- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They would NOT countenance someone whose specific aim was to obtain and publish state secrets, under the guise of "freedom of the press" or otherwise. That's tubthumping asininity.
They wanted to protect the freedom to criticize the government without punishment. That is in no way the same thing.
Not just to criticize but to also hold the government accountable for wrong doing. (hence the reason that they used the term "watchdog") Do you deny this?
Which is stil not the same thing as being in the specific enterprise of obtaining state secrets for publication. That's espionage. That's the stuff that gets you hanged. .
So is that a "no" you don't deny it?
Did you read what I said? It doesn't matter if I deny it or not. It's not the same thing.
Why would I deny that the founders wanted the people to hold the government accountable and saw the press as a means to do so? (Though I don't know that any of them actually used the term "watchdog.") I already told you it doesn't matter.
Do you deny that the Founders also agreed that a government could keep legitimate state secrets, especially where matters of diplomacy and war were concerned, and that stealing and exposing said secrets was espionage?
They would NOT countenance someone whose specific aim was to obtain and publish state secrets, under the guise of "freedom of the press" or otherwise.
“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”
One could easily argue that where he says "should have a government without newspapers" could be in reference to the state keeping secrets.
There is one more question I would like to put before those that state wikileaks and the NY Times etc etc (anyone that publishes state secrets) should be put in prison before I leave for the night...
Has there EVER been a case in the entire US history where a news agency was successfully convicted of a crime when that news agency has published state secrets?
And Michael Moore goes on about how Americans are dumb. :lamo
The Founders would have shot Assange as a spy without a second thought. And the rest of the world would have said "that sounds about right."
Do you deny that the Founders also agreed that a government could keep legitimate state secrets, especially where matters of diplomacy and war were concerned, and that stealing and exposing said secrets was espionage?
The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.
Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?
I never said anything about the NYT or any other legitimate press organization.
The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.
Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?
What Michael Moore thinks of the American populace at large has nothing to do with whether or not his claim about what the founders would have supported is valid.
There is credible information already in this thread that shows very clearly that some of the original framers of the Constitution had attitudes that were very much aware of a deep need for the people to have access to information about what their government is up to. It is not any stretch to apply those words to Wikileaks. Any person with basic reasoning skills can see that. Enough evidence has been presented that if you want to continue to deny it, then you need to present a reasoned argument to that end or else reveal yourself as unworthy of further attention in this discussion.
All of that was about freedom of the press, not freedom to seek and publish state secrets. These are also the Founders who hanged spies without trial and passed the Sedition Acts.
If you can't handle that rather bold distinction, then I'm not really interested in your opinion of who's "worthy of further attention." :lamo
Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the Sedition Acts as a violation of the First Ammendment and upon becoming president he pardoned everyone who was procescuted under it and the Congress repaid all fines resulting from it with interest. Clearly they realized it was not such a good idea.
In any case, nothing Wikileaks has done thus far could have been construed as an actionable offense in the sedition acts. Since the documents were released in their entirety
they could not be false
and there is no proof that Wikileaks published them with malicious intent against the Government. Their motivation is to keep governments honest and as such they are honorable.
Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily,
so while I might be safe to assume that my opinion now interests you,
you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.
What I said, in essence, was that if you did not add something to the discussion then you were not worth my attention. I took your last post as an ill conceived attempt to be a constructive part of this conversation, but because you made an attempt I felt it was at least worth giving you the benefit of the doubt.You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.
So in your opinion the founding fathers would have had to unanimously agree with what Wikileaks is doing in order to give credence to Michael Moore's statement? By that reasoning, even the U.S. Constitution would be an invalid example of what the founding fathers wanted, since it was the result of considerable debate and compromise.Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.
No, My reasoning was not specious, however I will go as far as to concede that my statement was more ambiguous than it could have been, it was not my intent to be misleading. I will restate it in a more clear form: Wikileaks released the cables and documents without editing them. Whether the statements in the documents are true or false is not at issue here. Their veracity is out of Wikileaks' purview to control, nor is such expected. Any "falsity" that might be attributed to Wikileaks could only arise if they had edited the documents or else fabricated false documents.Exceptionally specious "reasoning."
I didn't mention it because it is not a valid distinction. We have a free press specifically to act as a check against a government that relies on 'State Secrets"You didn't "handle it" at all. :lamo You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.
I am concerned with addressing the issue in a way that will allow everyone to understand it fully, and find ethical common ground. Michael Moore also made his statement "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time" but that has led to this entire discussion, so apparently a truly thoughtful person should have told you that such a distinction is redundant at this point.As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.
But you're more concerned with (what you consider) scoring points than understanding what someone writes, apparently.
Bluster is aggressive and ineffectual, so no I don't think that. I have added to this conversation with at least one unique observation of my own. Your accusation that I don't distinguish between bluster and debate is patently malicious and false.Oh, goody. Another new poster who thinks bluster is the same thing as debate. You're going to get rolled here, and I'll enjoy watching; I always do. In the meantime, there's a whole group of guys just like you that I'm sure you'll naturally gravitate toward.
What I said, in essence, was that if you did not add something to the discussion then you were not worth my attention.You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.[/url]
you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.
I took your last post as an ill conceived attempt to be a constructive part of this conversation, but because you made an attempt I felt it was at least worth giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So in your opinion the founding fathers would have had to unanimously agree with what Wikileaks is doing in order to give credence to Michael Moore's statement? By that reasoning, even the U.S. Constitution would be an invalid example of what the founding fathers wanted, since it was the result of considerable debate and compromise.Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.[/url]
No, My reasoning was not speciousExceptionally specious "reasoning."[/url]
however I will go as far as to concede that my statement was more ambiguous than it could have been, it was not my intent to be misleading. I will restate it in a more clear form: Wikileaks released the cables and documents without editing them.
Whether the statements in the documents are true or false is not at issue here. Their veracity is out of Wikileaks' purview to control, nor is such expected. Any "falsity" that might be attributed to Wikileaks could only arise if they had edited the documents or else fabricated false documents.
The credibility of Wikileaks rests on their ability to insure that whatever they release is authentic
and I have not yet observed any official charges that the documents have been tampered with.
Beyond that, the burden of veracity rests with the various authors of the documents, not with Wikileaks as an institution.
I didn't mention it because it is not a valid distinction.
Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily
We have a free press specifically to act as a check against a government that relies on 'State Secrets"
I am concerned with addressing the issue in a way that will allow everyone to understand it fully, and find ethical common ground. Michael Moore also made his statement "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time" but that has led to this entire discussion, so apparently a truly thoughtful person should have told you that such a distinction is redundant at this point.
Bluster is aggressive and ineffectual, so no I don't think that.
I have added to this conversation with at least one unique observation of my own. Your accusation that I don't distinguish between bluster and debate is patently malicious and false.
Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.
You don't know that they were.
"Honorable." :lamo
Here's a nice rundown of what he's about:
Commentary: 'International subversives' - UPI.com
I guess you might consider him "honorable" if you share his agenda.
You didn't "handle it" at all. :lamo You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.
As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.
Why do you keep addressing this as though I approve of the Sedition Acts? I never said I did. That was never the point.
As for the "commentary," it simply brings together a number of facts which speak to his "honorability" in this endeavor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?