"Wikileaks Shares Documents About Alien Contact!" I wish. Now that would give us something more to talk about than diplomatic opinions of world leaders and documents showing that the reasons for war and actions during wartime are different than what we've heard on television and the internet. Not exactly mind-enhancing stuff, these leaks so far. Show me the truth about Area 51 however, and you'll really have my attention!
What is Wikileaks? Wikileaks is a whistleblower website, supposedly founded in 2006 by a group of political activists, entrepreneurs and journalists, which allows people to anonymously submit otherwise-unavailable documents, which are then checked for legitimacy, edited and published on the web. Being the intelligent person that I am, I had to look this up for myself under "Wikileaks for Dummies" by Duncan Geere.
I may not understand all of the technical mumbo jumbo about hosting sites, the legality of collecting funds for operation through third-party countries or how we can shut down all of the sites that Wikileaks is trying to utilize over the internet yet we cannot capture Osama bin Laden. What I do understand is that the potential indictment and prosecution of one of the aforementioned political activists and entrepreneurs, Julian Assange, will have far reaching implications for the future of the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Espionage Act, and possibly for your ability to enjoy your freedom of speech.
Assange has asserted that he has First Amendment rights as are afforded to journalists and news organizations in the United States. The First Amendment, for those that forget your US Civics lessons, guarantees freedom of speech at its core. The question is, if the US is going to try to indict and charge Assange on US soil, is he then afforded First Amendment rights like all people in the US are given under our Constitution? I don't know, but I'm sure attorneys on both sides would argue that point.
If he is charged and indicted, Assange would certainly state that hundreds of other news outlets had done the same thing that Wikileaks did - publish classified information that it had received from a source. Every major news outlet in the United States has done this, so what is the difference between the Washington Post and Wikileaks? Is Wikileaks a news outlet? Does it matter that the classified information was stolen and then given to Wikileaks? By the way, most of this information was stolen by a military person who downloaded all of these files from his computer while faking out security cameras by pretending to listen to music cd's at his workstation while the files were being copied to disc. I wonder how that security video played out - I just imagine some guy singing a Miley Cyrus song that he is pretending to listen to while all of these national secrets are being downloaded onto cd. I think they have better security measures at the junkyards in downtown Miami. If the US government does indeed successfully prosecute Assange, does every reporter who gets a "scoop" on some type of classified information face prosecution in the future if the story is published? I don't know.
The Espionage Act prohibits the willful communication, delivery or transmission to "any person not entitled to receive it" of "any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Whew! Courts have ruled that the defendant must have also acted in "bad faith" and requires some form of "specific intent" for a conviction. How do you prove that? I find myself thinking back to the imbedded reporters when the US soldiers were first entering Iraq and Afghanistan on foot. I remember thinking, "If I were the enemy of the US, I'd just watch CNN to find out what we were doing and what our strategy was." If we're truly worried about the safety of our soldiers, did it make sense to show the world where we were at and what we were doing in real time? If I were a soldier rushing into battle and I found out that CNN was showing my enemy where I was at and what I was doing, I may think that there was bad faith and specific intent, even if the US government wanted to show the world "shock and awe" firsthand. I'm not sure I would think about the shock and awe factor of live wartime TV if a bullet whizzed past my head. Will the US Government prosecute an imbedded reporter if his or her reporting leads to the death of US soldiers? They haven't yet - though if they are successful at prosecuting and convicting Assange, that may be next.
I do not agree with Julian Assange's reasons for releasing the information, as I do think he wants to harm the United States. My opinion is shared by about 50% of you out there. The data shows a 50/50 split between those that support what he did and those who think his actions were criminal. I understand government spin, and there is a big part of me that laughs when reading what we really think about the Russian President or North Korea's leader. I like the Enquirer, and I like reading about Italy's Prime Minister. However, I do feel that these documents could put Americans in harm’s way, and there are some documents that must stay classified if order is to be restored.
If I am working with a company to strategize about a reduction-in-force, and that information got to the workforce before implementation, chaos would ensue. Would the person who leaked this information to the workforce be prosecuted? Not likely, as there are very few documents that would endanger the United States (defense contractors notwithstanding). If I am a person who gets his hands on classified information showing all of the vulnerable sites that the United States deems critical for continuity, and I publish this information, I'm going to assume as an intelligent person that if I'm caught, I'm probably going to jail for espionage, conspiracy, treason or some other crime against the United States. From everything that I've read about Assange, he is obviously a brilliant man. Perhaps he thought being outside of the US would be enough protection for him and Wikileaks, and maybe it will be, unless he is prosecuted for his other sex-offense crimes. The point is, he knew exactly what he was doing, had intent, and probably acted in bad faith. The prediction here is that he will be prosecuted and convicted, and then news outlets and possibly all Americans will one day have to wonder if that conviction will lead to less freedom of speech for all of us. It might - heck, it probably will.
Can I just ask Wikileaks, and Julian Assange, one favor before he and all of his hactivists are sent to jail? Can you please release the truth about Area 51? As you are quick to say, I have the right to know the truth!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Setting Precedent a Vital Function of Leadership - So Why is Cam Newton Playing on Saturday?
Every good HR person knows the importance of setting a precedent and making sound business decisions based on that precedent. Sometimes a precedent must be changed, but in most cases, care must be taken to ensure the stable foundation of an established precedent.
So what is a precedent? A precedent is an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances, or a convention or custom arising from long practice. In legalese, a precedent is a judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases. My question is, who in their right mind made the precedent-setting decision of allowing Auburn quarterback Cam Newton to play in the SEC Championship on Saturday against the South Carolina Gamecocks?
I understand the argument for allowing him to play. The NCAA has determined that although Cam's father, Cecil Newton, admitted to working with an agency to try to solicit his son's quarterbacking services for up to $180,000, they could find no evidence that Cam knew anything about this rule-breaking activity. Their final decision was summarized as "Can't punish the player for an activity that he didn't know about." I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and Cam is innocent until evidence is established that he did know about the rule-breaking efforts and/or received money in any way, shape or form. My jaded mind finds it hard to believe that Cam didn't know anything about his father's activities, and there is a long way from "lack of evidence" to "innocent." In a couple of years, after Cam has been stripped of his Heisman Trophy and Auburn has been stripped of a National Championship (if they indeed go 14-0), people will probably look back at the decision of the NCAA and scratch their heads at the short-sightedness of this terrible decision.
The NCAA has now set a precedent that as long as the student-athlete knows "nothing" about the activities of those around him or her, that the athlete cannot be punished. Is it fair to punish the athlete for the actions of another? Perhaps a long-lost uncle trying to cash in on some sleazy back alley deal could be explained away. But how can allowing Cam Newton to play in the SEC Championship Game even though his father has admitted to trying to shop his services for money not be a precedent-setting decision? I am a WVU Mountaineer alumnus, and I love the football team to the core of my being. At 8-3 in a down year, I find it hard to believe that the NCAA, or West Virginia University at the least, would allow our quarterback, Geno Smith, to avoid a suspension or expulsion if the facts were to arise that his father solicited money from WVU for his services as quarterback, even if it were shown that Smith knew nothing about the activity. Why do I say this? I say this because this is the most sacred of NCAA rules - no pay for play - and the NCAA has just set a precedent with a GIANT, UNIVERSE-SIZED loophole. If I'm a coach, or a father, or a close cousin of a 5-star recruit looking to get paid, as long as I don't talk to the recruit about it, there is now no punishment for me asking colleges for money. Oh, wait, maybe I cannot attend practices. Whoop te doo. I'll skip practice while I'm spending my $180,000, and I'll hope that my athlete son or daughter turns professional and makes millions more because of his or her skill.
As an HR person, when we have to make a decision, one of the first questions that we ask is "What have we done in the past?" In other words, what precedent has been set in the past? If you make a decision contrary to the precedent that has been set, in many instances, you can find yourself looking at a discrimination or disparate treatment legal claim against you or the company that you work for. Don't believe me? Try firing one employee for stealing a screwdriver from your workplace, but letting another one off with a slap on the wrist for doing the same thing. Of course, prior performance, disciplinary procedures, etc. always come into play. But imagine treating two employees with the same employee records, in the same situation, so differently. Any HR person would squirm in his or her seat knowing what the possible, and probable, consequences of making this type of decision will be.
The NCAA has just opened the door for any athlete to be able to claim that he or she should be eligible to play, even if their parent, brother, sister, favorite uncle, high school coach or pastor acted as an agent trying to sell his or her services to the highest bidder. As long as the athlete wasn't recorded or videotaped, how is anyone going to be able to PROVE that an athlete had knowledge or not of the activities? Cecil Newton admitted what he did, which is why we know for a fact that it occurred. There were supposed phone calls that Cam made that seemed to show that he knew what his father was doing, but there was nothing recorded. Nothing recorded, nothing videotaped, nothing in writing, means nothing happened. Cam is innocent until proven guilty. His father has already admitted his guilt. What the NCAA should have done is force Cam Newton to sit out of the SEC Championship Game, and their subsequent Bowl game, as a precedent to every father, mother, friend or associate of big-time athletes who must be salivating at the decision that was made yesterday. Force the player to sit, even if the player didn't know about the activity, as a precedent to ensure that everyone knows the rules and what happens if you break them. Can you imagine the lesson that would be learned by every college athlete, and everyone on the Auburn team or rooting for them on Saturday, if their perfect season and chance at a National Championship were derailed because of the actions of their star quarterback's dad?
The NCAA had a chance to set a fundamentally strong precedent, and they absolutely blew it. Now, they will have to reap what they sow in the years ahead. Imagine the fallout the next time the NCAA tries to suspend or expel a student athlete faced with similar circumstances as the Newton family. I guess that's why they pay the lawyers of the NCAA big bucks. Good luck NCAA, you're going to need it.
So what is a precedent? A precedent is an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances, or a convention or custom arising from long practice. In legalese, a precedent is a judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases. My question is, who in their right mind made the precedent-setting decision of allowing Auburn quarterback Cam Newton to play in the SEC Championship on Saturday against the South Carolina Gamecocks?
I understand the argument for allowing him to play. The NCAA has determined that although Cam's father, Cecil Newton, admitted to working with an agency to try to solicit his son's quarterbacking services for up to $180,000, they could find no evidence that Cam knew anything about this rule-breaking activity. Their final decision was summarized as "Can't punish the player for an activity that he didn't know about." I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and Cam is innocent until evidence is established that he did know about the rule-breaking efforts and/or received money in any way, shape or form. My jaded mind finds it hard to believe that Cam didn't know anything about his father's activities, and there is a long way from "lack of evidence" to "innocent." In a couple of years, after Cam has been stripped of his Heisman Trophy and Auburn has been stripped of a National Championship (if they indeed go 14-0), people will probably look back at the decision of the NCAA and scratch their heads at the short-sightedness of this terrible decision.
The NCAA has now set a precedent that as long as the student-athlete knows "nothing" about the activities of those around him or her, that the athlete cannot be punished. Is it fair to punish the athlete for the actions of another? Perhaps a long-lost uncle trying to cash in on some sleazy back alley deal could be explained away. But how can allowing Cam Newton to play in the SEC Championship Game even though his father has admitted to trying to shop his services for money not be a precedent-setting decision? I am a WVU Mountaineer alumnus, and I love the football team to the core of my being. At 8-3 in a down year, I find it hard to believe that the NCAA, or West Virginia University at the least, would allow our quarterback, Geno Smith, to avoid a suspension or expulsion if the facts were to arise that his father solicited money from WVU for his services as quarterback, even if it were shown that Smith knew nothing about the activity. Why do I say this? I say this because this is the most sacred of NCAA rules - no pay for play - and the NCAA has just set a precedent with a GIANT, UNIVERSE-SIZED loophole. If I'm a coach, or a father, or a close cousin of a 5-star recruit looking to get paid, as long as I don't talk to the recruit about it, there is now no punishment for me asking colleges for money. Oh, wait, maybe I cannot attend practices. Whoop te doo. I'll skip practice while I'm spending my $180,000, and I'll hope that my athlete son or daughter turns professional and makes millions more because of his or her skill.
As an HR person, when we have to make a decision, one of the first questions that we ask is "What have we done in the past?" In other words, what precedent has been set in the past? If you make a decision contrary to the precedent that has been set, in many instances, you can find yourself looking at a discrimination or disparate treatment legal claim against you or the company that you work for. Don't believe me? Try firing one employee for stealing a screwdriver from your workplace, but letting another one off with a slap on the wrist for doing the same thing. Of course, prior performance, disciplinary procedures, etc. always come into play. But imagine treating two employees with the same employee records, in the same situation, so differently. Any HR person would squirm in his or her seat knowing what the possible, and probable, consequences of making this type of decision will be.
The NCAA has just opened the door for any athlete to be able to claim that he or she should be eligible to play, even if their parent, brother, sister, favorite uncle, high school coach or pastor acted as an agent trying to sell his or her services to the highest bidder. As long as the athlete wasn't recorded or videotaped, how is anyone going to be able to PROVE that an athlete had knowledge or not of the activities? Cecil Newton admitted what he did, which is why we know for a fact that it occurred. There were supposed phone calls that Cam made that seemed to show that he knew what his father was doing, but there was nothing recorded. Nothing recorded, nothing videotaped, nothing in writing, means nothing happened. Cam is innocent until proven guilty. His father has already admitted his guilt. What the NCAA should have done is force Cam Newton to sit out of the SEC Championship Game, and their subsequent Bowl game, as a precedent to every father, mother, friend or associate of big-time athletes who must be salivating at the decision that was made yesterday. Force the player to sit, even if the player didn't know about the activity, as a precedent to ensure that everyone knows the rules and what happens if you break them. Can you imagine the lesson that would be learned by every college athlete, and everyone on the Auburn team or rooting for them on Saturday, if their perfect season and chance at a National Championship were derailed because of the actions of their star quarterback's dad?
The NCAA had a chance to set a fundamentally strong precedent, and they absolutely blew it. Now, they will have to reap what they sow in the years ahead. Imagine the fallout the next time the NCAA tries to suspend or expel a student athlete faced with similar circumstances as the Newton family. I guess that's why they pay the lawyers of the NCAA big bucks. Good luck NCAA, you're going to need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)