WikiLeaks: New Disclosures and Legal Issues of Its Founder
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-12-09/wikileaks-new-disclosures-and-legal-issues-its-founder
Despite a series of severe blows, Wikileaks is going strong and continuing to release classified documents. Over the last few days, Julian Assange, the site’s founder, was denied bail in London; Wikileaks' primary address was deactivated; it was dumped by its server; and various affiliated companies cut ties with the organization. The U.S. Justice Department is currently looking into what charges it can bring against Assange. In response, supporters have gone on the offensive retaliating against those they deemed hostile to Wikileaks and hundreds of “mirror” sites appeared on the web. Diane gets an update on the new disclosures from Wikileaks and how the site keeps going and growing.
Guests
John Burns
chief foreign correspondent of "The New York Times"
Tom Gjelten
correspondent, NPR, and author of "Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause."
Stephen Vladeck
professor at American University Washington College of Law, who specializes in national security law and constitutional law.
Declan McCullagh
chief political correspondent for CNET, which is part of CBS Corporation.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Very true. It would be nice if the media/journalists would focus on the real story rather than the propaganda that Washington is attempting to distribute as cover.
If we feel the web should be open source or free of censure ship then I have a few points to argue that we are hippocrates and believe more like the Chinese than we like to admit.
1) Comcast does not allow you to watch ESPN.com online UNLESS you are on it's internet service provider (Not open to anyone)
2) If we shut down WIKI-leaks then are we not agreeing with the Chinese that a firewall or censure ship is needed and freedom of speech is not allowed. If information is secret and revealed you have to have signed a non-disclosure agreement
3) To argue that you can prosecute a person under espionage when they are not American is a little ridiculous as he is from Australia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange. So are we saying we need a world government to police these type of issues? I would love to see the fundamental Christians live that one down.
If it's illegal to share leaked government information by publishing it on the web, then it would seem, it would be illegal to share it by publishing it in a newspaper, and so wouldn't it also be illegal to read that information aloud to a friend.? What a scary world! How can we be sure who the real journalists are? How can we be sure that a fact or idea we read or hear may have been illegally leaked? To be certain that we are truely law-abiding and patriotic citizens, we really must stop reading, listening, and talking with one another!
If it's illegal to share leaked government documents by publishing them on the web, then it must be illegal to share them by publishing them in newspapers and reading them over the radio, and, logically then, it must be illegal to read them aloud to a friend. And can we be sure which facts and which ideas have been illegally leaked? Gosh, what a scary and challenging world! To be certain that we are law-abiding and patriotic citizens, we had better stop reading and listening to anything except that which comes directly from our government.
If it's illegal to share leaked government information by publishing it on the web, then it must be illegal to share it by publishing it in newspapers or broadcasting it over the airwaves. And so it must be illegal to share such information by handing it or reading it aloud to a friend. What a scary world! How can we be sure which facts and which ideas have been illegally leaked? To be sure we are law-abiding and patriotic citizens, we had better stop reading and listening and talking right away!
Long time. First time. I was anticipating this subjects discussion; to me this is THE world news story not "lame duck stuffing", maybe my expectations were too high.
I'm accustom to Diane's panel being more equally representative, right, left, and center of an issue. I didn't hear pro wikileakers challenging the hypothetical doomsdayers. Also, the usual tough questions that clarify and fill gaps fell short. The establishments position was overly emphasized with little more than opinions of "could, might, what ifs". Yes, they looked into their crystal balls and forecasted what will happen next. Where DO you get those balls?
My reaction to these events are that a very small but powerful, vocal, and scared minority is getting their message out, "the sky is falling". The People, the Masses aren't buying it but we aren't pushing back enough either.
Diane. Please do a follow up show. Don't drink the kool-aid.