Sarah Palin Wants Her WikiLeaked Secrets Just Like the Rest of Us!
On November 29, 2010 after Julian Assange posted some leaked sensitive documentation on WikiLeaks, Sarah Palin ripped him a new one – equating him to a terrorist and questioning why the US Government didn’t hunt him down like a dog.
Here is a quote taken directly from her Facebook page:
Assange is not a “journalist,†any more than the “editor†of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.†He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
Before I go on, let me say that I would also have posted the documents if they were given to me. And for one very good reason. Believe me when I tell you – if I can get my hands on them much, much worse people can too! So whatever the information is, it needs to be acted on immediately. But in fairness, I’d give those affected advance notice before posting it so they could take proactive steps to move people out of harms way.
Incidentally, this model works well in the realm of Cybersecurity. When ethical hackers discover holes in Microsoft or other system security they notify the company first and give them reasonable time to patch the problem before making it public. This ensures that companies have a chance to fix an issue before every amateur in the world is aware of the exploit, but keeps them honest by forcing them to actually fix it! Because it’s likely that some unethical criminals are already aware of the problem and taking advantage of it.
Anyway, getting back to the story at hand, after Sarah Palin essentially advocated using US Government resources to commit crimes in order to silence Assange, on December 21, 2010 she turned around and used information from the very documents she wants to hunt him down for as evidence in a USA Today column that she was allowed to publish:
We suspected this before, but now we know for sure because of leaked diplomatic cables. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia “frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program,” according to these communications.
What’s the point? Its quite simple. In the US we have a legal doctrine often referred to as “fruit from the poison tree“. It essentially prevents the government from using illegally obtained information to prosecute people. So since Palin is so interested in defending individual liberties I think she’s got to choose a side:
- Skewer Assange for leaking documents that were obtained illegally and make some sort of a moral stand for protecting them, then refuse to read them or use anything contained within for any reason whatsoever.
- Applaud Assange for enlightening the world with the documents he posted, and then go through them with a fine toothed comb and use the information contained within them in any way you see fit.
I just find it incredibly hypocritical for her to viscously attack him, and then turn around and use what he provided to help her further her own points in later arguments. Don’t you?
One email per post. Twenty years of this, still going. Unsubscribe whenever.
Note that (unless I missed something) it’s not clear Assange did something illegal, as by conspiring to get the secret documents. If they were dropped in his lap, it is more a first amendment issue. Whether his conduct is ethical is another matter. I think it depends on the content of the messages and the potential for undue harm (accordingly the NYT and WP took precautions), not whether the U.S. government deemed them “secret” for corrupt reasons. Compare the Pentagon Papers.
Well, sometime the lawyer types get their panties all up in a bunch, splitting hairs to the point of missing the point. John, I understand that you were making a philosophical statement. Anyone who’s first reaction is to dissect your article using legal doctrine is myopic. Big picture folks. Maybe if we had fewer lawyers in Congress, we could actually get the important things done in this country.
-Travis
The citing of the “Fruit from the Poison Tree legal doctrine” is a Strawman Argument because Sarah Palin is not a member of the US government and she didnt use the Iran quote in a court case. The attempt to hold Sarah Palin to this doctrine is a classic Strawman tactic. Regardless of how much these rationalizations are stretched out to claim that she should be answerable to that doctrine, she is still a private citizen.
In addition, there are currently no court cases prosecuting Assange for the leaks and there are certainly no court cases against the Saudi Arabian government in regards to their requests for a US attack on Iran.
Hatred is bipartisan. Many of the anti-Palin attacks that have occured in the last couple of years are good examples of how irrational hatred can lead to hysterical attacks…
Sarah Palin’s church has been firebombed, had her email account hacked while running for public office, she has suffered from maliciously false accusations of incest, had to cancel her credit cards and get new ones because of cyber attacks by Wikileaks supporters, was forced out of the governor’s office due to friviolious ethics investigations that she either won or were eventually dropped, etc…
It is very sad to see this hatred…
You aren’t getting it. I’ll break it down for you further…
I didn’t cite that legal doctrine because Palin is part of the government. I cited it because it is a philosophical principle, and it is one that we take seriously enough in the US to uphold throughout our entire judicial system.
Given the fact that Palin wants to be seen as a savior of American values, I would think that she would not want to act in a manner that is diametrically opposed to one of the most fundamental edicts of how Americans dispense justice.
But I forgot… she’s Sarah Palin. She has no problem skewering Assange publicly and calling for our Government to hunt him down like a dog, while also using the information that he provided to prop up her own arguments. And I’m getting the fact that you seem to think its OK too.
Some people seem to think we should hold our government and our legal processes to higher standards than we should its citizens. I disagree. I think the two should be equal.
And now I’m bored with this conversation, so moving on…
John P.
So many people are full of hatred, but they dont realize it.
Assange is worthy of condemnation (despite his naive idealism). Using his data does not in any way signify an endorsement of his techniques. Any more than someone opposed to nuclear power would be a hypocrite for turning on their lights.
Hatred leads to strawman arguments like John’s.
Well, I’m glad there are disagreements on this view then.
BTW, I’d like to point out that a “strawman argument” is one in which someone misrepresents facts. The facts that I presented above are not in question. They are well documented. She said what she said on both occasions. So, really all you are taking issue with is my interpretation, not the argument itself.
I think an extreme example of Palin’s hypocrisy in this case would be to apply the same logic to the medical experimentation that Hitler’s army did in WWII. They were doing inhuman stuff to people like putting human heads on dogs to see what would happen. Of course everyone condemned them like crazy! But did we then eagerly go through all of their medical notes to see what we could glean from the ill-gotten knowledge?
This type of position poses a serious moral and ethical dilemma. If important knowledge can be obtained through the implementation of illegal or otherwise distasteful means, is it worth doing?
People like Sarah Palin constantly reinforce the fact that it is worth it by rewarding the ill-gotten (if she indeed believes it is ill-gotten) information by using it. She teaches me that if I can somehow steal secrets and get them published anonymously – illegal or not – she’ll use them to the fullest!
In this instance she is leading by hypocritical example. Great job!
So, to sum up, I’ve got no problem with her combing through the documents and using whatever ammunition she can dig up to support her own arguments. Have at it! Just don’t turn around and tell me, “I can’t believe what an a-hole the guy who gave me all of this information was. He never should have done that…”
John P.
I would probably publish anything that would hurt BHO’s administration unless I thought a single military person could be harmed in any way. I draw the line there.
I would like to change the title of the post to: “Sarah Palin: Just lock her in a cage and feed her with a stick, trust me it’s better for everyone that way.”
It’s par for the course for her — she’d have broader respect if she ate her own dog food, but she has been duplicitous several times all to her benefit.
From the sounds of it, the “Fruit from the Poisoned Tree” metaphor doesn’t apply to what Assange did. It is applied to evidence, which is collected by authorities in order to support a prosecution — Assange collected the information himself, not the police.