WikiLeak's Rights Are Constitutionally Protected.
Peter King: Epic Fail.

Be Well.

Something else for the rightwing pant pissers to hide under the bed over. King is as paranoid as Karsick. And as honest.

What I've read of it so far seems far from any definition of terrorism. Embarrassment, certainly, but not terrorism. If there were a memo in there that gave away the combination of the President's football or the crypto key to his crackberry, I'd say national security was compromised. But to disclose that Hillary ordered our guys to spy on everybody at the UN? Sorry.

Am I just naieve in thinking that our government should conduct itself in such a way that the things said and done behind closed doors shouldn't embarrass it if exposed?

Come to think of it, China's never embarrassed when something horrible about them comes out. They just refuse to acknowledge anything's wrong with what they're doing. I don't want our government to be like that either.

"spy on everybody"

How original.

WikiLeak's Rights Are Constitutionally Protected.

#1 | Posted by skip_wellington at 2010-11-29 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only in the drug polluted mind of a leftist.

we should feign embarrassment, promise change, and keep on keeping on.

"WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States."

Much like the GOP.

Only in the drug polluted mind of a leftist.

#5 | POSTED BY YOUHATEME

Or anyone who has read the Constitution or followed the Supreme Court.

Also, you're a dumbass.

This makes King a pretty scary choice for ANY ctee chair, much less Homeland Security. WL posted redacted versions --

If I didn't know better I would guess that Rep. King is from Oklahoma, where all of the other Right Wing Kooks Live. I Love New york State Mr. King is a real embarrassment, This Fuck is a Republican before he is an American, an to think that this fuck is serving in Congress, Pathetic....

WikiLeak's Rights Are Constitutionally Protected.

#1 | Posted by skip_wellington

Ummm No the sites owner is not a American citizen as well as the sever they are stored on, ARE NOT on American soil. You must be a US citizen to receive Constitutional protections here in the US. Heres a little fact that the news will not tell you. The website has no license to publish material in Sweden, and therefore placing the server in Sweden does not give WikiLeaks automatic protection.

If the Swedish constitutional laws are non-applicable, ordinary liability laws take effect. This means a source could be brought to court by a common prosecutor.

"You must be a US citizen to receive Constitutional protections here in the US."

[CITATION NEEDED]

"This means a source could be brought to court by a common prosecutor."

i would love to see a common prosecutor try.

Or anyone who has read the Constitution or followed the Supreme Court.

Also, you're a dumbass.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2010-11-29 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you argue that the publishing of stolen classified documents is protected by the Constitution?

The Patriot Act increased the maximum penalties for violating what has become known as the "material support" law to 15 years in federal prison. In a 6-3 ruling this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law as constitutional, saying the Draconian legal sanctions are reasonable "even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups' nonviolent ends."

Well aren't you the resident fool tonight.

You are fucked up. And a dumbass.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded, the "irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information." I concur with Chairman Mullen's statement...

From these acts, WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria for FTO designation as (1) a foreign organization; (2) engaging in terrorist activity or terrorism which (3) threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. Specifically, pursuant to Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of INA (8 U.S.C. ? 1182(a)(3)(B)) WikiLeaks engaged in terrorist activity by committing acts that it knew, or reasonably should have known, would afford material support for the commission of terrorist activity.

Be cynical- VERY CYNICAL.

We should have learned that lesson before the corrupt politicians such as Peter King had us waving flags and marching into Iraq.

Rep Peter King has always been a partisan New Yorker who favors New York City interests (as in big money, bankers, Wall Street and Israel) before NY or USA interests.

These State Dept posts probably have some real embarrassing stuff about USA interests and yet the media will freely publish it. But how does that equate to terrorism? Yet if there is anything at all that involves our "special friend" there will not be one word uttered.

#16 | Posted by Robson at 2010-11-29 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded, the "irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information."

But I'm sure you know better that the JCOS and the US attorney general.

From these acts, WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria for FTO designation as (1) a foreign organization; (2) engaging in terrorist activity or terrorism which (3) threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. Specifically, pursuant to Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of INA (8 U.S.C. ? 1182(a)(3)(B)) WikiLeaks engaged in terrorist activity by committing acts that it knew, or reasonably should have known, would afford material support for the commission of terrorist activity.

The Patriot Act increased the maximum penalties for violating what has become known as the "material support" law to 15 years in federal prison. In a 6-3 ruling this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law as constitutional, saying the Draconian legal sanctions are reasonable "even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups' nonviolent ends."

As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded, the "irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information." I concur with Chairman Mullen's statement... -- #15 | Posted by YouHateMe

Mullen seems to be forgetting that one of his own PFC's stole the documents on his watch. You accountable for anything, Admiral?

WikiLeaks engaged in terrorist activity by committing acts that it knew, or reasonably should have known, would afford material support for the commission of terrorist activity. -- #17 | Posted by YouHateMe

Has it done anything that the New York Times, Der Spiegel, etc., haven't also done? Shutting down the press is serious business, YHM.

King a ling wouldn't know a terrorist if it stepped on his face. But if you keep pounding the fear button and scare enough little old ladies you just might get elected even though you are in the minority and most are voting for you against their own interests.

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department's internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of "secrets" might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. The's disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

Few will be surprised to know that Vladimir Putin runs the world's most sensational kleptocracy, that the Saudis wanted the Americans to bomb Iran, or that Pakistan's ISI is hopelessly involved with Taliban groups of fiendish complexity. We now know that Washington knows too. The full extent of American dealings with Yemen might upset that country's government, but is hardly surprising. If it is true that the Pentagon targeted refugee camps for bombing, it should be of general concern. American congressmen might also be interested in the sums of money given to certain foreign generals supposedly to pay for military equipment.

The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport.

No harm is done by high-class chatter about President Nicolas Sarkozy's vulgarity and lack of house-training, or about the British royal family. What the American embassy in London thinks about the coalition suggests not an alliance at risk but an embassy with a talent problem.

Some stars shine through the banality such as the heroic envoy in Islamabad, Anne Patterson. She pleads that Washington's whole policy is counterproductive: it "risks destabilising the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and the military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis without finally achieving the goal". Nor is any amount of money going to bribe the Taliban to our side. Patterson's cables are like missives from the Titanic as it already heads for the bottom.

The money‑wasting is staggering. Aid payments are never followed, never audited, never evaluated. The impression is of the world's superpower roaming helpless in a world in which nobody behaves as bidden. Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the United Nations, are all perpetually off script. Washington reacts like a wounded bear, its instincts imperial but its power projection unproductive.

America's foreign policy is revealed as a slave to rightwing drift, terrified of a bomb exploding abroad or of a pro-Israeli congressman at home. If the cables tell of the progress to war over Iran or Pakistan or Gaza or Yemen, their revelation might help debate the inanity of policies which, as Patterson says, seem to be leading in just that direction. Perhaps we can now see how catastrophe unfolds when there is time to avert it, rather than having to await a Chilcot report after the event. If that is not in the public's interest, I fail to see what is.

Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment.

What this saga must do is alter the basis of diplomatic reporting. If WikiLeaks can gain access to secret material, by whatever means, so presumably can a foreign power. Words on paper can be made secure, electronic archives not. The leaks have blown a hole in the framework by which states guard their secrets. The Guardian material must be a breach of the official secrets acts. But coupled with the penetration already allowed under freedom of information, the walls round policy formation and documentation are all but gone. All barriers are permeable. In future the only secrets will be spoken ones. Whether that is a good thing should be a topic for public debate.

the media is free to keep the government in check by giving the american people all of the information.

well, in theory, at least.

Come to think of it, China's never embarrassed when something horrible about them comes out.

Because China, unlike the U.S., doesnt give a fuck what you or the Constitution thinks...

And if they dont give a fuck now, do you think they wouldnt use this against us?

Liberals are so stupid. They actually see this as a victory. The U.S. is dying and liberals are cheering it on...

Liberals are so stupid. They actually see this as a victory. -- #27 | Posted by boaz

??I'm thoroughly disgusted, first by my gov't's carelessness, and second by its attempt to shift attention from its lax IT security to WikiLeaks.

Ummm No the sites owner is not a American citizen as well as the sever they are stored on, ARE NOT on American soil. You must be a US citizen to receive Constitutional protections here in the US. Heres a little fact that the news will not tell you. The website has no license to publish material in Sweden, and therefore placing the server in Sweden does not give WikiLeaks automatic protection.
If the Swedish constitutional laws are non-applicable, ordinary liability laws take effect. This means a source could be brought to court by a common prosecutor.

#11 | POSTED BY ZACK991

Where do I begin?
1) The First Amendment applies to non-citizens under US jurisdiction.
2) Some of the servers are hosted on US soil by Amazon and other companies.
3) A liability case is a civil case. It can't be brought by a prosecutor (that's a criminal case). It has to be brought by an injured party in a civil court.

Or anyone who has read the Constitution or followed the Supreme Court.

Also, you're a dumbass.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2010-11-29 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:
So you argue that the publishing of stolen classified documents is protected by the Constitution?
The Patriot Act increased the maximum penalties for violating what has become known as the "material support" law to 15 years in federal prison. In a 6-3 ruling this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law as constitutional, saying the Draconian legal sanctions are reasonable "even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups' nonviolent ends."

Well aren't you the resident fool tonight.
You are fucked up. And a dumbass.

#14 | POSTED BY YOUHATEME

No, once again you ignore the post I made and simply cite your own uneducated opinion on US Law.

Specifically, the publishing of classified documents is protected by the Constitution. Please refer to the Pentagon Papers case. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

Now my resident fool, go ensure you never reproduce. Dumbass.

How about the shit stain right start by blaming the person that had access to the files instead of an organization that is posting the files.

terr org? No, not by a long shot and it wouldn't be recognized by any other country except the US.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concluded, the "irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information." I concur with Chairman Mullen's statement...
From these acts, WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria for FTO designation as (1) a foreign organization; (2) engaging in terrorist activity or terrorism which (3) threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. Specifically, pursuant to Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of INA (8 U.S.C. ? 1182(a)(3)(B)) WikiLeaks engaged in terrorist activity by committing acts that it knew, or reasonably should have known, would afford material support for the commission of terrorist activity.
#15 | POSTED BY YOUHATEME

More gibberish from the resident wannabe lawyer.

1) Committing acts that might afford material support for terrorist organizations is not terrorism. It's a separate crime.
2) Publishing these documents is not providing material support. Giving money or services is support.
3) They haven't committed terrorist activity of their own.

So...in conclusion, they aren't engaging in terrorism or terrorist activity. They aren't materially supporting terrorist organizations even if you think their actions might somehow embolden the recruiting efforts of these organizations.

Now my question for you is simple: Are you paid to write uneducated, stupid opinions on here?

What is so sad and pathetic is that Obama feels he has to spout off about his loud mouth buddy getting rousted, but has jack too say about the biggest espionage hit in American history.

What a total chump Obama is.

I'm thoroughly disgusted, first by my gov't's carelessness, and second by its attempt to shift attention from its lax IT security to WikiLeaks.

#28 | Posted by Phoenix

you seem content to believe that they lie & cheat each other only but not you and us American citizens?

is it to late for you to abstain from reproducing?

but has jack too say about the biggest espionage hit in American history.

As much as I can't stand Obama, this is just simply untrue. Unfortunately, his admin has opened their pieholes about this.

..disgusted by gvt incompetence, yet oblivious to the fact staring you in the face that these pols & leaders are lying cheating sob's ~ ~

Not news to me.

you seem content to believe that they lie & cheat each other only but not you and us American citizens? -- #34 | Posted by L_E_Light

What? You must not read the DR much. I've been ranting about both parties' cheating us to serve their corporate masters, among other things, for years.

I don't think it is a terrorist group, it is simply making clear the lies and dishonesty that takes place in the "greatest nation on God's green earth." If we were so great, we wouldn't have to lie, cheat and steal to do things all the time.

The Espionage Act makes it illegal to disclose "information relating to the national defense" if that information could be used "to the injury of the United States."

That sounds like the path to take in this case, not terrorism. We need rational leadership, not hysterical chicken littles running about.

What King is worried about is the transparency of it all. Nothing else. The good that Wikileaks does far outweighs the bad. Knowing that our government is peddling bullshit to us is one thing, having documented proof free of redaction by that very same government is a much needed breath of fresh air. If Wikileaks had been around when they were all concocting up their stew of lies for invading Iraq it might have saved us several thousand deaths, several tens of thousands of life changing injuries and trillions of dollars.

We need rational leadership, not hysterical chicken littles running about.
#38 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-11-30 10:34 AM

Holder came out and said his office will prosecute if their investigation finds "any laws were broken" in the release of these documents, yesterday. At a news conference where he originally came out to tout the admininstrations shutting down nine sites accused of pirating movies and music. Where is he today? In Sweden for a Global Warming Conference. Guess that thorough investigation he opened months ago when Julian threatened to expose these diplomatic conersations went so well, they can close the book on any future releases. You're doing a fine job Holder....

"Mullen seems to be forgetting that one of his own PFC's stole the documents on his watch. You accountable for anything, Admiral?"

Over two million people had access to the same information, from what I understand.

I have no problem prosecuting these guys as they have clearly broken the law and could even be seen as treason if you really wanted to push it as they have directly put American lives in direct jeopardy. They are not terrorists however and to call them such diminishes the meaning of the word.

The fear I had and have is that the government will just start labeling people "terrorist" when they don't have a good enough case to try them publicly or just want to deny people basic human rights.

The fear I had and have is that the government will just start labeling people "terrorist" when they don't have a good enough case to try them publicly or just want to deny people basic human rights.

#43 | Posted by kanrei

It will be as watered down as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's cries of "racist".

Peter King is a spotlight Ranger. He's always spouting off to the camera for face time.

Pretty sad when a congressman has to light a fire in the ass of this admin to figure out how to prevent more of these so called leaks. It is obvious Obama is again being laughed at on the worlds stage, and proof of his amateur diplomacy skills. He has had months to ponder his legal and diplomatic options and did nothing. Now of course the security reprecussions are on the plate, and based on his pattern of inaction in regards to any domestic or international crisis, his silence (weakness) is deafening.

Now of course the security reprecussions are on the plate

*Puts on his patented Kanrei Tin Foil Cap* and says:

Maybe this was done to lay the groundwork for a 2012 October suprise that would really change the election's outcome.

I mean, if I suspected Bush of doing it, why would I think Obama wouldnn't?

Over two million people had access to the same information, from what I understand.

#41 | Posted by crispee_oc

Seems a bit excessive don't you think? I would expect more leaks if that is allowed to continue. If nothing else good comes from this I be that number gets reduced to a more reasonable number.

It is obvious Obama is again being laughed at on the worlds stage, and proof of his amateur diplomacy skills. He has had months to ponder his legal and diplomatic options and did nothing. Now of course the security reprecussions are on the plate, and based on his pattern of inaction in regards to any domestic or international crisis, his silence (weakness) is deafening.

#45 | Posted by crispee_oc

Obvious maybe to a hack like yourself that is...not sure what you expected him to do...shut down the internets with his "panic button"? I am so glad to see you are happy that you think your President is getting "laughed" at. What a fine patriot you are! Can't wait to see him fail are we? Doing everything we can to make sure that happens are we? Where you that happy with the Shrub making a laughing stock of America for a decade? Do you get a tingle up your leg every time Osama laughs at us from his cave when he tricks us into spending billions to counter his thousands?

Is Obama being "laughed at"? I think those laughing voices you hear are coming from inside your head.

Here is a brief sample of the how the world reacted:

Although, he questions whether they are really "leaks," saying he believes they are orchestrated, methodical attempts by the United States to make Iran look bad.

"Ahmadinejad's opposition likely has something to do with the unfavorable opinions of him expressed by other Middle Eastern and Arab leaders as detailed in the cables.

In the cables, the Saudi ambassador quotes the Saudi king as advising the United States to "cut off the head of the snake," in terms of dealing with Ahmadinejad and his attempts to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nations around the world are condemning the release of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on subjects such as Iran's nuclear program and U.S. efforts to spy on foreign officials."

"Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar dismissed the reported comment, saying "President Zardari regards Saudi King Abdullah as his elder brother."

"The so-called leaks are no more than an attempt to create misperceptions between two important Muslim countries," he said."

"But instead, Wikileaks' release of the documents on Sunday has proved to be something of a public relations coup for Israel: on-the-record confirmation that its Arab neighbors are just as frightened as the Jewish state by a nuclear Iran. The cables confirmed previous anonymous reports that Israel has quiet partners in the region pushing the US to take bolder steps to stop what they consider an existential threat.

"I don't see any damage. Quite the opposite,'' said Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in an interview with Israel Radio. "Maybe there's an indirect benefit that the truth is coming out, that the entire Middle East, including Arab states, are very fearful from the Iranian nuclear threat, and are calling on the West to be much more aggressive toward Iran."

doh...italics off!

Freedom, even at the expense of the mechanism that provides them with their freedom.

Treason, not part of a liberals vocabulary.

"Is Obama being "laughed at"? I think those laughing voices you hear are coming from inside your head."

Nah, the only laughing out of my head is pointing out some chump who continued to look like a moron defending ACORN. You have 20 innocent people on your Christmas card list Doooner. Just send them to Bertha Lewis, I am sure she has the location of where they will be serving time.

Liberals are so stupid. They actually see this as a victory. The U.S. is dying and liberals are cheering it on...

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2010-11-29 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's start with your statement that "the USA is dying" which agree totally. That trend was put into effect when our own government allowed Communist countries to import their products and export our jobs at will. That's been going on for 30 years. This trend was not about helping the USA succeed, but about enriching multi-national industrialists and bankers and forcing organized labor out of business.

Today we are paying the price as our 30 years of ever increasing indebtedness is a logical byproduct of the income revenue to the treasury drying up because there are millions of jobs that did pay taxes that now reside in China and the US rich pay fewer taxes.

The other aspect of the decline of the USA is the fascist nature of our new government that is not about we the people, but instead about empowering and enriching multinational businesses.

The NWO is here and you blame it on liberals? I blame it on fascists.