a newspaper worth its salt would have software and humans that would accept American as well as British spellings.

[jberryhill]

32. You are demonstrably incorrect

The Sydney Morning Herald does not preserve American spelling, even in proper noun references

Note the appearance of "Family Shooting Centre" in this article about the Colorado twin suicide at the Family Shooting Center:

http://m.smh.com.au/world/shot-in-the-head-surviving-twin-reveals-suicide-pact-20101119-17zmr.html

"Her twin died after the shooting at the Family Shooting Centre in Cherry Creek State Park, south of Denver, about 3pm on Monday."

So there you are. The Sydney Morning Herald - the paper under discussion here - does precisely what you say they do not do.

[jberryhill]

23. Yes - spell checkers killed editors

The story about the twin shooting in Colorado identified the facility as "Family Shooting Centre" in Australian papers, instead of "Center".

It happens all of the time.

[kgnu_fan]

11. kick and recommended

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. According to what I have read, very little of the information is actually classified.

None of the documents are classified 'Top Secret', but only 'Secret' at the highest classification rating. This was also confirmed by Politico's White House correspondent Mike Allen on Twitter, quoting the US administration.

According to Der Spiegel, just over half of the cables are not subject to classification, 40.5 percent are classified as "confidential" and only six percent or 15,652 dispatches as "secret." 2.5 million U.S. employees have access to SIPRNET material, where these cables originated.

A graphical representation of the worldwide distribution of the cables appears on the Spiegel site.

The above is from http://wlcentral.org/

Also on that page, at the top now, is a very good commentary on the Justice Black Supreme Court Decision
at the time of the release of the Pentagon papers.
Worth the read, to refresh memory on what the over riding issue really is.

[kgnu_fan]

13. I think people were carelessly honest when the classification was low

Prejudice were openly expressed with a sense of invulnerability. Arrogance ruled.

[No Elephants]

17. Regardless, no one ever had any business classifying stuff willy nilly.

Classifying what brand of coffee Michelle Obama prefers, doesn't render that info a government secret. So, too bad if folks got catty.

[ronnie624]

19. Everyone should read Justice Black's opinion on the Pentagon Papers case:

In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.<...>

To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.

The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes - great man and great Chief Justice that he was - when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.

"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free <403 U.S. 713, 720> assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."

Thanks for the link.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." MLK

[No Elephants]

24. And Black, though an FDR appointee, was a strict constructionist .

Sad how times (and labels) have changed, eh?

[kgnu_fan]

27. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.--Thank you!

[Javaman]

14. "American" lives at risk, should read...

"Politicians" lives at risk.

After the release of all the other docs, call me crazy, but I haven't noticed any uptick in violence of any kind.

[No Elephants]

18. Maybe info about an uptick in violence has been classified.

;-)

[No Elephants]

20. Seems as though the US claims danger when Assange is about to release

something. After it has been released, though, the U.S. claims nothing critical was revealed. :shrug:

[bemildred]

22. This one seems different. Let's wait and see. nt

[No Elephants]

30. Agree. I always advocate that course. (Well, almost always.)

[Joanne98]

26. LOL

[Pavulon]

28. What do they really have to talk about?

we are publishing shit someone stole from you to push our aganda. give it back. no. done.

They are no better than a site hosting the Erin Andrews peephole video. Their entire claim to fame is based off of another persons felony.

[Poll_Blind]

31. Very telling. And after all of their bitching.... n/t

PB