Is WikiLeaks Libelous?

[landrew]

Here's a little test for the Negativist Skeptic:

So, should all leaks be considered false and libelous if not immediately well-supported by facts?

Let us know your thoughts so that we all may bend to the true path of Skeptology.

[ruben lopez]

What's with the attitude, bro?

[landrew]

What's with the attitude, bro?

What &#+$*@ attitude?

[Pyrrho]

Damn, it's already taken:

http://www.skeptology.com/

[Pyrrho]

Here's a little test for the Negativist Skeptic:

So, should all leaks be considered false and libelous if not immediately well-supported by facts?

Let us know your thoughts so that we all may bend to the true path of Skeptology.

Reluctant as I am to throw good food under a bridge...

They taught us in investigative journalism courses to verify facts and corroborate sources before writing the article. In this case, the documents are potentially true, potentially false, potentially not libelous, and potentially libelous--although I wonder who would be libeled in this case. What matters, what counts, what is important is corroboration. WikiLeaks may have released previously secret documents, but have the contents been checked and corroborated? Has the provenance of the documents been clearly established? Journalists wishing to avoid publishing incorrect information usually corroborate with more than one source. That, of course, assumes that the journalist cares. What happens in practice is that people form opinions based on the earliest news and the damage is done. Retractions are rarely printed on the front page. Journalists bear some responsibility for informing the public, but must also bear some responsibility for accuracy.

Ethical news organizations vet the stories before they go public. These days it's much easier for people to ferret out mistakes. Dan Rather's news stories about the "Killian documents" comes to mind as one rather famous failure. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_do ... ity_issues

There was an interesting discussion on the radio--I think it was NPR--in which the topic was how WikiLeaks and other "new media" organizations use limited private release of source material to major news organizations to gain credibility for the later public release. It was stated that it is a very old practice among "mainstream" media. WikiLeaks offered the Afghanistan documents to the New York Times, to a British newspaper, and to Der Spiegel, and the result is that smaller news organizations pay much more attention to WikiLeaks than they would have otherwise.

[landrew]

Damn, it's already taken:

http://www.skeptology.com/

Thanks for the link, its actually well worth reading.

A bit from the site that caught my attention:

Our modern, grown up societies should be based on rationality and our children should be taught to be skeptical, thoughtful people.

Thoughtful... that's a bit different than ridiculing or concocting an easy answer to every difficult question that doesn't fit in the "box" isn't it?

It seems to me that some of the people who are being ridiculed by the skeptics are doing a lot more of the thinking.

[landrew]

Interesting dichotomy here:
We are told that every assertion should be backed up with evidence and facts, so if it's not a proven assertion, it carries no weight therefore it must be regarded as false.

What is a question, if not a challenge to bring forth more evidence and facts so that it can be weighed?

If I had a picture which appears to show you robbing a bank, is it not proper to bring it forward to the authorities so that it can be examined, tested and weighed against other evidence? Is it considered slanderous to show such evidence the light of day, merely because it's not conclusive?  How could such things be weighed properly, without including everyone who could potentially provide more evidence, by making it public?

I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" is quite accurate; being "innocent" means you didn't do anything wrong. That's clearly an X=0 type of conclusion.

[Martin Brock]

So, should all leaks be considered false and libelous if not immediately well-supported by facts?

No. If all leaks not immediately supported by facts are to be considered false, then every assertion by the state must be presumed true without investigation. The more leaks the better. The more some bit of information compromises "national security",  in the lexicon of some statesmen, the more I want it leaked. Utterly crippling the national security apparatus is a service to humanity.

[Pyrrho]

Interesting dichotomy here:
We are told that every assertion should be backed up with evidence and facts, so if it's not a proven assertion, it carries no weight therefore it must be regarded as false.

Who says so, and on what grounds? I haven't said so, and nobody has said that in this discussion. However, we are not obliged to accept or reject an assertion merely on the basis of the assertion having been made.

What is a question, if not a challenge to bring forth more evidence and facts so that it can be weighed?

Sometimes questions can be posed as a rhetorical device.

If I had a picture which appears to show you robbing a bank, is it not proper to bring it forward to the authorities so that it can be examined, tested and weighed against other evidence?

Yes. Even so, given the capability to retouch photos--and that capability is nothing new--corroboration is still an accepted practice.

Is it considered slanderous to show such evidence the light of day, merely because it's not conclusive?

Depends on the circumstances. Statements made on the radio that impugn the character of a person can be considered slanderous. We can call such statements "evidence," but the label "evidence" does not make a statement true. It has to be corroborated.

How could such things be weighed properly, without including everyone who could potentially provide more evidence, by making it public?

Making it public doesn't make it true or false. Veracity has to be established by other means.

I don't think "innocent until proven guilty" is quite accurate; being "innocent" means you didn't do anything wrong. That's clearly an X=0 type of conclusion.

"Innocent until proven guilty," is a legal construct intended to protect the rights of the accused. Not all countries adhere to that legal construct. Also, "innocent until proven guilty" (and "guilty until proven innocent') is always provisional, a tentative legal status dependent upon examination of the evidence...which, in common jurisprudence, doesn't always result in an accurate conclusion. It results in a legal status.

[Pyrrho]

So, should all leaks be considered false and libelous if not immediately well-supported by facts?

No. If all leaks not immediately supported by facts are to be considered false, then every assertion by the state must be presumed true without investigation. The more leaks the better. The more some bit of information compromises "national security",  in the lexicon of some statesmen, the more I want it leaked. Utterly crippling the national security apparatus is a service to humanity.

So-called statesmen have been known to purposely leak information to see how the wind blows--aka "trial balloon." I think it's useful to view all such revelations with a jaundiced eye. These things usually serve power somehow, somewhere.

Governments and corporations manipulate information for strategic and tactical purposes. Hiding information contributes to the formation of conspiracy theories that serve the body politic as convenient red herrings. Classic misdirection.

This current expose should have occurred years ago. It almost doesn't matter if the documents are true or false--power has been given an upset stomach, poor babies.

"Them poor bosses need all the help they can get."

[Chachacha]

So, should all leaks be considered false and libelous if not immediately well-supported by facts?

No. If all leaks not immediately supported by facts are to be considered false, then every assertion by the state must be presumed true without investigation. The more leaks the better. The more some bit of information compromises "national security",  in the lexicon of some statesmen, the more I want it leaked. Utterly crippling the national security apparatus is a service to humanity.

So-called statesmen have been known to purposely leak information to see how the wind blows--aka "trial balloon." I think it's useful to view all such revelations with a jaundiced eye. These things usually serve power somehow, somewhere.

Governments and corporations manipulate information for strategic and tactical purposes. Hiding information contributes to the formation of conspiracy theories that serve the body politic as convenient red herrings. Classic misdirection.

This current expose should have occurred years ago. It almost doesn't matter if the documents are true or false--power has been given an upset stomach, poor babies.

"Them poor bosses need all the help they can get."

Might answer some of my questions about Ret. General McChrystal.

[Pyrrho]

That sort of thing goes back to when Truman et al. ordered MacArthur to bomb only part of a bridge.

Read through page 2

Insulting the Commander in Chief just isn't done. They tend to fire your ass.

[landrew]

That sort of thing goes back to when Truman et al. ordered MacArthur to bomb only part of a bridge.

Read through page 2

Insulting the Commander in Chief just isn't done. They tend to fire your ass.

Unless they get impeached first, like Richard Nixon.

[Brian Ganek]

Who cares about libel?

I care if it hurts our military, if it makes their jobs harder, if more are captured or killed.

If it hurts national security, then it kills marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen.

[landrew]

Who cares about libel?

I care if it hurts our military, if it makes their jobs harder, if more are captured or killed.

If it hurts national security, then it kills marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen.

I agree. It's a lot easier to get the job done when nobody knows about all the innocent non-combatants getting killed.

[Bunyip]

So, should all leaks be considered false and libelous if not immediately well-supported by facts?

No; argument from ignorance:*

Let us know your thoughts so that we all may bend to the true path of [i]Skeptology[/i

Is the true path of Skeptology the same as the true path to Scotland?


Is the information libelous under US law? I don't know,possibly.I would do as I do with anything I see on the net; look at the credibility of the source and ask cui bono?

The leaks would probably be libelous under Australian law as truth is not a defence in itself here. The person might also be in breach of any number of laws relating to national security,including The Treason Act.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\\
 *

An argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven.[1]
General form of the argument:
P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Pyrrho]

That sort of thing goes back to when Truman et al. ordered MacArthur to bomb only part of a bridge.

Read through page 2

Insulting the Commander in Chief just isn't done. They tend to fire your ass.

Unless they get impeached first, like Richard Nixon.

Nixon resigned before an impeachment trial could be held, so technically, he never was impeached.

Bill Clinton was impeached but was not convicted.

[landrew]

That sort of thing goes back to when Truman et al. ordered MacArthur to bomb only part of a bridge.

Read through page 2

Insulting the Commander in Chief just isn't done. They tend to fire your ass.

Unless they get impeached first, like Richard Nixon.

Nixon resigned before an impeachment trial could be held, so technically, he never was impeached.

Bill Clinton was impeached but was not convicted.

"You can't fire me, I quit."

[rrichar911]

Last time I looked, leaking top secret documents is illegal.  

What you wanna bet, no one is prosecuted.

[landrew]

Last time I looked, leaking top secret documents is illegal.  

What you wanna bet, no one is prosecuted.

That's why we need whistleblower legislation.

[Martin Brock]

Who cares about libel?

I care if it hurts our military, if it makes their jobs harder, if more are captured or killed.

If it hurts national security, then it kills marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen.

Leaks don't kill soldiers. Wars kills soldiers. By leaking the Pentagon Papers and hastening the end of the war in Vietnam, Ellsberg saved countless lives without killing anyone. Your state worshiping sentiment is Orwellian nonsense.

[Bunyip]

Leaks don't kill soldiers.

Really? I think that would  depend on what is leaked. The military everywhere depends on accurate intelligence to plan strategy and tactics.(translation; kill the enemy,win the war)) .As far as I'm aware every government  still expels,jails or executes spies..

[OlegTheBatty]

Leaks don't kill soldiers.

.As far as I'm aware every government  still expels,jails or executes spies..

Which doesn't prove that they are harmful. Paranoia operates at organization levels too.

However, I agree that knowledge of what our side is doing will make it easier for our enemy to counter our moves. Which can be deadly if there is a war going on, but merely a nuisance if there isn't.

[Martin Brock]

Really? I think that would  depend on what is leaked. The military everywhere depends on accurate intelligence to plan strategy and tactics.(translation; kill the enemy,win the war)) .As far as I'm aware every government  still expels,jails or executes spies..

No. It doesn't. Government agents, and people generally, routinely blame all sorts of other people for their own actions. It's child's play. When a state agent kills another state agent, the state agent does the killing, regardless of how he learned the identity of other state agent. If every CIA agent or informant appears in the phone book, the telephone company isn't therefore responsible for my killing of a CIA agent, just because I found his address in the phone book, and when some agent of the state drops a bomb on a wedding party, this agent of the state is responsible for all of the killings, no matter what he else he thought was going on at the party or who was attending it.

If you slap your wife, you do the slapping. Blaming her for mouthing off doesn't change this fact, even if she is mouthing off, even if her words are incredibly offensive, even if you tell her to stop the incredibly offensive words a dozen times before slapping her, even if she rants about some report on wikileaks and recites the name of some CIA agent in the process. You don't escape responsibility for your actions by childishly crying, "She started it, mommy!"

Outing every single military intelligence agent in Afghanistan is completely O.K. with me. You don't want to be outed as a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan? That's easy. Stop being a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan.

[OlegTheBatty]

Outing every single military intelligence agent in Afghanistan is completely O.K. with me. You don't want to be outed as a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan? That's easy. Stop being a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan.

"Chain of Command" and "everybody just do what you want" have compatibility issues.

[landrew]

Outing every single military intelligence agent in Afghanistan is completely O.K. with me. You don't want to be outed as a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan? That's easy. Stop being a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan.

"Chain of Command" and "everybody just do what you want" have compatibility issues.

That's why things went to Hell in the colonies in 1776.

[Brian Ganek]

Information is as valuable a military asset as equipment, personnel and training.  Stealing confidential information from the military is a crime, because that act harms our military personnel.  If you hate the military, it's easy to understand how you can justify the leaks.

[landrew]

Information is as valuable a military asset as equipment, personnel and training.  Stealing confidential information from the military is a crime, because that act harms our military personnel.  If you hate the military, it's easy to understand how you can justify the leaks.

Even if the Command is corrupt, committing and covering up their crimes?
(hypothetically)
Where would you draw the line? Nowhere?

[Brian Ganek]

All US military personnel are taught the laws of war, how to respond to illegal orders and how to report war crimes.  Annual refresher training is mandatory.

That said, obviously all officers and enlisted personnel have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and must report corruption to appropriate authority.  If the entire chain of command was corrupt (no known example in US military history,) then whistle blowing to the fourth estate would be justified.

[landrew]

All US military personnel are taught the laws of war, how to respond to illegal orders and how to report war crimes.  Annual refresher training is mandatory.

That said, obviously all officers and enlisted personnel have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and must report corruption to appropriate authority.  If the entire chain of command was corrupt (no known example in US military history,) then whistle blowing to the fourth estate would be justified.

Rosa Parks was taught to go to the back of the bus, but she chose not to defer to authority.  All it takes for evil to thrive is aquiescence by the rank and file.

[Brian Ganek]

Rosa Parks was a hero, and so was WO1 Hugh Thompson, Jr. who reported the My Lai massacre.  All it takes is one hero who is willing to stand up for right.

[landrew]

Rosa Parks was a hero, and so was WO1 Hugh Thompson, Jr. who reported the My Lai massacre.  All it takes is one hero who is willing to stand up for right.

Excuse me, but you seem to be saying it's alright to speak up against wrongdoing, unless you are ordered not to do so.

[Brian Ganek]

Landrew, you misunderstand.  You must speak against wrongdoing, and only if you are ordered not to, may you disregard the chain of command and address the public.

[landrew]

Landrew, you misunderstand.  You must speak against wrongdoing, and only if you are ordered not to, may you disregard the chain of command and address the public.

In the case of the American Revolution and in the case of Rosa Parks, laws were willfully broken under the assumption that such laws were unjust in themselves.  Leaking documents about military wrongdoing is clearly not that. It is a presentation of evidence which may indicate illegal activity of those who are in a position of power over those who are presenting it.  In case such wrongdoing is found to be in violation of the law, it should be dealt with separately from the  laws that were broken to bring forth the information.

[Pyrrho]

Someone needs to define "wrongdoing."

[Pyrrho]

Outing every single military intelligence agent in Afghanistan is completely O.K. with me. You don't want to be outed as a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan? That's easy. Stop being a military intelligence agent in Afghanistan.

Does that apply equally to all intelligence agents in Afghanistan, or only to those working for the Unites States of America?

[Martin Brock]

Does that apply equally to all intelligence agents in Afghanistan, or only to those working for the Unites States of America?

It applies to anyone with a gun. The U.S. of A. means nothing to me. It's a patch of dirt and a state no better than most. The Taliban also means nothing to me. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

[Martin Brock]

"Chain of Command" and "everybody just do what you want" have compatibility issues.

False choice. Occupying countries halfway around the world for dubious purposes at incredible cost is not the only conceivable alternative to everybody just doing what they want.

[jenthehero]

Is media fraudulent conveyance TREASON?

Show me where aspartame is ok to eat, where mercury fillings were ok even after the mad hatter days and knowledge of it decades if not centuries earlier.... Fluoride added to the drinking water to help teeth. Who approved this, and are there debates that prove this is nothing more than a grand deception.

GMO where is the debate??? 50-70 percent of the nutrients gone??? 'Skeptics' (here) tell us it is natural like selective breeding, the typical bait and switch debate used by the master magicians.

WIKI leaks is the facts that YOU are entitled to by laws created by a once more aware nation.

I have seen wikipiedia use manipulative editing more than once to use deception and hide FACTS.

Wikileaks is freedom of information. Sooooo many people know sites like this Popular Science or any main stream ball licking site are nothing more than b.s. a cover to pretend to have a scientific look at the world and how it is today.

Show me the facts, and INCLUDE the debate regarding conflicts of interest, deception, manipulation of data, bribes and pressure from political or criminal interests and you have a scientific debate free from fraud.

Otherwise any reader here that gets it imo this site is useless.

Ya I am pissed gfy

[OlegTheBatty]

"Chain of Command" and "everybody just do what you want" have compatibility issues.

False choice. Occupying countries halfway around the world for dubious purposes at incredible cost is not the only conceivable alternative to everybody just doing what they want.

Nonsense!
The rank-and-file don't have a choice. They follow orders. Or else.
If you had tried to make your point re informers, rather than MI, it might have had validity.
If you wish to make the point that going into Afghanistan, or staying there now, are non-optimal choices, then make it.