There is a difference in that the various news outlets have been doing. They did not publish the information themselves. What they're doing is just reporting on the news, so they're no more guilty of espionage than an average citizen who read it.
The law doesn't say that reading classified information is a crime. Making it available is.
Find it mildly amusing that Assange is viewed as "the culprit" for this whole thing when he has employee's on the Wikileaks payroll that are likely the ones who actually posted the information to whatever server farm was storing Wikileaks information. Sort of the same deal as all the Enron exec's who screamed "we just work here"....only Assange appears to be willing to bear the full brunt of his actions. Whatever else I may feel about the guy, at least he has the balls to give the US government a big fat finger.
ChrisWWII wrote:There is a difference in that the various news outlets have been doing. They did not publish the information themselves. What they're doing is just reporting on the news, so they're no more guilty of espionage than an average citizen who read it.
The law doesn't say that reading classified information is a crime. Making it available is.
Frazzled wrote:Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.
On a charge of what? He's broken no laws. Embarrassing the US is not a crime.
The really disappointing part about this whole affair, if you ask me (and no one did) is how quickly the media has jumped whole hog onto all these extralegal remedies for the wikileaks problem. The United States being minorly embarrassed is not illegal, and not a problem. A document being leaked that we consider nuclear power plants to be sensitive sites is not a problem. The fact we know that the Afghani President's brother is more overtly gangster then politician then we allow in polite society is also not a problem.
The calls for the CIA to garrot him in a hotel room as a problem. The calls for him to be disappeared are a problem. The calls for him to be declared an enemy combatant and sent to a lawless gulag are a problem. The horrible mindset that our constitution, which we revere as a alleged nation of law as the best way to run a fair and free society... until we have a won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest moment - at which point we can sidestep it as a quaint relic of no import - that's a problem.
This.
Assange is a form of journalist, he got a juicy story, and 'printed' it. Unless you get a censorship order on him before he 'publishes' he gets away with it. Assange is in a way in a similar position to the guys who found out what Nixon was up to, admittedly they found out themselves, and didnt just run a website that copy/pasta stolen data. Bernstein and Woodward undoubtably damaged the US with what they uncovered, but that was ok.
The person they should be after is whoever gave him the material. That is your leak, that is your spy or 'traitor'. The US intelligence community should be embarassed, this is a LOT of info coming out, info that should have secured. After they found out who did it, they can get off their complacent butts and make sure the data is safely filed away next time.
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
That's the law he broke. He can be prosecuted for this in the same way that the US can want to extradite captured drug lords to the United States for prosecution, and we can charge captured terrorists and terrorist masterminds for their crimes. To me those trials serve as a legal prcedent for a prosecution of Julian Assange under the espionage act.
Edit: I agree with your Orlanth, he isn't the ONLY one guilty in this leak, and we need to find the person who performed the leak in the first place. However, he did violate the law as above. The diffference between this and the Watergate case is that in the Watergate case, this information was CLASSIFIED, and under the law quoted above is guilty and subject to the sentence. Provided, of course, he can be extradited to the US in the first place. The crime with Watergate was the President's involvement in the cover up for the break in to the Democratic National HQ, instead of the theft of classified information.
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
That's the law he broke. He can be prosecuted for this in the same way that the US can want to extradite captured drug lords to the United States for prosecution, and we can charge captured terrorists and terrorist masterminds for their crimes. To me those trials serve as a legal prcedent for a prosecution of Julian Assange under the espionage act.
Did he break it though? As far as I know he hasn't published anything like US military deployments or really, really important codes.
It doesn't matter that he didn't publish US military deplyments or codes. The law says that the publishing of ANY classified information is a violation of the law in question. Even so, the publishing of that US agreement to defend the Baltic states, along witht the plans as to how such a defence would take place could qualify as publishing military deployment.
If an American had gone about throwing out lists of things the Australian government considers vital to its interest and security, or publishing information that could lead to increased tensions between the Australia and a state she'd been trying to reduce tensions with, wouldn't you want them extradited to Australia to face their crimes?
ChrisWWII wrote:There is a difference in that the various news outlets have been doing. They did not publish the information themselves. What they're doing is just reporting on the news, so they're no more guilty of espionage than an average citizen who read it.
The law doesn't say that reading classified information is a crime. Making it available is.
Whoever gave Wikileaks the information published it.
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
ChrisWWII wrote:It doesn't matter that he didn't publish US military deplyments or codes. The law says that the publishing of ANY classified information is a violation of the law in question. Even so, the publishing of that US agreement to defend the Baltic states, along witht the plans as to how such a defence would take place could qualify as publishing military deployment.
No it doesn't. It says any classified information that could threaten the safety or interest of the United States. If there was a piece of classification that stated that Dick Cheney's left testicle was slightly larger than usual, I wouldn't get in trouble for publishing it. That's becuase public knowledge of Dick Cheney's left testicle does not threaten US safety or interests...at least I don't think it does.
ChrisWWII wrote:If an American had gone about throwing out lists of things the Australian government considers vital to its interest and security, or publishing information that could lead to increased tensions between the Australia and a state she'd been trying to reduce tensions with, wouldn't you want them extradited to Australia to face their crimes?
I think a lot of our politicians would have their mouths full sucking up to some of your lot.
Jokes aside, no (Not being an Aus citizen). And good fething luck to anyone that tried.
ChrisWWII wrote:If an American had gone about throwing out lists of things the Australian government considers vital to its interest and security, or publishing information that could lead to increased tensions between the Australia and a state she'd been trying to reduce tensions with, wouldn't you want them extradited to Australia to face their crimes?
wikileaks is releasing things about australia. our foreign minister/ ex PM has had some very aggro things to say about china.
Honestly id rather read about what my allied governments are up to now. than wait 40 years for FOI.
Freedom of Information Act.
We're finding out things from the 70s atm. Wikileaks is just advancing the process.
Otherwise id have to wait till 2040 to find out that Rudd is a control freak.
Freedom of Information I'm guessing. But yes, transparency is good. I'm all for transparency. I just think there is also a need, and right to secrecy.
Certain things need to be classified, and kept under wraps. A list of things that the US considers vital to its national interest, and would severely harm the US if attacked? THAT should be kepy under wraps. My bone of contention with WikiLeaks isn't that they're for transparency. My problem is that they're far too nonchalant about leaking information, and that as far as their concerned, no government has a right to any secrets, and they don't care who or what gets in their way.
I have a feeling that part of the reason they're so nonchalant is that they know they're not going to have to deal with the consequences of their activities, unlike the governments.
Edit: Is Rudd that Minister in Australia who was trying to put up a giant firewall around the entire country, and is basically Jack Thompson down under?
ChaosGalvatron wrote:Freedom of Information Act.
We're finding out things from the 70s atm. Wikileaks is just advancing the process.
Otherwise id have to wait till 2040 to find out that Rudd is a control freak.
Gotcha. Wait, you didn't know how much Rudd was trying to single handedly run things? I wonder if they've released his secret identity yet...
Has anything really important been revealed? i mean is the location of osama bin laden somewhere in the wikileaks database? A lot of the stuff so far is what we already knew. Putin is in charge of a gangster country, china gets really pissed off about taiwan, the UK has lost its testicles, Germany has recloned hitler.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Please dont put up the video of rudd picking his ear and eating the wax
At least for the US a few important things have gotten released:
1) A document in which US Embassies around the world reported back to the Pentagon with a list of sites that they consider vital to the security and well being of the United States.
2) A document in which the US pledged to defend the Baltic States as if they were part of NATO, complete with military plans for how such a defense would be accomplished.
ChrisWWII wrote:At least for the US a few important things have gotten released:
1) A document in which US Embassies around the world reported back to the Pentagon with a list of sites that they consider vital to the security and well being of the United States.
This one doesn't seem to be a problem, seeing as there is a lack of deployments and other vital information.
2) A document in which the US pledged to defend the Baltic States as if they were part of NATO, complete with military plans for how such a defense would be accomplished.
This one there is a definitely a problem, especially if the military plans bit is true. Of course, is there really threat of the Baltic states being invaded?
ChrisWWII wrote:At least for the US a few important things have gotten released:
1) A document in which US Embassies around the world reported back to the Pentagon with a list of sites that they consider vital to the security and well being of the United States.
2) A document in which the US pledged to defend the Baltic States as if they were part of NATO, complete with military plans for how such a defense would be accomplished.
THat's some of the actually important information that's been leaked.
gak. not a whole bunch of places people already knew about. and who could have imagined the US would pledge to defend the baltic states?
Really has wikileaks actually released anything new? can they tell us where area 51 is?
1) For me the problem is that this information could easily evolve into a threat....I mean most of the things could be just common sense, but it feels almost like a "HI! Here are the things to blow up if you want to hurt the US!" style list.
2) Well, no. But the Baltic States is Moscow's backyard, and the first thing you learn about Russian foreign policy is that Russia is one of the most claustrophobic countries on the planet. Knowing that the United States is going to be defending states so close to them? That could easily lead to increased tensions betwen the US and Russia.
Edit: Area 51 is located at 37°14′06″N 115°48′40″W. That information has always been available.
ChrisWWII wrote:1) For me the problem is that this information could easily evolve into a threat....I mean most of the things could be just common sense, but it feels almost like a "HI! Here are the things to blow up if you want to hurt the US!" style list.
How vital were these locations...wait, were these in America or overseas?
2) Well, no. But the Baltic States is Moscow's backyard, and the first thing you learn about Russian foreign policy is that Russia is one of the most claustrophobic countries on the planet. Knowing that the United States is going to be defending states so close to them? That could easily lead to increased tensions betwen the US and Russia.
I thought the US and Russia were positively cosy at the moment?
Edit: Area 51 is located at 37°14′06″N 115°48′40″W. That information has always been available.
ChrisWWII wrote:Read the law I quoted earlier. He is guilty of publishing classified information, and that makes him as much of a criminal as the man who stole the information in the first place.
That's debatable. Simply being a part of an organization that commits espionage does not also make that person guilty of espionage. No matter how deeply engaged your public persona may be with said organization.
ChrisWWII wrote:
And...given that he's got a whole website dedicated to spreading out leaked infromation?
He does? I know he created the website, I don't know if he actually owns it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:There is a difference in that the various news outlets have been doing. They did not publish the information themselves. What they're doing is just reporting on the news, so they're no more guilty of espionage than an average citizen who read it.
That's transmitting classified information to people that are not authorized to view it. By the letter of the law they have committed espionage.
EF: Well, they were all over the world. I'm not sure how vital they were, but the embassies were asked to furnish information regarding what they considered as installations and resources vital to US interests within their area of jurisdiction, so I'm guessing they're pretty important overall.
Dogma wrote:That's debatable. Simply being a part of an organization that commits espionage does not also make that person guilty of espionage. No matter how deeply engaged your public persona may be with said organization.
Iirc, Assage is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, and more importantly, according to statements from WikiLeaks has the final say as to whether or not a document is published. ( Source ) To me, this justifies him for an espionage charge.
He does? I know he created the website, I don't know if he actually owns it.
He did create it, and apparently remains deeply involved in its functinons. (See above source)
That's transmitting classified information to people that are not authorized to view it. By the letter of the law they have committed espionage.
I would contest that, in that they are not leaking the reports, but are instead merely reporting on the existence of the leak. There is a major difference between saying that 'such a such file' has been leaked, but not showing the file as with the DoD report on locations vital to US interests, and actually publishing the classified document itself for public consumption.
ChrisWWII wrote:If he's succesfully extradited to the United States like the US government wants him to, then he will be charged as such under US code, US citizen or not. The question is whether or not he'll be extradited for trial in the US, not whether or not he can be tried using US law.
Seriously, his leak was US diplomatic communiques...not global ones. Charging Julian Assange with a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 is not an international issue. It's a US issue, and we should prosecute him as such. In al honesty, the Swedes will be prosecuting him for rape in their justice system....why should the United States have to bend over backwards to prosecute him for espionage in an international system?
You forget he leaked a buttload of military secrets first that put our informants in harms way.
ChrisWWII wrote:
Iirc, Assage is the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, and more importantly, according to statements from WikiLeaks has the final say as to whether or not a document is published. ( Source ) To me, this justifies him for an espionage charge.
We don't know how WikiLeaks actually works. I know he's been called the "editor in chief" and the "director" but whether or not he actually is, or if he's simply the most public face that the media has thus nominated as the editor in chief is open to interpretation. He himself says he's on the advisory board.
ChrisWWII wrote:
He did create it, and apparently remains deeply involved in its functinons. (See above source)
Sure, but that's not proof of ownership or control.
ChrisWWII wrote:
I would contest that, in that they are not leaking the reports, but are instead merely reporting on the existence of the leak. There is a major difference between saying that 'such a such file' has been leaked, but not showing the file as with the DoD report on locations vital to US interests, and actually publishing the classified document itself for public consumption.
Sure, but that's where we get into whether or not linking to a website that holds classified information is tacit to transmitting classified information. Its a grey area as far I know, simply because the law and the internet are strange bedfellows at the moment.
You cant quote US law when trying to charge this guy, how do you think pirate bay escaped prosecution in the US for so long?
This happed in a foreign country on foreign servers this crime was not committed in the United States, to try him on this you would need evidence that a crime was committed inside of the US directly related to him (him specifically asking for those documents which as far as i know never happened).
The only other option is laws in countrys where the servers are held / wikileaks based or international law
Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.
dogma wrote:We don't know how WikiLeaks actually works. I know he's been called the "editor in chief" and the "director" but whether or not he actually is, or if he's simply the most public face that the media has thus nominated as the editor in chief is open to interpretation. He himself says he's on the advisory board.
The source cited above seems to implicate that every article released by WikiLeaks has his personal seal of approval. Whether or not he actually owns the server, WikiLeaks statements say that he still has a hand in determinging what is leaked. To me, that makes the situation worse. He's looked at all these documents, realized what they could mean, or who they could hurt, and released them anyway.
Sure, but that's where we get into whether or not linking to a website that holds classified information is tacit to transmitting classified information. Its a grey area as far I know, simply because the law and the internet are strange bedfellows at the moment.
I agree with you there, and it is a grey area...but that's what a trial is for.
Gibbsey wrote:You cant quote US law when trying to charge this guy, how do you think pirate bay escaped prosecution in the US for so long?
This happed in a foreign country on foreign servers this crime was not committed in the United States, to try him on this you would need evidence that a crime was committed inside of the US directly related to him (him specifically asking for those documents which as far as i know never happened).
Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things
It's true, but I never said Assange should be tried for treason. You're right, there's no way in hell he could be prosecuted for treason since he's not an American citizen. However, arguably he has comitted crimes against the United States with his publishization of these documents. In the past, the US had indeed extradited drug lords from South America and Latin America to the US to face trial, and the US has succesfully prosecuted terrorist masterminds for their plots against the United States.
Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?
Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?
Don't think they could, unless he'd been in the US at the time he'd aquired them. Now the US could express an interest in talking to him about how he got the files, but they would have to follow our laws.
Don't forget in the 70's & 80's we had a hell of a job getting known, active IRA terrorists back to the UK, even though they had actually committed terrorist acts on UK soil. In that light I would say that the US could take a running jump.
ChrisWWII wrote:
It's true, but I never said Assange should be tried for treason. You're right, there's no way in hell he could be prosecuted for treason since he's not an American citizen. However, arguably he has comitted crimes against the United States with his publishization of these documents. In the past, the US had indeed extradited drug lords from South America and Latin America to the US to face trial, and the US has succesfully prosecuted terrorist masterminds for their plots against the United States.
Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents. THink about it this way, if a Russian spy was caught in London carrying a briefcase full of American secret documents, woudl it be out of the questino to extradite the spy back to the United States to face charges of espionage? This, I think, is a fair analogy to Assage. He has acquired American classified information, and decided to make it public, as bad a crime as the spy attemtpting to send that information back to Moscow. If the spy can be extradited and tried for espionage, then whhy can't Assage?
South American Drug lords have commited crimes in the US and can be extradited, personally or not they are responsable for their subordinates actions and through those actions are in violation of US law on US soil. Assange has done none of this in the US so can only be charged under international law and im not sure how far journalist privilages go (personaly journalists should be responsible for what they publish and who it affects, an unbiased view wouldent hurt either).
Drug dealers in the Netherlands could only be extradited if they were responsable for crimes in the UK, this includes ordering a subordinate to do their dirty work for them
Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.
In order to be prosecuted under any country's law, you have to have broken that country's law. That's really all there is to it, there isn't a magic law fairy that puts location restrictions on laws. Most laws only apply within the country, but there is no general requirement that laws do, and there is plenty of precedent against your idea. Extradition is a separate issue from prosecution, they're two completely different concepts. Extradition requires the country that you're in to work with the country that you've allegedly broken a law in, and a country refusing to extradite you does not require them to say that you didn't break any law. For example, a number of european countries won't extradite a murderer to the US unless the US agrees to not seek the death penalty.
Treason is a specific crime that has citizenship as one of its requirements, bringing it up is really a red herring.
The 'on US soil' requirement is also pretty shaky in this case, since the information both came from and is being distributed to people on US soil.
Now, while this may seem like it leaves the door open to the kind of shenanigans you mentioned about the British government prosecuting drug dealers in the Netherlands, it doesn't really. Assange is committing crimes against the United States by publishing these documents.
You say 'crimes against the US' as if it holds some sort of legal definition. It doesn't. Either one is subject to US law, or one is not. There's no in between. If the accused is an American, or the supposed crime took place on US soil, then the US government has a say in the affair. If either of those criteria are not met, the US government has no jurisdiction. They can apply to extradite, but if the offence for which the Americans wish to prosecute is legal in the country involved, then it has virtually no chance of success, as the defendant can simply argue that they broke no laws of the country involved. It's hard to arrest someone when they've legally done nothing wrong.
Otherwise we'd be in the process of extraditing half the American populace for owning firearms, ne?
Ketara wrote:Chris, in order for me to commit treason against the US, or for me to be prosecuted under US law, I need to either be a US citizen, or in the US. Otherwise, what you are ultimately left saying, is that US law applies globally. To everyone, everywhere. It is the case that I could be extradited, but to be frank, when I'm not a US citizen, I've committed no crime on US soil, and what crime I have committed under US law is not illegal in the given country, it wouldn't happen. Otherwise the British government would be able to extradite and prosecute drug dealers in the Netherlands, and many other silly things.
In order to be prosecuted under any country's law, you have to have broken that country's law. That's really all there is to it, there isn't a magic law fairy that puts location restrictions on laws. Most laws only apply within the country, but there is no general requirement that laws do, and there is plenty of precedent against your idea. Extradition is a separate issue from prosecution, they're two completely different concepts. Extradition requires the country that you're in to work with the country that you've allegedly broken a law in, and a country refusing to extradite you does not require them to say that you didn't break any law. For example, a number of european countries won't extradite a murderer to the US unless the US agrees to not seek the death penalty.
Treason is a specific crime that has citizenship as one of its requirements, bringing it up is really a red herring.
The 'on US soil' requirement is also pretty shaky in this case, since the information both came from and is being distributed to people on US soil.
Saudi Arabia would like to extradite all our women then for not covering up properly? I dont think so.
You murder someone in africa you get charged in africa not the US. And beleive it or not that "magic law fairy" is the US government, laws they create are only valid for crimes comitted within the US
Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.
If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?
Past and planned attacks on US soil? Internationally recognized terror organization? many detainees captured in war zones or "police actions" as americans call them?
Plus there is really no doubt that the organizations they are part of have broken international law
Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.
If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?
Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them? When we did do something about it, ie Gibraltar, the poor buggers end up being dragged into court having to defend themselves. You lot get to kidnap "suspected" terrorists left right and centre and have a hissy fit when we dare question your right to do this.
Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?
So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.
Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?
So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.
i think you missed the point that the US seams to be a lot less controlled when it comes to these kinds of actions, just because the US regularly does illegal things does not make it justified
So now it's illegal to defend our country when we suspect an attack is coming?
Like Monster Rain said, it's not the US's fault that the British government didn't allow preemptive strikes on the IRA....they should have done so. No need to cry foul that we're doing something you didn't.
ChrisWWII wrote:So now it's illegal to defend our country when we suspect an attack is coming?
Like Monster Rain said, it's not the US's fault that the British government didn't allow preemptive strikes on the IRA....they should have done so. No need to cry foul that we're doing something you didn't.
So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.
Now excuse me while i step out of these pulpy remains that was once a dead horse
I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.
What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.
Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?
So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.
As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.
Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.
The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?
I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?
So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.
As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.
Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.
Generally when somebody starts a sentence with "So your saying..." i know they will talk absolute gak.
How did the bloke saying "They had to watch known terrorists cross the border"
become
"so your saying they should have CARPET BOMBED Irish towns"?!
Regards the rest.. i kinda agree with MR. The thing is.. its a difficult one. I think we should use more stick and less carrot with regards terrorism, im a right leaning military man.
But still.. we need to know where to draw the line. I can see both sides of the story, and i certainly dont want any country using a machine gun when a stick is all thats required.
Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.
The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?
I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?
So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.
As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.
Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.
Yeah but you buggers were one of the worse culprits for stopping us from getting justice when it came to the IRA. Can't imagine the FBI / Police would of been too happy if thSAS had popped across the Canadian border and slotted / kidnapped the scum.
Gibbsey wrote:So your suggesting we should have just carpet bombed Irish towns? Just because the UK is unwilling to violate laws like that, where the US is does not make the US right.
The US has a civilian carpet-bombing policy?
I thought we were talking about detaining suspect terrorists.
Im not sure i can even dignify that obnoxious image with a response, i was taking about the US violation of International Laws
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
Yes unwillingness to break International Law was what i was responding to, last time i checked carpet bombing towns where suspected terrorists live was a crime. Anyway What would have been the difference between that and invading a country to capture or kill suspected terrorists? Surprizingly terrorists normally do not want to be taken alive, so strolling on over and capturing them is out of the question.
Monster Rain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:Do you really want to go down that route? They don't and shouldn't of. Just because you had intel that someone in Pakistan was planning a strick against the US doesn't mean you can go kidnap them and bring them to US territory to torture them. The UK was never, ever allowed to do this with regard to the IRA, so why should the US be allowed to get away with it. How many times did British forces have to sit and watch known IRA terrorists move back and forward across the border without being able to slot them?
So was it right or wrong that the UK couldn't go after them?
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable.
As I remember it, the international community as a whole frowned upon this type of behaviour. Pretty sure it broke some international laws.
Who cares? They can frown all they want; the US needs to take steps to defend itself. I'd say the same thing for any country that has problems with terrorists.
The entire point before was America is not the "World Police" sure you can take steps to defend yourself but there is a limit, also "" is not a valid political position or response let alone a well reasoned argument
Gibbsey wrote:"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
It also relates to making a caricature of someone's argument to make it easy to strike down, like when you made arresting terrorists akin to carpet bombing Ireland which everyone would agree is crazy talk.
But since we're now arguing semantics I see that there's not much point in continuing talking to you.
Haven't read the whole thread but espionage is probably what I would charge him with. In Canada if you are caught spying you are subject to our laws, more specifically our military ones.
Leaked cables about what the US thinks of France's President is one thing. Leaked information that reveals strategic and vulnerable defenses as well as informants, partisans and so on makes you an enemy of the state.
Frankly I could care less if they arrested him for jay walking, he's put lives at risk and he himself dismisses that as collateral damage in the name of freedom of information. He wanted to take on the big boys now the big boys are tired of getting pecked at so they take him out with a left hook. No problem with that.
I really think he turned himself in because he's probably safer in custody. He announced he had stuff on Russia. And those guys don't put up with that kind of stuff for long...
Gibbsey wrote:"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
It also relates to making a caricature of someone's argument to make it easy to strike down, like when you made arresting terrorists akin to carpet bombing Ireland which everyone would agree is crazy talk.
But since we're now arguing semantics I see that there's not much point in continuing talking to you.
Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists? Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell unless you wanted SAS squads running about the place. (and yes carpet bombing was probebly a bad example, but what options are there? carpet bomb, missile/air strike, ground team all these options violate international law and result in civilian loss of life)
Also Unless Assange has been convicted of terrorism isnt this discussion kind of pointless to begin with, the entire point being unless you can show Assange has broked some International law or violated a US law (Under US juristriction) then you cant extradite him. And no i dont agree with what he is doing, he's going for damage rather than actual whistleblowing.
Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?
I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.
Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda
Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?
I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.
Im at a loss why you brought up Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Monster Rain wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda
You're misrepresenting again.
Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.
What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.
Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?
I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.
Im at a loss why you brought up Guantanamo Bay detainees.
You really shouldn't be if you read what I said.
Monster Rain wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda
You're misrepresenting again.
Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable
Considering that I wasn't the only person who drew that conclusion from your statements, I don't see how I misrepresented anything. I do see that you're gearing up for some more semantic discussion in this vein but I'm profoundly uninterested in that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.
What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
This is the important part of the code you quoted (I think its from the Espionage Act of 1917?) actually exonerates Assange. He did not specifically hand over any information to foreign governments and damn near every intelligence community including the CIA and MIwhateverfromEngland have stated that there is no way to determine if the leaks actually put any troops or agents in danger. Please stop listening to Glen Beck and the rest of the walking lunatic asylum.
If you want to argue that giving the US government a figurative black eye qualifies as "prejudicial to the interest of the US" then go right ahead but you need to be able to prove that in a court of law. Otherwise you are just another talking head on the internet.
The daftest part of this whole argument is that Britain, in all likelihood, HAS kidnapped, tortured and assassinated IRA members, mainly through Loyalist paramilitary proxies.
Gibbsey wrote:[Well i was making carpet bombing akin to america pursuing terrorism on foreign soil, plus where do you draw the line between carpet bombing an area where terrorists live and invading a country (even with a small squad) to capture terrorists?
I'm kind of at a loss as to why you brought carpet bombing up in the first place, TBH.
Im at a loss why you brought up Guantanamo Bay detainees.
You really shouldn't be if you read what I said.
Monster Rain wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:[Persuing some of these people would have meant crossing into Ireland and in some cases the US, so your entire point of "we managed to get our terrorists" is kind of "crazy talk" aswell yadda yadda yadda
You're misrepresenting again.
Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable
Considering that I wasn't the only person who drew that conclusion from your statements, I don't see how I misrepresented anything. I do see that you're gearing up for some more semantic discussion in this vein but I'm profoundly uninterested in that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.
What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.
killing 41 local residents, including 14 women, 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qaeda members.
I think that was a cluster bomb though but same point
You have a very different definition of "Carpet Bombing" than most people. It isn't remotely the same point.
Sorry but personally destroying a village through carpet bombing vs cluster bomb is semantic, end result village is bombed indiscriminatly.
Also Guantanamo Bay detainees? what has this got to do with Assange? Nevermind the fact that many people dispute the legality of Guantanamo Bay, and if America tried to hold Assange without trial there would be huge backlash about it. What exactly was the point comparing suspected terrorists to Assange? no terrorist charges have been charged against him, if your point is US juristiction not only i Guantanamo a military base they arnt even charging them with anything.
Monster Rain wrote:
To cry about the US doing it just because you couldn't doesn't really seem all that reasonable
The daftest part of this whole argument is that Britain, in all likelihood, HAS kidnapped, tortured and assassinated IRA members, mainly through Loyalist paramilitary proxies.
I don't claim in-depth knowledge on the subject.
I only say that Britain should have been kicking a fair amount of ass on the subject, and I would have had no problem at all with it.
Gibbsey wrote:
This happed in a foreign country on foreign servers this crime was not committed in the United States, to try him on this you would need evidence that a crime was committed inside of the US directly related to him (him specifically asking for those documents which as far as i know never happened).
The only other option is laws in countrys where the servers are held / wikileaks based or international law
Bingo! This is the summation of the point that some of us are trying to drive home.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
This is the important part of the code you quoted (I think its from the Espionage Act of 1917?) actually exonerates Assange. He did not specifically hand over any information to foreign governments and damn near every intelligence community including the CIA and MIwhateverfromEngland have stated that there is no way to determine if the leaks actually put any troops or agents in danger. Please stop listening to Glen Beck and the rest of the walking lunatic asylum.
Wow you misread that in a starling manner. On its face he met the either/both of that:
A) Predjudicial to the US...you Betcha!
B) for the benefit of any foreign government...you betcha. By publishing it openly all foreign governments now have it.
agroszkiewicz wrote:Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Wow you misread that in a starling manner. On its face he met the either/both of that:
A) Predjudicial to the US...you Betcha!
B) for the benefit of any foreign government...you betcha. By publishing it openly all foreign governments now have it.
.....Are you serious or trolling? Wikileaks put information into the public eye, not specifically given to ANY government or power bloc. As for prejudicial....that arguement went out the window when Wikileaks started releasing information on how the UK kowtowed to Libya in the instance of the Lockerbie Bomber release.
It seems like everyone thinks that Assange told some guy to steal state secrets and then personally took those documents and uploaded them to a US server. That HAS to be proven in a civilian court of law if you want to charge him in the US. Repeat, its not a crime to be an asshat.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm detecting a double standard.
If US laws don't apply to Asange, why should they apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees?
Oh no, logic has reared its ugly head!
If non-citizens want to enjoy our due process laws, that's fine. They can also enjoy getting their asses kicked for releasing government secrets to hostile foreign powers.
US Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, § 798 wrote: Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
This is in danger of falling apart as a valid charge if Assange was not in the US at the time and directing this. If for example I knew and was to post here Obama's schedule for the next three weeks, I would be publishing information of value to an asassin and definately detrimental to the security of the USA. However Obama's schedule is not a secret in the UK, so while the security services will be interested where I got the info from so long as it wasn't hacked or otherwise stolen there is no case to answer.
Assange is not a US citizen who is mostly resident outside the US, he has no obligation of loyalty to the US, or confidentiality regarding US data. The person who gave Wikileaks that info is the one who should be hunted.
I think there is reasonable grounds to fight extradition on the reasonable belief that assange will not get a fair hearing in the US, just like Gary McKinnon. The main difference is Gary McKinnon did steal from the US government, Assange did not.
It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.
If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.
Edit: Once again I have to point this out....
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, OR uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ORfor the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Note that it is OR that is used in the law, not and. Assange has knowingly and willfully published the classified information he acquired. It doesn't matter that he didn't do it for the benefit of any foreign government, as doing that is just one of many violations of the law that makes him guilty. The simple act of publishing it in the first place was a crime. The fact that he didn't do it to specifically hurt the US or to specifically help a foreign government is irrelevant. That law has 3 parts, and the violation of any one of those 3 is a violation of the whole thing. He doesn't have to do all 3 to be guilty.
Given that the vast majority of information in this release was from the US, I still think that the US has a valid claim to extradite Assange to the United States, if not for trial, then at least for questioning. I still believe he should be put on trial, and no doubt one major defense that will be used is the argument that he was not under US jurisdiction, and should not be charged under US law. I don't see the problem with sending him through the justice system, and following the due process of law in order to see if he will actually be sentenced. It's not like Assange will be lined up against a wall and shot the second he arrives within the United States. I simply believe he should be given a fair trial under due process of law.
ChrisWWII wrote:It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.
If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.
"While all weapons are dangerous, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets can remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict."
My point is with a cluster bomb (that was used in the cruise missile) has a wide area which is affected, seeing as one was dropped on a village wouldent you say that was indescriminate?
agroszkiewicz wrote:Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Wow you misread that in a starling manner. On its face he met the either/both of that:
A) Predjudicial to the US...you Betcha!
B) for the benefit of any foreign government...you betcha. By publishing it openly all foreign governments now have it.
.....Are you serious or trolling? Wikileaks put information into the public eye, not specifically given to ANY government or power bloc. As for prejudicial....that arguement went out the window when Wikileaks started releasing information on how the UK kowtowed to Libya in the instance of the Lockerbie Bomber release.
It seems like everyone thinks that Assange told some guy to steal state secrets and then personally took those documents and uploaded them to a US server. That HAS to be proven in a civilian court of law if you want to charge him in the US. Repeat, its not a crime to be an asshat.
1. We don't care what he leaked about other governments, thats utterly irrelevant to the US.
2. Putting it "in the public eye" would meet the definition yes. Unless, China, Russia, North Korea (which of course is best Korea) and the terror that is Leichtenstein suddenly lost the ability to use the intranets. It doesn't have to be specific.
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, OR uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ORfor the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Note that it is OR that is used in the law, not and. Assange has knowingly and willfully published the classified information he acquired. It doesn't matter that he didn't do it for the benefit of any foreign government, as doing that is just one of many violations of the law that makes him guilty.
At this point you are claiming 100% assurance of a legal matter that cannot be REALLY be determined outside of a courtroom. Armchair lawyering is great for internet fights, but unless you have passed the bar exam your comment is simply personal opinion based on your own interpretation of the wording of one clause in one act of our legal system.
You must prove that what he did was "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States".
Frazzled wrote:
1. We don't care what he leaked about other governments, thats utterly irrelevant to the US.
Probably the reason why its so easy to find alternate host sites no matter how often the CIA, sorry angry hackers, try to play whack-a-mole with the hosts.
ChrisWWII wrote:It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.
If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.
"While all weapons are dangerous, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets can remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict."
My point is with a cluster bomb (that was used in the cruise missile) has a wide area which is affected, seeing as one was dropped on a village wouldent you say that was indescriminate?
Wait you don't know the ing difference between a precision strike and carpet bombing?
Blowing up a building-precision strike.
Firebombing of Tokyo-carpet bombing.
Frazzled wrote:
1. We don't care what he leaked about other governments, thats utterly irrelevant to the US. 2. Putting it "in the public eye" would meet the definition yes. Unless, China, Russia, North Korea (which of course is best Korea) and the terror that is Leichtenstein suddenly lost the ability to use the intranets.
Have you educated yourself on the commentary from intelligence communities regarding the impact of Wikileaks? I really suggest you do that before making really really silly comments like this.
The bolded portion of your comment is yet another strike that makes me seriously question whether or not you are a troll. You're a smart guy, no possible way you could believe something this stupid.
No we don't. We just have to prove that he "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes...any classified information."
As I edited my post to mention. It is a 3 part law. He only has to violate one of those 3 parts to be guilty of violating the whole thing. Whether or not he violated 1/3, 2/3, or all 3 of the parts in that law, he is still guilty of breaking the whole thing. The semantics are clear. He does not have to publish the information with the intent of harming the United States or helping foreing government. He simply has to publish the information to break the law.
Thus, whether or not the release was prejudicial to the safety or interest of the US is irrelevant. All that matters is that he did.
It's not a crime to be an asshat, but under the law quoted it is a crime to publish classified information.
ChrisWWII wrote:It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.
If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.
"While all weapons are dangerous, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets can remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict."
My point is with a cluster bomb (that was used in the cruise missile) has a wide area which is affected, seeing as one was dropped on a village wouldent you say that was indescriminate?
Wait you don't know the ing difference between a precision strike and carpet bombing?
Blowing up a building-precision strike.
Firebombing of Tokyo-carpet bombing.
Summed it up pretty well.
I thought I was taking crazy pills for a minute, I thought I'd step back and watch for a spell.
Frazzled wrote:
1. We don't care what he leaked about other governments, thats utterly irrelevant to the US. 2. Putting it "in the public eye" would meet the definition yes. Unless, China, Russia, North Korea (which of course is best Korea) and the terror that is Leichtenstein suddenly lost the ability to use the intranets.
Have you educated yourself on the commentary from intelligence communities regarding the impact of Wikileaks? I really suggest you do that before making really really silly comments like this.
The bolded portion of your comment is yet another strike that makes me seriously question whether or not you are a troll. You're a smart guy, no possible way you could believe something this stupid.
ChrisWWII wrote:No we don't. We just have to prove that he "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes...any classified information."
As I edited my post to mention. It is a 3 part law. He only has to violate one of those 3 parts to be guilty of violating the whole thing. Whether or not he violated 1/3, 2/3, or all 3 of the parts in that law, he is still guilty of breaking the whole thing. The semantics are clear. He does not have to publish the information with the intent of harming the United States or helping foreing government. He simply has to publish the information to break the law.
Thus, whether or not the release was prejudicial to the safety or interest of the US is irrelevant. All that matters is that he did.
It's not a crime to be an asshat, but under the law quoted it is a crime to publish classified information.
That's right. It is a crime to publish classified American information.......in America. It would be treasonous if one was....an American. By all American laws, he broke them.
However, Assange does not fall under the jurisdiction of American law. They can apply to extradite him if they liked, but they haven't so far, and won't. Because any foreign court would throw an extradition plea out, and they know this. I, in England, cannot be arrested for breaking American law. If I found a briefcase tomorrow containing hidden classified details on Guantanamo Bay, and published them on the internet, I would not be guilty of breaking British law. American? Sure. But I'm under British jurisdiction, and unless you can find a way to incriminate me under British law, I cannot be arrested or extradited.
ChrisWWII wrote:It wasn't even bombing, it was a cruise missile strike. A cruise missile is a precision weapon...carpet bombing is something different entirerly.
If we sent a B-52 over loaded with 500 lbs bombs, and blew a whole city block to hell THAT is carpet bombing. A single cruise missile is nowhwere close to that.
"While all weapons are dangerous, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets can remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict."
My point is with a cluster bomb (that was used in the cruise missile) has a wide area which is affected, seeing as one was dropped on a village wouldent you say that was indescriminate?
Wait you don't know the ing difference between a precision strike and carpet bombing?
Blowing up a building-precision strike.
Firebombing of Tokyo-carpet bombing.
Summed it up pretty well.
I thought I was taking crazy pills for a minute, I thought I'd step back and watch for a spell.
carpet-bombing car'pet-bomb'ing n
To bomb in a systematic and extensive pattern, so as to devastate a large target area uniformly.
Ketara wrote:
That's right. It is a crime to publish classified American information.......in America. It would be treasonous if one was....an American. By all American laws, he broke them.
However, Assange does not fall under the jurisdiction of American law. They can apply to extradite him if they liked, but they haven't so far, and won't. Because any foreign court would throw an extradition plea out, and they know this. I, in England, cannot be arrested for breaking American law. If I found a briefcase tomorrow containing hidden classified details on Guantanamo Bay, and published them on the internet, I would not be guilty of breaking British law. American? Sure. But I'm under British jurisdiction, and unless you can find a way to incriminate me under British law, I cannot be arrested or extradited.
Unless you guys are going to provide some evidence as to how he is within US juristiction saying he broke an American law is kind of pointless
That's right. It is a crime to publish classified American information.......in America. It would be treasonous if one was....an American. By all American laws, he broke them.
However, Assange does not fall under the jurisdiction of American law. They can apply to extradite him if they liked, but they haven't so far, and won't. Because any foreign court would throw an extradition plea out, and they know this. I, in England, cannot be arrested for breaking American law. If I found a briefcase tomorrow containing hidden classified details on Guantanamo Bay, and published them on the internet, I would not be guilty of breaking British law. American? Sure. But I'm under British jurisdiction, and unless you can find a way to incriminate me under British law, I cannot be arrested or extradited.
I agree that this is the legal grey area we find ourselves in....there is no clear cut way. Arguably, you're right and there's now way he can be tried under US law. On the other hand, his publicication of American diplomatic classified information can arguably justify his extradition to the United States for a trial. Hell, I'd welcome it less because I want to see Assange tossed in prison (which I do, mind you) but also to help resolve this legal grey area, as well as for questioning to see if we can track down the source of this leak and shut it down.
Once again, I presnt my Russian spy analogy. If a Russian spy in say...Switzerland hacked the DoD and stole information from there, and was caught in Germany on his way back to present the information to his superiors, wouldn't an extradition to the United States for questioning and trial be considered justifiable? I would say yes, and I fail to see why Assange deserves any different treatment.
My apologies apparently blowing up a village is neither widespread damage or indiscriminate, of course 'merica never use none of them there carpet bombing tactics.
To suggest that America has not used carpet bombing tactics at or near front lines is kind of silly
Frazzled wrote:
1. We don't care what he leaked about other governments, thats utterly irrelevant to the US. 2. Putting it "in the public eye" would meet the definition yes. Unless, China, Russia, North Korea (which of course is best Korea) and the terror that is Leichtenstein suddenly lost the ability to use the intranets.
Have you educated yourself on the commentary from intelligence communities regarding the impact of Wikileaks? I really suggest you do that before making really really silly comments like this.
The bolded portion of your comment is yet another strike that makes me seriously question whether or not you are a troll. You're a smart guy, no possible way you could believe something this stupid.
Its utterly irrelevant for purposes of the law.
Cool, so by this statement you clearly support the use of due process in regards to Julian Assange?
Gibbsley: It's more that carpet bombing is a defined tactic that hasn't been used en masse since Vietnam. Even with cluster warheads, cruise missiles are a precision strike weapon. We blew up the BUILDING we suspected the target was in instead of the BLOCK.
That's right. It is a crime to publish classified American information.......in America. It would be treasonous if one was....an American. By all American laws, he broke them.
However, Assange does not fall under the jurisdiction of American law. They can apply to extradite him if they liked, but they haven't so far, and won't. Because any foreign court would throw an extradition plea out, and they know this. I, in England, cannot be arrested for breaking American law. If I found a briefcase tomorrow containing hidden classified details on Guantanamo Bay, and published them on the internet, I would not be guilty of breaking British law. American? Sure. But I'm under British jurisdiction, and unless you can find a way to incriminate me under British law, I cannot be arrested or extradited.
I agree that this is the legal grey area we find ourselves in....there is no clear cut way. Arguably, you're right and there's now way he can be tried under US law. On the other hand, his publicication of American diplomatic classified information can arguably justify his extradition to the United States for a trial. Hell, I'd welcome it less because I want to see Assange tossed in prison (which I do, mind you) but also to help resolve this legal grey area, as well as for questioning to see if we can track down the source of this leak and shut it down.
Once again, I presnt my Russian spy analogy. If a Russian spy in say...Switzerland hacked the DoD and stole information from there, and was caught in Germany on his way back to present the information to his superiors, wouldn't an extradition to the United States for questioning and trial be considered justifiable? I would say yes, and I fail to see why Assange deserves any different treatment.
Because Assange did not hack the DoD...... nor did he commit any crime in american juristiction, hacking the DoD happens to be within American jurisdiction to prosecute
Gibbsey wrote:
To suggest that America has not used carpet bombing tactics at or near front lines is kind of silly
I have no issue with soldiers utterly crushing any and all resistance by whatever means necessary in an officially declared state of war. The problem arises from America's unwillingness to actually commit to wartime.
The Russian spy gets an email from a source within the US who has hacked the DoD, and is caught on his way back to Russia. I still say the spy should be extradited to the United States for both questioning and trial.
ChrisWWII wrote:Gibbsley: It's more that carpet bombing is a defined tactic that hasn't been used en masse since Vietnam. Even with cluster warheads, cruise missiles are a precision strike weapon. We blew up the BUILDING we suspected the target was in instead of the BLOCK.
You have to look at things in perspective.
Im sorry since when was a single building mentioned? this was an attack over an Area not a single building
Gibbsey wrote:My apologies apparently blowing up a village is neither widespread damage or indiscriminate, of course 'merica never use none of them there carpet bombing tactics.
No one is saying that carpet bombing has never happened or never will happen. Don't make things up. Carpet bombing wasn't used in this instance.
Gibbsey wrote:To suggest that America has not used carpet bombing tactics at or near front lines is kind of silly
Again, no one has claimed we never have or never will. To your chagrin, our military aren't a bunch of psychotics and don't just bomb and blow up stuff for fun. They use carpet bombing when it is an appropriate tactic, which honestly isn't that often. We spent a huge amount of money on cruise missile and other smart weapon technology for a reason.
ChrisWWII wrote:
The Russian gets an email from a source within the US who has hacked the DoD, and is caught on his way back to Russia. I still say the should be extradited to the United States for both questioning and trial.
Here is your statement with the word "spy" removed.
Why on earth would you want to extradite someone for nothing more than receiving an email?
P.S. I removed the word "spy" because in the case of this thread the man in question is most certainly NOT a spy. Just an asshat journalist....and as I've stated before it is not a crime to be an asshat.
Frazzled wrote:
1. We don't care what he leaked about other governments, thats utterly irrelevant to the US. 2. Putting it "in the public eye" would meet the definition yes. Unless, China, Russia, North Korea (which of course is best Korea) and the terror that is Leichtenstein suddenly lost the ability to use the intranets.
Have you educated yourself on the commentary from intelligence communities regarding the impact of Wikileaks? I really suggest you do that before making really really silly comments like this.
The bolded portion of your comment is yet another strike that makes me seriously question whether or not you are a troll. You're a smart guy, no possible way you could believe something this stupid.
Its utterly irrelevant for purposes of the law.
Cool, so by this statement you clearly support the use of due process in regards to Julian Assange?
If by clearly support you mean 185 grain boat tail at 600 meters, then you got it.* (*If I can't have that then yes, full US due process once we get him here. I don't care how, just get him here.)
The Russian spy gets an email from a source within the US who has hacked the DoD, and is caught on his way back to Russia. I still say the spy should be extradited to the United States for both questioning and trial.
Depends did the spy ask the source to steal classified information? then yes, but Assange didnt do this.
Did the spy receive documents from someone who he had not asked to do this? nope never asked for documents and has no link to source
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:My apologies apparently blowing up a village is neither widespread damage or indiscriminate, of course 'merica never use none of them there carpet bombing tactics.
No one is saying that carpet bombing has never happened or never will happen. Don't make things up. Carpet bombing wasn't used in this instance.
Gibbsey wrote:To suggest that America has not used carpet bombing tactics at or near front lines is kind of silly
Again, no one has claimed we never have or never will. To your chagrin, our military aren't a bunch of psychotics and don't just bomb and blow up stuff for fun. They use carpet bombing when it is an appropriate tactic, which honestly isn't that often. We spent a huge amount of money on cruise missile and other smart weapon technology for a reason.
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm not saying that...and the US doesn't carpet bomb targets, and hasn't since Vietname. That's a strawman fallacy.
What I'm suggesting is that you should have been free to go in and take in/out a target when he or she was suspected of plotting a terrorist attack against your country.
And since when did i say the military were a bunch of psychotics?
The Russian spy gets an email from a source within the US who has hacked the DoD, and is caught on his way back to Russia. I still say the spy should be extradited to the United States for both questioning and trial.
If the Russian *fingerquote* spy gets an email, how has he committed an offence? If we're even going to be honest here, how is he a spy? If some random American Major General decided to forward top secret information to me, does that make me a spy?
Even if we were to assume that I was a Russia spy conducting espionage in Switzerland, and got caught on my way back via Germany, would Switzerland be able to extradite me? The answer is no, not if my espionage was only espionage under Swiss laws and not German.
There is no legal basis for extradition and punishment under US law for Assange as he does not fall within their jurisdiction, and his activities are not illegal in the countries in which he sites them. There's no 'grey area' here.
Frazzled wrote:
If by clearly support you mean 185 grain boat tail at 600 meters, then you got it.* (*If I can't have that then yes, full US due process once we get him here. I don't care how, just get him here.)
And I guess I do have to admit I have been convinced that Assange can't really be prosecuted for espionage within the United States. THinking about it, it is true that Assange can't be prosecuted since, as far as we know, he's never set foot on US soil, or solicited any kind of information whatsoever. However, if we can prove that he had been on US soil when he published any of these documents, or that he had actively sought out such information, he should be brought in for trial.
HOWEVER, I still stand by that he should be sent to the United States for questioning in an attempt to locate his sources. While I still can't stand Assange the person, I have to admit that I've spent my ammo and arguments for why he should be brought back for trial.
Well, I"m guessing he could be brought over as part of the investigation into the leaks to see if he knows anything. I'm not sure how the law works in that situation, but I do think that it is justifiable to have Assange sent to the US to see if he can tell them anything regareding where he got his information.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't know if you are trolling here or just ignoring any posts that contradict your own opinion.
They're essentially the same thing, no?
But, in any case, if he isn't trolling, Frazzled is wrong, as usual. The US hasn't issued a warrant for Assange's arrest, so he isn't wanted on suspicion of any crime here.
Kilkrazy wrote:On what legal basis could Assange be sent to the US for questioning? He isn't suspected of any crime there.
bs. Espionage.
It's been pointed out time and time again that one:
1) He's not under US jurisdiction unless he'd done so on US soil.
2) He's not even the guy you want if you're throwing that charge around.
I don't know if you are trolling here or just ignoring any posts that contradict your own opinion.
Jurisdiction can be established by many means. The offense itself may define the jurisdiction as global.
There are multiple countries that have laws that specifically state jurisdiction is worldwide.
ChrisWWII wrote:Well, I"m guessing he could be brought over as part of the investigation into the leaks to see if he knows anything. I'm not sure how the law works in that situation, but I do think that it is justifiable to have Assange sent to the US to see if he can tell them anything regareding where he got his information.
He would have to be summoned as a witness. He would probably refuse to go.
A sub-poena would be issued -- this is a kind of court order to compel a witness to appear. I am not sure if they can be used internationally. If they can, there would be a sort of extradition hearing at which he would claim (a) fear of persecution by the US authorities, and (b) the right to maintain confidentiality of his informants.
Although I am not a lawyer, I think an English court would be quite favourably inclined towards the second point.
It looks like he will be going to Sweden first, though. Their justice system is unimpeachable.
Yeah, but I would think that the US would have to have a suspect already under trial in order to issue a subpoena for Assange....it crossed my mind that the US could do that, but I figured that without a suspect and a trial we couldn't really do that. Of course, I could be wrong.
He will be extradited to Sweden first.....depending on what happens there, I think the US can make a good case that this kind of leak is a threat to their national security, and discovering the source of the leak would override Assange's right to confidentiality of informants. Of course, it would all come down to the extradition hearing....and who knows what way that will go?
And I have a feeling that's what the trial would be over to be honest....In my opinion the fact that the US State Department has someone inside it that is willing to leak this volume of informatin is a major security breach that we'd want plugged as quickly as possible.
Even if the information that was released was inconsequential, the fact that the breach exists is, in my opinion, a large enough breach of national security and confidentiality that it justifies the interrogation of Assange in order to see if he can give us any information regarding the source of this leak.
"While none of the leaks actually has been anything affecting national security, their existence at all is justification for treating them as affecting national security."
I was thinking about things like the nuclear launch codes.
And that´s the type of "threatened lives" the US government is worried about, their careers and feth the Afgans.... They politicos keep saying "informants dead, collaborators threatened" but once the US starts cleaning house on this ruckus quite a few heads in the military, the DoD and God knows where else should roll. This mess has been long in the making with world governments collecting all type of info and then storing it in the more convenient and accessible place for outside sources.
Now Assange and his crew comes and publishes their dirty underwear and the politicos move is to close the door of the barn after the horses bolted and kill the messenger to avoid giving a hard answer on why the barn was open on the first place.
Assange is an ass, but he is neither a traitor nor a spy like certain media are dead set on proving.
Kilkrazy wrote:That is a sort of circular argument.
"While none of the leaks actually has been anything affecting national security, their existence at all is justification for treating them as affecting national security."
I was thinking about things like the nuclear launch codes.
Not necessarily. What I should have made cleares is that none of the DOCUMENTS leaked may have actually affected national security, the fact that there is a LEAK of this scale is a threat to national security. And it's not only things like nuclear launch codes that are bad enough to threaten national security.
...Hell those have been lost before. Carter left them in his dry cleaning, and Clinton flat out lost them.
Gibbsey wrote:Saudi Arabia would like to extradite all our women then for not covering up properly? I dont think so.
As far as I know Saudi Arabia has no law about what clothes women wear outside of their country. If they did, they could certainly prosecute someone for it if they so chose. The US wouldn't extradite someone to Saudi Arabia for that crime, and since the US props so much of Saudi Arabia up I doubt they would want to try something that would tick the Us off like that, though talking about 'would like' with a country can get kind of convoluted.
You murder someone in africa you get charged in africa not the US.
And if that murder is done in a way that is against American law, the US can also charge you with whatever US law you broke if it so chooses.
And beleive it or not that "magic law fairy" is the US government, laws they create are only valid for crimes comitted within the US
You're not in charge of the Us governement, the fact that you declare a limit on the US government does not mean that the government recognizes that limit. Can you cite a court case or constitutional provision that limits the US in this way? No, you've just made the limitation up.
We have a law here to discourage child sex tourism. Meaning if you go over seas and break that law you can be charged for it here in Canada even if it wasn't commited on canadian soil. Pretty sure though that it applies to our own citizens though.
At this point the US security services should stop trying to stop sites propogating the data.
For a start mirror sites have stolen nothing, they are republishing data in the public domain. You could argue IP law or copyright, but that involves commercial data not political.
At them moment anyone hosting the leaked info can claim public interest. after all the peo-le a governemnt has cause to guard against access to the data had it within hours. Foreign government and intelligence agencies all have their copy, I suspect most terror organisations etc have too, all within the first few hours.
The only reason to shut down the leaks now is to stop the people from reading the information. Keeping political data from the people as opposed to foreign government or enemies of the state is not the correct function of government censorship.
halonachos wrote:Also, don't forget the Monroe Doctrine, we own this hemisphere.
Crantor wrote:We have a law here to discourage child sex tourism. Meaning if you go over seas and break that law you can be charged for it here in Canada even if it wasn't commited on canadian soil. Pretty sure though that it applies to our own citizens though.
So before the law was passed Canada encouraged child sex tourism?
Gibbsey wrote:Saudi Arabia would like to extradite all our women then for not covering up properly? I dont think so.
As far as I know Saudi Arabia has no law about what clothes women wear outside of their country. If they did, they could certainly prosecute someone for it if they so chose. The US wouldn't extradite someone to Saudi Arabia for that crime, and since the US props so much of Saudi Arabia up I doubt they would want to try something that would tick the Us off like that, though talking about 'would like' with a country can get kind of convoluted.
*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
You murder someone in africa you get charged in africa not the US.
And if that murder is done in a way that is against American law, the US can also charge you with whatever US law you broke if it so chooses.
Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
And beleive it or not that "magic law fairy" is the US government, laws they create are only valid for crimes comitted within the US
You're not in charge of the Us governement, the fact that you declare a limit on the US government does not mean that the government recognizes that limit. Can you cite a court case or constitutional provision that limits the US in this way? No, you've just made the limitation up.
Please actually try and under stand im not saying this would not be a violation of US law if it was in US JURISDICTION
This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country
The rebellious part of me loves seeing Govts. with egg on their face. The smary sneaky bastards...
The normal part of me thinks, leaking classified american cables is unecessary except to highlight some injustice or wrong doing.. (the Australian Internet fliter list was cool IMO though)
The cynical part of me is unimpressed with what has been leaked, a bunch of embrassing diplomats musings and some data regarding defense that doesn't seem that reveloutionary..
The bored part of me is shocked out how boring these cables are to read. I could never be a spy.. These things are nothing like they show in Spooks.
And the tinfoil hat part of me thinks these leaks are approved by the US intelligence community, using them to introduce new lesgislation so they have more power over the internet. Because surely the CIA could sort out a bunch of journos..
Overall I am well unimpressed.. Assange needs to right some injustice not leak water cooler gossip about the international community.. Also highlight the interesting docs wikileaks theres too many to read.. give me some juicy cliff notes mang.
Crantor wrote:We have a law here to discourage child sex tourism. Meaning if you go over seas and break that law you can be charged for it here in Canada even if it wasn't committed on Canadian soil. Pretty sure though that it applies to our own citizens though.
You just answered your own comment. It applies on Canadian citizens so the law can be read on a way that says Canada has always jurisdiction on them. (don´t know if that is part of international law treaties or not but a few countries have similar laws)
But again, Mr Assange is not a US citizen and his supposed crime was not committed within US jurisdiction, so if we believe certain media this is starting to look like a bunch of pissed off bureaucrats and conservative journalists trying to get even after being humiliated for not doing their jobs right.
"You don't have to be at your computer. All you've got to do is send Anonymous an e-mail that says, 'I consent to you using my computer, do whatever you like,' " and the people with Anonymous link to your computer, connect it with others who've consented, and use the collective force (among the machines) to launch these attacks," Gregg Housh, a 34-year-old internet activist based in Boston told CNN.
Smart, and if enough folks get on the bandwagon potentially pretty damn scary.
Headline of the day.
"4chan-based group ‘Anonymous’ targets PayPal to support WikiLeaks"
Ok so the guy accused of having his new wife murdered in South Africa is granted bail, whereas Julian Assange is put into remand. Just let me get this right in my head... the guy who could be banged up for 30 years plus in a South African jail is considered a safer bet than a guy who faces a trial in Sweden?
It does make sense. Bail isn't meant to be 'fair' or dependent on the severity of your crime. Bail is based on whether or not you'll try to abscond or flee if you're let go.
Assange was rightly judges as: a) having a high risk of fleeing, b) having no ties to make him want to stay in the UK, so he was denied bail.
If the South African accused murderer has some ties that make it much more likely for him to not want to try and flee the UK, then it makes perfect sense for him to be granted bail while Assange is not.
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
In the Uk there have been a number of cases in the past that involved UK citizens who have fled to their extended familie back in India / Pakistan, so my point is valid and very strong.
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
Been as Julian Assange handed himself in, maybe common sense isn't your strong point
Like there is such a thing as common sense. If either of you would read what was written just a few posts ago you would realize that turning one's self over doesn't really have much bearing on bail. I imagine the judges that made these determinations know the facts of the cases far better than you, the law better, and thus are in a better position to, you know, make judgments. There was a child rapist in the US that turned himself in and still ended up fleeing the country to France. Turning yourself over is not a guarantee that you won't bugger out.
Wolfstan wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
In the Uk there have been a number of cases in the past that involved UK citizens who have fled to their extended familie back in India / Pakistan, so my point is valid and very strong.
Your point would only be strong if only people with family in those countries fled every time. I'm willing to bet that people of different backgrounds, even some that only have family in the UK, have jumped bail before. If we use your reasoning we would just have to do away with bail altogether becuase people have skipped before.
Let's be honest though, neither you nor Loki Old Fart are really interested in the actual facts surrounding the cases or else you wouldn't be making these comparisons.
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
Been as Julian Assange handed himself in, maybe common sense isn't your strong point
Like there is such a thing as common sense. If either of you would read what was written just a few posts ago you would realize that turning one's self over doesn't really have much bearing on bail. I imagine the judges that made these determinations know the facts of the cases far better than you, the law better, and thus are in a better position to, you know, make judgments. There was a child rapist in the US that turned himself in and still ended up fleeing the country to France. Turning yourself over is not a guarantee that you won't bugger out.
Wolfstan wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
In the Uk there have been a number of cases in the past that involved UK citizens who have fled to their extended familie back in India / Pakistan, so my point is valid and very strong.
Your point would only be strong if only people with family in those countries fled every time. I'm willing to bet that people of different backgrounds, even some that only have family in the UK, have jumped bail before. If we use your reasoning we would just have to do away with bail altogether becuase people have skipped before.
Let's be honest though, neither you nor Loki Old Fart are really interested in the actual facts surrounding the cases or else you wouldn't be making these comparisons.
No, my point is that is has happened before. I have no idea how strong those ties are and how many generations of his family have lived in the UK, so it maybe possible he can flee or it may not. So it would be silly to rule it out.
Assange couldn't flee back to Oz and expect to stay free, the other guy could flee and finding him / getting him back would be a nightmare.
Wolfstan wrote:No, my point is that is has happened before.
Since the advent of the idea of bail, people have skipped out on it. The specifics of ethnicity aren't relevant.
Wolfstan wrote:Assange couldn't flee back to Oz and expect to stay free, the other guy could flee and finding him / getting him back would be a nightmare.
If Assange were to flee an international warrant, he isn't going back to Australia. Odds are that he also has a much greater resource pool to draw from in which to illegally get out of the UK.
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
It isn't as simple as that. There is clearly a huge political dimension in the Assange case.
I understand, however, that if extradited to Sweden, the US will not be able to try to have him extradited from there without British permission, also, that it will be harder to extradite him from Sweden to the USA than from the UK.
That said, there isn't any suggestion he has committed a crime for which to be extradited to the US, yet, and he will have to go to Sweden first anyway.
Wolfstan wrote:
No, my point is that is has happened before. I have no idea how strong those ties are and how many generations of his family have lived in the UK, so it maybe possible he can flee or it may not. So it would be silly to rule it out.
Those ties are not the only thing considered when they set bail.
Your financial resources, ability to obtain illegal identification/transportation, etc etc etc are too.
Assange couldn't flee back to Oz and expect to stay free, the other guy could flee and finding him / getting him back would be a nightmare.
And how would he leave the country?
In most murder cases, they put you on a no-fly list so you can't flee the country without having a huge pool of resources to draw upon.
Assange has those resources. It's likely your murderer in this instance doesn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
It isn't as simple as that. There is clearly a huge political dimension in the Assange case.
I understand, however, that if extradited to Sweden, the US will not be able to try to have him extradited from there without British permission, also, that it will be harder to extradite him from Sweden to the USA than from the UK.
That said, there isn't any suggestion he has committed a crime for which to be extradited to the US, yet, and he will have to go to Sweden first anyway.
Assange's lawyer is hollering at the media that "it's guaranteed his client will face espionage charges", so I'm guessing the US has begun the process of filing charges with Sweden and starting in on extradition.
If there's a real political dimension, we'll see the UK deny extradition stating that Sweden's case is "flawed" and him shipped off to the US instead.
Peter Wiggin wrote:Just saw this on CNN today. Anonymous taking Wikileaks side....not surprising, but I think that folks should actually take them sorta seriously.
"You don't have to be at your computer. All you've got to do is send Anonymous an e-mail that says, 'I consent to you using my computer, do whatever you like,' " and the people with Anonymous link to your computer, connect it with others who've consented, and use the collective force (among the machines) to launch these attacks," Gregg Housh, a 34-year-old internet activist based in Boston told CNN.
I dont like that. Anonymous as a movement is anti-Scientology. Individuals might use Anonymous-style methods but can hardly speak for Anonymous itself. No-one can. The only thing we can surmise is that as anonymous is anti-Scientiology and not specifically pro-Wikileaks then it stands to reason that some probably many Anonymous members are in fact opposed to what Assange and Wikileaks have done. As iAnonymous is seminally a US based movement most US citizens are getting both embarassed and nationalistically protective over this issue it is not unreasonable to suggest that a majority ogf Anonymous members are likely to be unhappy with Wikileaks right now one way or another.
To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?
Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
Gibbsey wrote:*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway
I answered what you wrote. The fact that it was a fairly incoherent mess that didn't really get to a point and confused extradition with prosecution is your fault, not mine.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)
"Good luck trying to get them" is completely irrelevant to whether or not they have comitted something that the US considers a prosecutable crime.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is asserted by most nations over their military and diplomatic personnel while abroad, and by some nations over subjects like piracy and offenses against the law of nations, such as "crimes against humanity" or genocide, or taxation of income of citizens obtained from foreign sources.
Internet cases raise several troublesome territorial jurisdiction problems. For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations, under what circumstances, the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the citizen for claims arising from the website comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For more, see Personal jurisdiction in internet cases.
Thanks for quoting a page clearly showing that the US does not believe that a crime must be committed on US soil for the US to prosecute it.
This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country
It is some made up limitation, your own source shows that the US does not follow the 'only on US soil' concept you're arguing. You also seem adamantly opposed to understanding the difference between prosecution and extradition, they're very seperate things. Extradition is about whether the country the person is currently in wishes to turn you over to the country that says you committed a crime, it's not relevant to the question of whether someone has committed a crime.
Peter Wiggin wrote:Just saw this on CNN today. Anonymous taking Wikileaks side....not surprising, but I think that folks should actually take them sorta seriously.
"You don't have to be at your computer. All you've got to do is send Anonymous an e-mail that says, 'I consent to you using my computer, do whatever you like,' " and the people with Anonymous link to your computer, connect it with others who've consented, and use the collective force (among the machines) to launch these attacks," Gregg Housh, a 34-year-old internet activist based in Boston told CNN.
I dont like that. Anonymous as a movement is anti-Scientology. Individuals might use Anonymous-style methods but can hardly speak for Anonymous itself. No-one can. The only thing we can surmise is that as anonymous is anti-Scientiology and not specifically pro-Wikileaks then it stands to reason that some probably many Anonymous members are in fact opposed to what Assange and Wikileaks have done. As iAnonymous is seminally a US based movement most US citizens are getting both embarassed and nationalistically protective over this issue it is not unreasonable to suggest that a majority ogf Anonymous members are likely to be unhappy with Wikileaks right now one way or another.
That is the problem with being Anonymous. Basically it is just a loose collection of anti-establishment feelings, clustered around Internet use. Anyone can claim membership and no-one can tell the difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?
Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
It doesn't. It gives Congress the power to act within the Law of Nations.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:To the 'it didn't happen on US soil' crowd in general, let me ask a simple question: If the President of the US was visiting another country, and a person in that country assassinated him and was subsequently captured by police in the US, that the US government would say 'welp, it didn't happen on US soil, we've got no charges to press, lets extradite him to the country where it happened and hope they prosecute him', or do you think they would try to prosecute him under the federal statutes that criminalize killing government officials?
Kilkrazy wrote:Constitution of the USA, Section 8, Powers of Congress.
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
Gibbsey wrote:*sigh* Congratulations!! no really!! not like you missed the entire point anyway
I answered what you wrote. The fact that it was a fairly incoherent mess that didn't really get to a point and confused extradition with prosecution is your fault, not mine.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:Aslong as a crime was commited within Americas Juristiction (say if they planned the murder within the US, but good luck trying to get them until after they have served time for murder in Africa)
"Good luck trying to get them" is completely irrelevant to whether or not they have comitted something that the US considers a prosecutable crime.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is asserted by most nations over their military and diplomatic personnel while abroad, and by some nations over subjects like piracy and offenses against the law of nations, such as "crimes against humanity" or genocide, or taxation of income of citizens obtained from foreign sources.
Internet cases raise several troublesome territorial jurisdiction problems. For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations, under what circumstances, the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the citizen for claims arising from the website comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. For more, see Personal jurisdiction in internet cases.
Thanks for quoting a page clearly showing that the US does not believe that a crime must be committed on US soil for the US to prosecute it.
This is not some made up limitation, if i say in my country its illegal to wear a bucket on your head on tuesday there is no possible way i could extradite you and charge you with that crime if you were in another country
It is some made up limitation, your own source shows that the US does not follow the 'only on US soil' concept you're arguing. You also seem adamantly opposed to understanding the difference between prosecution and extradition, they're very seperate things. Extradition is about whether the country the person is currently in wishes to turn you over to the country that says you committed a crime, it's not relevant to the question of whether someone has committed a crime.
Law of Nations does not mean what you think it means.
Also "Good luck trying to get them" READ THE NEXT PART i did not imply he wouldnt be charged, just that the US would have to wait until after he had served time before imprisoning him
"For example, a website may be viewed anywhere in the world, though it is hosted in Anguilla and operated by a California citizen. Courts must decide in which locations"
i was unaware wikileaks was hosted in the US or Assange was a US citizen
Also your Example about the president being killed in a foreign country is idiotic, please point out how this relates to Assange?
EDIT: Also i thought you could only extradite someone if you were going to prosecute someone or at least have proof that you can prosecute someone
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
What this means is the US Government is in a position to request that its rights are heard externally. Within US jurisdiction US law applies, outside US jurisdiction the US can request that US law applies. There are several ways by which the latter can be achieved, extradition is one, proxy trial is another etc.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
What this means is the US Government is in a position to request that its rights are heard externally. Within US jurisdiction US law applies, outside US jurisdiction the US can request that US law applies. There are several ways by which the latter can be achieved, extradition is one, proxy trial is another etc.
Yep although as a country you can really request anything, doesent mean its going to happen. There are only a few places outside of american territory where US laws can apply this includes US Embassies and Military bases.
Wolfstan wrote:So a man who looks like he may have an extended family in India or Pakistan is a safe bet?
Do you think it is as simple as that? If so, maybe legal commentary isn't your strong point.
It isn't as simple as that. There is clearly a huge political dimension in the Assange case.
I wasn't even talking about the political concerns of the case, which, as you have pointed out, are quite serious as well. No, I was just saying that the idea that someone should be given or revoked bail based solely on whether they have family outside the country is a bit naive and simplistic.
So Shrien Dewani has been given bail... £200,000, electronically tagged, curfew, no previous and his family are upstanding members of the community. However SA police want him but as we can't trust them... oh and they are supposed to have cctv footage backing up their claims
Julian Assange, locked up, no bail as he can't be trusted to flee, based on accusations that were originally dropped.
Yep, nothing going on here at all.
I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.
I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.
So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.
You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.
You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.
i have to agree with ahtman on this. While I find the case spurious and Assange's incarceration suspicious in the extreme the very man prides himself on his ability to disappear. Of itself refusing bail is not a questionable decision, its just a little too convenient an opportunity for people to persuade Assange that it is in his best long term interests to cough up the codes.
The United States' government is going to silence Julian Assange because he has documents that show that they were behind 9/11 as well as the details of the HAARP project.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
What this means is the US Government is in a position to request that its rights are heard externally. Within US jurisdiction US law applies, outside US jurisdiction the US can request that US law applies. There are several ways by which the latter can be achieved, extradition is one, proxy trial is another etc.
As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
The United States' government is going to silence Julian Assange because he has documents that show that they were behind 9/11 as well as the details of the HAARP project.
Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.
Now if you are talking about covert operations, you still aren't talking about the just the US. You seem to be, like Wikileaks, to narrowly focused on the United States. I would be more worried about multi-nationals when it comes to extralegal solutions to problems. Did you ever see Michael Clayton?
The United States' government is going to silence Julian Assange because he has documents that show that they were behind 9/11 as well as the details of the HAARP project.
Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.
The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then goto a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other
Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.
The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then go to a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other
Bzzt. Wrong.
Extradition is commonly used for that purpose, yes.
But there's also cases like the mentally ill British hacker who hacked into the Pentagon network looking for UFO files.
He was never in the US. He committed a crime against the US, however, and was extradited to face punishment there.
No, he's actually correct. Extradition is used only in cases where crime is committed in the nation whose laws are violated.
Thing is, crime location where internet offenses are considered is generally determined by the location of the servers from which data was taken or, in the case of fraud, the location of the person who was defrauded.
That's why the WikiLeaks thing is complicated. They don't have servers in the United States, and they aren't themselves responsible for removing the information from US servers.
They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."
I already explained it, and based on what you've written below you understood my explanation, but I'll restate my explanation anyway.
In order to be extradited to the US, per the majority of treaties, you must first commit a crime in the US. The location of information crime is almost always considered to be the place from which information was taken. Thus, if you take information from US servers by accessing the internet from another country, you have still committed a crime within US borders.
So, he was generally correct. He was only wrong about what would be considered the location of the crime.
Kanluwen wrote:
They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."
That's not incitement to theft. More to the point, it doesn't matter, because it isn't illegal to incite people to steal something. If you're thinking of something along the lines of accessory to espionage, then you still don't have a great case, as you would have to prove that WikiLeaks had specific knowledge of a specific crime to be committed; not just that they had general knowledge of general crimes to be committed, everyone has that knowledge.
Misprision would apply if WikiLeaks were based in the United States, but since they aren't, it has no bearing.
Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.
Now if you are talking about covert operations, you still aren't talking about the just the US. You seem to be, like Wikileaks, to narrowly focused on the United States. I would be more worried about multi-nationals when it comes to extralegal solutions to problems. Did you ever see Michael Clayton?
Extradition is one thing, the calls for him to be tried under US law just because we ask for it are the ludicrous things. If he's convicted legally through an unbiased international court system then all is well and feth him in the butt with a shiv.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Explain how he's correct, at all.
Because it looks pretty fething wrong to me.
They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."
idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.
Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.
Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.
Issues you have.
+ piccie
Nice reply, for some reason I found that genuinely funny.
Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.
Issues you have.
+ piccie
Nice reply, for some reason I found that genuinely funny.
Alright, even I laughed. Good Job Emperors Faithful.
Peter Wiggin wrote:As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.
The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then go to a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other
Bzzt. Wrong.
Extradition is commonly used for that purpose, yes.
But there's also cases like the mentally ill British hacker who hacked into the Pentagon network looking for UFO files.
He was never in the US. He committed a crime against the US, however, and was extradited to face punishment there.
TL;DR version
You're wrong, and stop talking.
Unauthorised computer access is a crime in the UK as well as the USA. It has been arranged by treaty that those kind of cross-border crimes can be subject to extradition. There is no automatic right of extradition. Extradition is a mutual arrangement between two countries, arranged by treaty. Without a treaty, there is no right for country A to pursue criminals in country B. This is why British criminals used to run off to Spain or Brazil.
That particular hacker has not yet been extradicted BTW.
Kanluwen wrote:
They didn't have to "remove the information from US servers". They encouraged the theft of said information, albeit without saying "STEAL THIS FOR US", simply by saying "If you submit information to us, it doesn't matter how it's obtained."
That's not incitement to theft. More to the point, it doesn't matter, because it isn't illegal to incite people to steal something. If you're thinking of something along the lines of accessory to espionage, then you still don't have a great case, as you would have to prove that WikiLeaks had specific knowledge of a specific crime to be committed; not just that they had general knowledge of general crimes to be committed, everyone has that knowledge.
Misprision would apply if WikiLeaks were based in the United States, but since they aren't, it has no bearing.
I didn't say it's incitement of theft.
It's the same situation as a pawn shop that knowingly buys stolen goods.
They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."
Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.
Issues you have.
+ piccie
Nice reply, for some reason I found that genuinely funny.
Alright, even I laughed. Good Job Emperors Faithful.
MAXIMUM SMUG LEVELS!
Good to see you didn't take it the wrong way.
Kanluwen wrote:They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."
Kanluwen wrote:They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."
Kanluwen wrote:
I didn't say it's incitement of theft.
It's the same situation as a pawn shop that knowingly buys stolen goods.
They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."
That's only the same thing is you assume a common jurisdiction, which in the WikiLeaks case cannot be done. In the pawn shop example you're assuming that the theft, and successive exchange, both occurred in the same country.
In this case the initial theft occurred in the US, but the successive exchange did not, not by necessity anyway. Therefore US law doesn't apply, unless the exchange is found to have occurred in the US.
Kanluwen wrote:They're not saying "Hey do this!". They're saying "Well, if you do this...we'll pretend it didn't happen and give you the rewards anyways."
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Thanks for pointing out a section of the constitution that explicitly gives congress the power to act outside of US soil, that seems to settle the question rather squarely.
What this means is the US Government is in a position to request that its rights are heard externally. Within US jurisdiction US law applies, outside US jurisdiction the US can request that US law applies. There are several ways by which the latter can be achieved, extradition is one, proxy trial is another etc.
As a citizen of the US I'd like to say that its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations. Even when we disagree strongly with those territories/nations. I find it really bizarre that someone from another country would accept it.
Almost every nation has some sort of arrangements with other nations and there is a name for these: extradition treaty. Not all are the same and somet don't have them with everyone but that is how governments work with each other when it comes to law enforcement. It isn't just the United States.
The point was "its ridiculous to assume that our government has a "right" to enforce its own laws inside other sovereign territories/nations", extradition treaties are for when you break a law inside of a country and then go to a different country, they do not apply when something that would be a crime in one country is committed in the other
The internet is blurring lines of nationality, a crime against one nation can be directly committed in another. This predates the internet actually where conspiracy is involved. A government can request extradition of a conspirator against itself even if the conspirator is not a citizen of that country and has never visited it.
Getting a foreign government to accept an extradition request is by no means a given, and many factors play out in addition to the justification of the extradition warrant.
Kanluwen wrote:
Bzzt. Wrong.
Extradition is commonly used for that purpose, yes.
But there's also cases like the mentally ill British hacker who hacked into the Pentagon network looking for UFO files.
He was never in the US. He committed a crime against the US, however, and was extradited to face punishment there.
TL;DR version
You're wrong, and stop talking.
You are talking about Gary Mckinnon, and he is in fact still here. The McKinnon case is a good example because there is no doubt Mckinnon committed the offences with which he is charged, he confessed as such, and the UK does have an extradition treaty with the US. However it is very unlikely McKinnon will be extradited, the reason is because Mckinnons main 'crime' was severely embarassing the DoD, not for hacking, and the charges against him have been blatantly exaggerated in order to throw the book at him. This plus the political factor that Brown was caving in to the US demands on pretty much anything, plus the factor than McKinnon is mentally ill, and the fact that he is harmless means that he is unlikely to see a US courtroom. I completely concur with the decision not to extradite him.
Part of the problem also lies with the fact that the extradition treaty with the US is rather one sided, and we have memories of how genuine terrorists were succoured by the US courts on spurious human rights grounds. Getting an IRA member extradited with a Boston jury involved is going to be very difficult at the best of times. If you wont send us murderers why should we send you hackers.
It didn't help that the current scare is a threat of up to 70 years imprisonment for McKinnon. This figure is due to the 'severity' of the crime, a severity that comes entirely from the legal requirement to minimise petty extradition cases, at least one single instance of damage must amount to $5000 or more to meet threshold for extradition. McKinnon didn't damage any computers, he just looked for UFO's and left rude messages, so the $5000 damages were inflated pseudo-costs, which then had to be multiplied by the number of computers effected (a rather large number) to stand up to logical scrutiny.
Compound this with the case of an Israeli hacker contemporary to McKinnon who Israel point blank refused to extradite. The US government immediately let the matter drop.
Thus the case became a hot potato, the Brown government wanted to extradite but found that it would be a PR and legal disaster to do so, even though McKinnon lost his own UK and EU appeals. The Con/Dems knew better than to even consider complying with US demands for extradition. The case will be left in legal limbo to rot.
The EU appeals also caused a stir. The EU Court of Human Rights courts refused McKinnons appeal request (yes technically the extradition can go ahead anytime the Home Secretary decides). The same week a particular vile Islamic cleric charged with inciting terrorist activities had an appeal against extradition to the US from the UK accepted by the same court. This pissed rather a lot of us off frankly, we dont want this fether as much as we do want to spare delicate and harmless McKinnon from 70 years in an orange jumpsuit.
Incidently the Wikileaks documents covers this issue, there was a secret meeting between Gordon Brown and the US ambassador in which Gordon Brown offered a trial and (potential) sentencing in the UK. a good example of how a proxy court works. Charging someone on sometone elses laws. I don't know if that would have been acceptable to Bush/Obama?, I dont care Brown was a jellyfish anyway, he should have told the US ambassador where to stick the warrant. This whole thing is a misdemeanor at worst grossly inflated to massage the egos of the DoD who frankly shouldn't leave their systems open to unskilled amateur hackers like McKinnon. Frankly he did them a favour.
Happygrunt wrote: idiot! There is a reason the US invented redacting tape! Why would you reveal secret US documents to the world. I hope the US gets a hold of him, drops him off at a black site, and goes to look at butterflies whilst the CIA "dose its thing". I am tired of things that threaten the safety of the US and her citizens being reviled to the world. Hope he never sees the light of day.
I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.
So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.
You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.
You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.
I would suggest you wind your neck in sunshine as I hope you're not suggesting I'm racist?
This gentleman is obviously of Indian or Pakistani descent and will probably have a large extended family back in that country, which to me, based on other cases we have had in the UK, makes for a possible escape route for him. Making that comment does not mean it has anything to do with his colour. We have had cases in the UK where the UK Police have had to hunt down suspects in Pakistan & Indian because they have murdered someone and fled back there. Honour killings are a real nightmare because in their culture it's a done thing so the family will protect them. In this case however the fact that he has been identified in the first place helps, but my original point stands about it being a possible risk.
When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.
With regard to the case against Assange, "On August 31, Stockholm police interviewed Mr Assange. The rape charge was later dropped but the case was taken over and the investigation reopened by Marianne Ny, the Director of Prosecutions in Sweden."
Which is why I'm suspicious of the whole. If there is a case he should be banged up that goes without saying.
When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.
You really couldn't be more wrong. Did you miss the whole thing In the news about how everyone who was traveling was being thoroughly searched regardless of their ethnicity? It was a pretty big deal.
It's a shame Assange gets so much press, stuff like Bacha Bazi is disgusting but no one notices because it gets buried underneath all the DDoS attacks and sex by surprise drama.
What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.
You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.
Orlanth wrote:You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.
What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.
You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.
If WikiLeaks came forward and decried the actions of what their "supporters" are doing, they'd get a much better public image.
If they released specific cables, documents, etc, with an in-depth look as to why those specific pieces are important to be made public knowledge...they'd get a much better public image.
As it is now, they're acting like a lot of conspiracy theorists do whenever new documents are made public. They point towards what's missing and say "See? This is proof! This is what they don't want you to know!".
That link made me laugh because i was shocked how many Afghans are aggressively homosexual.
We were told before we went literally hundred of different things you have to do to not offend the locals, (which hand to shake with, dont show the soles of your feet, refuse food or tea etc etc etc) and one of them was "oh and make sure you you dont walk around shirtless or naked or anything because the Afghans find it offensive"
The next day i was stood on the crummy pallet we set up as a make shift shower hidden behind the only proper building in the FOB, and halfway through it as i was bending over to give my feet a good scrub i heard a sliver of movement behind me, and turned to see a group of about 8 Afghan police who were chuckling, nudging each other, and basically doing their best to look at my lungs.
Several of them wore eyeliner and minced about in weird femine clothes, one of the blokes from the ANA was shagging one of the blokes from the ANP in a field (reported by the sentries!) and the local elder told me in a meeting (I was working as the Intelligence officer at our location and met the old pervert with the fetid breath once a week for a chat) "You are much more handsome than your predecessor" as put his hand on my knee.
Sadly i was under orders not to shoot any friendly civilians.
But anyway yeah, Afghans are raving. Which is bizarre considering the Taliban werent too keen on homos.
I've spent a bit of time in South America, and its essentially the same way in many of the countries there.
The official position is very hostile to homosexuality, the reality of the matter is that its rampant, and highly aggressive. Far more so than any of the European nations I've been to.
What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.
You have misread public opinion on Assange in many countries. In many places he already is a hero. The 'douchebag' is the person who leaked the information to wikileaks, not anyone at wikileaks.
If WikiLeaks came forward and decried the actions of what their "supporters" are doing, they'd get a much better public image.
If they released specific cables, documents, etc, with an in-depth look as to why those specific pieces are important to be made public knowledge...they'd get a much better public image.
As it is now, they're acting like a lot of conspiracy theorists do whenever new documents are made public. They point towards what's missing and say "See? This is proof! This is what they don't want you to know!".
You should look at their site.
It doesn't present things the way you think it does.
I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.
So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.
You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.
You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.
I would suggest you wind your neck in sunshine as I hope you're not suggesting I'm racist?
It's cute how you get upset at the mere possibility and then wildly over react and show prejudice as well as some pretty muddled thinking. I especially like the idea that becuase there are racists in one country you can't notice them in another. If it helps you, a good deal of our racism is a direct descendant of British attitudes at the time of colonization. I also wasn't implying it, I was pretty much straight out asking you if that was your problem. You seem obsessed with the gentleman's ethnicity when it really didn't make a difference in the slightest as to the determination of bail, yet you kept going back to it even after it had pointed out that it wasn't an issue. You didn't make 'a comment', you made multiple comments.
I wasn't merely, or at least not completely suggesting racism either. It could have been prejudice stemming from anti-immigration or who knows. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, ect ect. You could have just said "No, that wasn't what I meant at all", but instead I get a personal insult and an overreaction, which is somewhat telling I suppose.
Wolfstan wrote:When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.
While there are a lot of reasons why this is an incredibly stupid argument, I'm just going to offer one simple one: British National Party. Also, having talked with African ex-patriots I wouldn't get my nose up at other countries airport Customs until your are spotless either.
That link made me laugh because i was shocked how many Afghans are aggressively homosexual.
We were told before we went literally hundred of different things you have to do to not offend the locals, (which hand to shake with, dont show the soles of your feet, refuse food or tea etc etc etc) and one of them was "oh and make sure you you dont walk around shirtless or naked or anything because the Afghans find it offensive"
The next day i was stood on the crummy pallet we set up as a make shift shower hidden behind the only proper building in the FOB, and halfway through it as i was bending over to give my feet a good scrub i heard a sliver of movement behind me, and turned to see a group of about 8 Afghan police who were chuckling, nudging each other, and basically doing their best to look at my lungs.
Several of them wore eyeliner and minced about in weird femine clothes, one of the blokes from the ANA was shagging one of the blokes from the ANP in a field (reported by the sentries!) and the local elder told me in a meeting (I was working as the Intelligence officer at our location and met the old pervert with the fetid breath once a week for a chat) "You are much more handsome than your predecessor" as put his hand on my knee.
Sadly i was under orders not to shoot any friendly civilians.
But anyway yeah, Afghans are raving. Which is bizarre considering the Taliban werent too keen on homos.
Maybe they feel liberated eh?
Alright, even I chuckled at this one. Good story.
And this be strange, but I am agreeing with Kan in this one.
It doesn't present things the way you think it does.
I looked at it when the Apache video "leaked"(since it was already available if you knew where to look, and the investigation already made its findings public).
WikiLeaks presented themselves exactly like my feelings on the subject. So yes. I've looked at their site.
And as a sidenote?
That doesn't change the fact that WikiLeaks has a genuine chance to show that they're not just doing civil disobedience for civil disobedience's sake by decrying the BS that is being done in their name.
What bums me out is that if this guy Assange had been a little smarter about all this he'd be a hero instead of widely regarded as a douchebag.
+1 yet again. Hell, seems like its easier to read the thread and just cosign than it is to actually try and debate a point. Doesn't raise the blood pressure either.
Ahtman wrote:The words in the link did not prepare me for the horror of the actual story at all.
Sorry I was in a hurry this morning and couldn't find enough words to adequately describe my feelings regarding that leak. Hopefully this results in serious criminal charges
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Sure it is.
WikiLeaks accepts material without wanting to know how it's acquired. All they do is verify that the material is actually reliable.
It appears more like journalism. Or is only journalism when one of your guys decides it's important (cough Plame cough)
efarrer wrote:It appears more like journalism. Or is only journalism when one of your guys decides it's important (cough Plame cough)
I don't know, do you think it is journalism to just drop 250000 documents on someones doorstop, shrug, then walk away? The people digging through the documents that Wikileaks has posted are journalists, Wikileaks is more of a repository.
It doesn't present things the way you think it does.
I looked at it when the Apache video "leaked"(since it was already available if you knew where to look, and the investigation already made its findings public).
WikiLeaks presented themselves exactly like my feelings on the subject. So yes. I've looked at their site.
And as a sidenote?
That doesn't change the fact that WikiLeaks has a genuine chance to show that they're not just doing civil disobedience for civil disobedience's sake by decrying the BS that is being done in their name.
IIRC they already did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
efarrer wrote:It appears more like journalism. Or is only journalism when one of your guys decides it's important (cough Plame cough)
I don't know, do you think it is journalism to just drop 250000 documents on someones doorstop, shrug, then walk away? The people digging through the documents that Wikileaks has posted are journalists, Wikileaks is more of a repository.
You may be right.
It makes the information public... so I have to give it some points for at least allowing journalism to occur. To be fair they do verify documents before leaving the flaming bag of bad puppy poo on the doorstep. Although much was a little less then suprising...
Yeah, a lot of what they do is great, but they need to vet documents before releasing them. Theres a big difference between reporting on major and covered up crimes and revealing things like Operation Eagle Shield and threatening the nuclear drawdown of russia and its integration into a Eurasian security system.
By refusing to be careful about exactly what they release they help to point out a lot of little issues and destabilize the cause of world peace at the same time. Not to mention all the informants they are helping to kill by not redacting source names.
Yeah, a lot of what they do is great, but they need to vet documents before releasing them. Theres a big difference between reporting on major and covered up crimes and revealing things like Operation Eagle Shield and threatening the nuclear drawdown of russia and its integration into a Eurasian security system.
Shuma sums it up nicely. Although folks like myself would REALLY love full transparency there are some things that shouldn't be headline news.
Not personally familiar with Eagle Sheild, but I can certianly recognize the bad that can come of these things....even if I hate to say it.
Did anything interesting happen on page 12? I skipped that one.
What a read, though.
Fortunately, the thread now seems to be turning on the more pertinent wikileaks stuff (with the occasional/residual Burn Assange).
The most we've heard on the news here was how the US viewed one of our politician, and the rest focussed on the more "diplomaticaly" embarassing stuff.
I'm not against full freedom of press (by divulging delicate information), but I'd be delighted to know how my government is spending so much of our money, and if wrong, then to see the ones involved brought to justice.
...Ha, like that would ever happen here. Or apparently anywhere.
I don't think it's simplistic, it's looking at the evidence.
So your argument is that it is a conspiracy. Well bravo.
You sure it isn't more that a brown fella got bail and the white guy didn't? I mean, lots of people during that same time period got bail but you seem obsessed with the guy of Pakistani/Indian descent.
You call for looking at the evidence, perhaps you should take your own advice. i would stake an army box you haven't read the case files, just news reports, and probably just internet news reports. I'm also willing to bet you haven't read the judges written decisions on either case. Bail has to do with a) likelihood to skip bail and b) the resources to do so. The first guy didn't have them and the second (Assange) apparently did.
I would suggest you wind your neck in sunshine as I hope you're not suggesting I'm racist?
It's cute how you get upset at the mere possibility and then wildly over react and show prejudice as well as some pretty muddled thinking. I especially like the idea that becuase there are racists in one country you can't notice them in another. If it helps you, a good deal of our racism is a direct descendant of British attitudes at the time of colonization. I also wasn't implying it, I was pretty much straight out asking you if that was your problem. You seem obsessed with the gentleman's ethnicity when it really didn't make a difference in the slightest as to the determination of bail, yet you kept going back to it even after it had pointed out that it wasn't an issue. You didn't make 'a comment', you made multiple comments.
I wasn't merely, or at least not completely suggesting racism either. It could have been prejudice stemming from anti-immigration or who knows. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, ect ect. You could have just said "No, that wasn't what I meant at all", but instead I get a personal insult and an overreaction, which is somewhat telling I suppose.
Wolfstan wrote:When your immigration people stop targetting, as posisble bombers, middle eastern looking travelers or travelers with muslim sounding names you can take a moral high ground.
While there are a lot of reasons why this is an incredibly stupid argument, I'm just going to offer one simple one: British National Party. Also, having talked with African ex-patriots I wouldn't get my nose up at other countries airport Customs until your are spotless either.
Sorry, I forgot that being a US citizen you can stand on your high horse and tar the British with an "Empire" mentality when it comes to any comment that infers "race".
Pointing out that in my eyes, compared to Jukian Assange, that he has a possible bolt route due to his extended family in another country does not make me a racist or mean I have somekind of suppressed racist thinking. Using US immigration as an example was just that, an example. Ok in the last few years they have spread the net, but in the early years there were numerous reports of them targeting people who looked middle eastern or had muslim sounding names. By the way, just to make it nice and simple for you, that isn't a criticism, it's an example of profiling. The British security forces did it in the 70's with the Irish, in the 80's & 90's with black youths and now with Muslims.
As you are probably a clever lad and been to Uni, you probably know what "profiling" means. So with this in mind I will again go over my original comment. In the UK we have had cases where a person has been mudered and the culprit runs of back to India / Pakistan. We then have to hunt them down and then get them back here, which as mentioned, can be a bit of a nightmare. So on the surface, in my mind I feel that this person would be more of a bail risk than Julian Assange. If you wish to carry on thinking that I'm a racist, then fine that's down to you, my life moves on.
Again with the overreaction and the goofy idea that becuase America has it's fair share of ignorant fools somehow we should ignore the British ones.
And, let's be honest, no one tarred the British Empire; we are talking about just you so don't wrap yourself in the flag. You were the one that said things that might be questionable so you got questioned and then you jumped straight to country bashing, as if somehow that would shield you from criticism becuase you had the powerful insight that the US has some prejudiced folk living there.
You act like I should know you and just automatically assume you aren't some BNP, frothing at the mouth madder. It is not that you know he has family elsewhere (as a lot of people charged with crimes do) it is that you keep jumping to the immigrant well and it becomes suspect. Again, I don't know you so I have to ask why it seems that way. You can then either say yes, or point out that that wasn't how you meant to come off. You haven't really done either.
Your reasons for going back to the same position are still anemic and ignore legal precedent and it is this willful ignorance that also makes it seem like you have something personal against people of Pakistani/Indian descent.
You may not mean to come off that way, but you are being a bit suspect.
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.
In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter.
So basically she is part of a few anti-Castro groups that have U.S. funding. This means approximately nothing, unless you're Cuban and think that Castro was a good idea. Assange is a worthless twit. Whether or not the rape charges have any validity will be discussed in court, but all of the people jumping to defend him are grasping at straws.
Besides having already been posted, 'worked' with the CIA is still a bit of a stretch. It presumes a level of information and cooperation we don't know. There is nothing to say she actually knew that one of the Anti-Castro groups had some CIA influence. It is like finding out that a GW store you went to had an MI5 guy that played there and suddenly in the news you are tied to the intelligence community.
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.
In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter.
Well:
She just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.
And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.
There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.
What's more amusing is that Assange is reported to have ties to that same group. It's supposedly how the two met, and why Ardin was able to get Assange to speak at the event where the incident occurred.
Wolfun wrote:There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.
I don't believe this is a conspiracy to set up. Does that make me stupid all fo the sudden, or does it make you paranoid and grasping at straws to defend your vaunted Assange, who freely and openly admits that he doesn't care about whistleblowing anymore and just wants to do everything he can to damage the United States?
There is a difference between intelligence and paranoid delusion.
Wolfun wrote:There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.
I don't believe this is a conspiracy to set up. Does that make me stupid all fo the sudden, or does it make you paranoid and grasping at straws to defend your vaunted Assange, who freely and openly admits that he doesn't care about whistleblowing anymore and just wants to do everything he can to damage the United States?
There is a difference between intelligence and paranoid delusion.
Someone's feisty. Considering I've never used Wikileaks, nor could I care any less if the guy was assassinated or imprisoned. Does it make me paranoid to think he's being set up? No, because I go with logic and my gut. If someone is staging an open, one man war against the States, good for him. If he suddenly is arrested by 'raping' someone who has ties to the CIA, who admited that it was consensual, then goes to the police for a condom being removed... That strikes me as oddly peculiar.
But, by all means, have a hissy fit about what I think. If I thought you were stupid, I would have called you stupid. I just thought we were having a debate like adults. Didn't realize we were supposed to start throwing insults like children. <3
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.
In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter.
Well:
She just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.
And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.
There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.
There's so much fail in your post I don't know where to begin.
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs. How? Assange told them both "the condom split", and after being told to stop and put a new condom on--he kept going. That's entirely enough pretext for a rape charge, especially when the accused leaves the country in a hurry, refuses STD tests and then drops off the map.
2) Luis Posada Carriles hasn't been with the CIA for longer than you've likely been alive. He left(more like fled) the CIA after they began investigating him back in 1968. He moved to Venezuela, taking a crapload of CIA weapon caches with him. He became a naturalized citizen and even went on to head Venezuela's intelligence service before he committed the bombing that ticked them off so bad.
Oh, and if you want to talk about "the US harboring him"?
He's not being extradited because he likely faces torture in Venezuela and Cuba. We tried to deport him to 7 other countries that could have tried him because they had citizens killed during his attacks; but none want him.
If that's your idea of a "CIA connection", I want some of what you're smoking because that has to be some good gak.
3) Coincidences can in fact just be coincidences, despite what the man on the corner in the tin hat is telling you. And again: Assange is stated to have links to the "Ladies in White" group. He's supposed to have helped them distribute information that they obtained.
Kanluwen wrote:
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs.
Do you really not see any problem with this sentence?
@Wolfun: You essentially said that if people don't believe what you believe they are stupid and wonder why you got a feisty reaction.
For the record, you aren't using logic anywhere in here, just your gut. If you truly utilized logic, you would be presenting a different answer than than "two things happened so it must mean X".
I don't know what happened but I do know automatically assuming it is a government conspiracy is just as ridiculous as automatically assuming he id guilty.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's so much fail in your post I don't know where to begin.
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs. How? Assange told them both "the condom split", and after being told to stop and put a new condom on--he kept going. That's entirely enough pretext for a rape charge, especially when the accused leaves the country in a hurry, refuses STD tests and then drops off the map.
2) Luis Posada Carriles hasn't been with the CIA for longer than you've likely been alive. He left(more like fled) the CIA after they began investigating him back in 1968. He moved to Venezuela, taking a crapload of CIA weapon caches with him. He became a naturalized citizen and even went on to head Venezuela's intelligence service before he committed the bombing that ticked them off so bad.
Oh, and if you want to talk about "the US harboring him"?
He's not being extradited because he likely faces torture in Venezuela and Cuba. We tried to deport him to 7 other countries that could have tried him because they had citizens killed during his attacks; but none want him.
If that's your idea of a "CIA connection", I want some of what you're smoking because that has to be some good gak.
3) Coincidences can in fact just be coincidences, despite what the man on the corner in the tin hat is telling you. And again: Assange is stated to have links to the "Ladies in White" group. He's supposed to have helped them distribute information that they obtained.
Fail for what? An opinion? Then I reject your own opinion for being full of fail.
Lets face it, we're not going to reach an agreement. The fact that someone has ties to the CIA and is accusing someone who the American Government perceives (and has been trying to get done as being a terrorist) strikes me as being particularly odd.
But, from what happened with people like Richard Marcinko and Red Cell, it could be quite easily for them to say any gak they like about people like Luis Posada Carriles. Doesn't really mean anything.
As far as I'm concerned, it's obviously some kind of set up (and I don't care about the asshat Assange in the slightest), and if you want to think I'm stupid, it's no skin off of my pretty little nose. <3
God I'm so tired of that damn excuse for not thinking. You aren't being criticized for having an opinion but becuase your opinion is poorly thought out and silly. Try making an honest to god response and not falling back on crappy excuses such as "lolopinion". No gak it's your opinion. You aren't writing a fact sheet so it is going to have to be an opinion, isn't it?
Kanluwen wrote:
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman, who had no previous sexual contact between them, both got STDs.
Do you really not see any problem with this sentence?
I needed a comma and different wording?
But really. I see no problem if that is what really happened. If it was the CIA, they wouldn't be using STDs as a way to set him up. They'd have killed a hooker and left her in Assange's apartment then called the cops or something.
The other woman was a member, by the by, of an event that Ardin was running in Sweden that Assange was a guest speaker at.
I think it was about protecting confidential sources in the media.
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.
In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter.
Well:
She just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.
And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.
There are coincidences, then there is blatant set ups.
If people are stupid enough to believe that it's not a set up - no wonder the American Government can get away with it.
There's so much fail in your post I don't know where to begin.
1) I've stated this multiple times. She went to Swedish authorities because of herself and another woman who had no previous sexual contact between them got STDs. .
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.
I don't think they'd want to risk their agents getting an STD, which is often incurable, just to set someone up. At least not someone as relatively inconsequential (yes, I said it) as Julian Assange, who would be nothing without the people helping him.
God I'm so tired of that damn excuse for not thinking. You aren't being criticized for having an opinion but becuase your opinion is poorly thought out and silly. Try making an honest to god response and not falling back on crappy excuses such as "lolopinion". No gak it's your opinion. You aren't writing a fact sheet so it is going to have to be an opinion, isn't it?
It was an opinion? I was always brought up to believe, that if I think something that someone disagrees with, I was being a stubborn asshat. I mean, I had a difference of opinion to them.
The fact that I took an article and used it to portray my side of an argument, shows it as my opinion. As he said "My post was full of fail" that's pretty much saying that my opinion was full of fail. How was that an excuse, exactly... (And I'm pretty sure that if I put forth more points to my argument, it's not me 'not thinking'...)?
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.
You mean other than Assange outing the women, who previously were unnamed?
Other than the warrant that was issued?
Try reading something other than WikiLeaks sometime.
dogma wrote:Why not? Seems like a good idea to me.
Do you know how hard it would be to find an agent willing to be exposed to any STD that the spread of, knowingly or unknowingly through sexual contact, would actually be enough to get Assange jail time?
Wolfun wrote:The fact that I took an article and used it to portray my side of an argument, shows it as my opinion.
Which is precisely why you don't need to point out that it is your opinion. I'm not just talking about you though as it is a rampant problem.
Wolfun wrote:As he said "My post was full of fail" that's pretty much saying that my opinion was full of fail.
Actually what you failed at was reading. Your post wasn't criticized for being full of fail, that was aimed at a different one. My criticism isn't that it isn't possible that the CIA was involved, mine is that your level of certainty is unfounded. There is not enough information to create a steadfast position on the incident and to pretend otherwise is delusional or oblique.
Wolfun wrote:
Melissia wrote:Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that you should ACTIVELY INSULT EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU.
I have opinions, but if I insulted everyone who disagreed with me I'd be permabanned from this forum because that's quite a damn few people
I have to say, it was more of a swing at American's in general who are stereotyped as being stupid, than you. =P
So you admit you were being purposefully insulting to a great number of posters here. This thread isn't about insulting each others countries. No country here is without merit of fault so let's not start tossing stones or using stereotypes.
After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."
But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."
And then we have
After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.
Now, what exactly are these enemies and what can they do to put american lives to risk?
Sounds to me that so far Assange is only guilty of embarassing US diplomats, who where criticized by brazillian president Lula da Silva (I have no actual written quote for this) who said something along the lines that his diplomats didn't use their free time to mock politicians from other countries.
Assange's timely arrest (and Interpol's interest in him) for such charges, coupled with some ties to the CIA on behalf of one of the women, the refusal of bail, his unknown whereabouts, raises some eyebrows, I think everyone can agree on that.
Regarding the last few posts, http://bash.org/?23396 (some f-bombs in there, read at your own discretion).
Because the leaks listed names, professions, locations, etc of informants in Afghanistan, which are easily accessible by any terrorist with an internet connection, and therefor they know who exactly amongst the civilian population is working against them.
Melissia wrote:Because the leaks listed names, professions, locations, etc of informants in Afghanistan, which are easily accessible by any terrorist with an internet connection, and therefor they know who exactly amongst the civilian population is working against them.
This is true.
Also, we all know Assange is a dead man. It just depends on who gets to him first, probably China.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.
You mean other than Assange outing the women, who previously were unnamed?
Other than the warrant that was issued?
Try reading something other than WikiLeaks sometime.
None of those things gives evidence that the women have contracted STDs.
I took your advice and looked up a bunch of news reports about the case. There is nothing that says that the women contracted STDs.
Which news reports have you read, which say they did?
Melissia wrote:Because the leaks listed names, professions, locations, etc of informants in Afghanistan, which are easily accessible by any terrorist with an internet connection, and therefor they know who exactly amongst the civilian population is working against them.
The Afghanistan leak hasn't been connected to any killings in Afhganistan.
The Guardian describes the documents as "a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fueling the insurgency."
In addition to those two newspapers, WikiLeaks also weeks ago provided these materials to Der Spiegel, on the condition that all three wait until today to write about them. These outlets were presumably chosen by WikiLeaks with the intent to ensure maximum exposure among the American and Western European citizenries which continue to pay for this war and whose governments have been less than forthcoming about what is taking place [a CIA document prepared in March, 2010 -- and previously leaked by WikiLeaks -- plotted how to prevent public opinion in Western Europe from turning further against the war and thus forcing their Governments to withdraw; the CIA's conclusion: the most valuable asset in putting a pretty face on the war for Western Europeans is Barack Obama's popularity with those populations].
Note how obviously lame is the White House's prime tactic thus far for dismissing the importance of the leak: that the documents only go through December, 2009
I wouldn't like to see him dead, though. I can understand that many Americans dislike him for the bad image he gave to it's diplomats (and thus, smeared the face of the country) but people are seemingly unconcerned about things like the DynCorp scandal. I would say that it was the prime objective of the leaks. Also, and this is my opinion, the American diplomats (not the American people, mind you) had it coming (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6075584/wikileaks_and_hillary_clinton_espionage.html).
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you keep saying that? There hasn't been any evidence reported to indicate it.
You mean other than Assange outing the women, who previously were unnamed?
Other than the warrant that was issued?
Try reading something other than WikiLeaks sometime.
None of those things gives evidence that the women have contracted STDs.
I took your advice and looked up a bunch of news reports about the case. There is nothing that says that the women contracted STDs.
Which news reports have you read, which say they did?
BBC's report, CNN's, and MSNBC's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Destrado wrote:I can understand that many Americans dislike him for the bad image he gave to it's diplomats (and thus, smeared the face of the country) but people are seemingly unconcerned about things like the DynCorp scandal.
Probably because the DynCorp scandal is buried amidst all the crap that they leaked. How many cables was it that they leaked again?
WikiLeaks just dumped the crap. They didn't make any effort to weed out the chaff. They put it all there and said "Here you go, here's your proof your government is hiding things!".
Unfortunately, most of that proof is just the opinions that diplomats(which every nation effectively use as an "intelligence corps") have of the people they deal with on a regular basis.
I've read BBC's report. It doesn't say that. It's possible there is more than one report from the BBC, and I have read a different one to the one you read, which says different things.
I'm sorry, could you get specifics? I looked in BBC and I could find nothing about the STD. The only pieces I found spoke of both the women being afraid. And while the STD claim is serious, and he should be held responsible for that, the rape charges seem to be out of place. The chief prosecutor in charge (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341) found no reason to go for rape charges.
edit:Leaving it for the sake of consistency, but please ignore the "specifics" as I've read your most recent post. The rest of my post might be pertinent about his charges, however.
The arrest warrant is withdrawn. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne.
Ms Rosander says the investigation into the molestation charge will continue but it is not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
On September the 1st, however,
Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange. Ms Ny is also head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular.
One of the articles I've read also mentions one of the victims throwing Assange a party after they had sex. Hardly what you do when someone rapes you. The STD charges are somewhat odd, in that he could have had no prior knowledge (if he did have any medical information saying he had an STD, it would've been out in the public, I assume), so even if they have it, who is to say that he didn't get it from woman A and passed it to woman W? For this to happen, he doesn't have to be behind bars. Less credible sources and conspiracy theorists say that his public image must be tarnished so as to make people forget about him.
WikiLeaks just dumped the crap. They didn't make any effort to weed out the chaff. They put it all there and said "Here you go, here's your proof your government is hiding things!".
Unfortunately, most of that proof is just the opinions that diplomats(which every nation effectively use as an "intelligence corps") have of the people they deal with on a regular basis.
DNA and biometric data on foreign leaders were in the leaked in cable information published by WikiLeaks.
The United States collecting this information worries me. It wasn't just the diplomats' opinion. This is serious, and other countries deserve to know about this. This isn't playing nice.
So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?
I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.
We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.
Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.
If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.
halonachos wrote:So other countries have the right to know what MY country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?
Doesn't seem to me like you're taking an impartial position here, from the rest of your post.
That aside, how can you say that? My take on it is that they don't have the right to spy on allies, except with a very valid reason - i.e. the country has a record of going against the US. Even then, it's not a diplomat's job. They abused their priviliged positions to gather information. Not saying that doing it "the ninja way" would be excusable, but these people need to have some credibility and they do represent their country, so they should have been more careful. They come off as double-dealing, and this will likely strain relations with other countries' diplomats.
I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.
This isn't military personnel. They are civilians who are vouched by their governments as being trustworthy. They are received with open arms in other countries, and enjoy various benefits because of that. They abused their power, so other allied countries should be aware that they're being spied upon. It isn't a question of having the right or not, but your country's diplomats were doing just that.
Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.
It's neither here nor there regarding to what's being debated. This isn't a world war, this is a completely different scenario.
If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.
I somewhat agree, like the "Pentagon Papers". However, the leaks do question the validity of that war, what (and who) is in for the US and those involved after the war (and before it) - and exposes the fact that things are not like national media cover them, almost world-wide.
The United States has expanded the role of American diplomats in collecting intelligence overseas and at the United Nations, ordering State Department personnel to gather the credit card and frequent-flier numbers, work schedules and other personal information of foreign dignitaries, according to The New York Times, citing secret documents on Sunday.
While the State Department has long provided information about foreign officials’ duties to the Central Intelligence Agency to help build biographical profiles, the more intrusive personal information diplomats are now being asked to gather could be used by the National Security Agency for data mining and surveillance operations.
Ronald Neumann, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan, Algeria and Bahrain, said that Washington was constantly sending requests for voluminous information about foreign countries. But he said he was puzzled about why Foreign Service officers – who are not trained in clandestine collection methods – would be asked to gather information like credit card numbers.
“My concerns would be, first of all, whether the person could do this responsibly without getting us into trouble,” he said. “And, secondly, how much effort a person puts into this at the expense of his or her regular duties.”
Independent of what you claim (which can in no way be verified and I could dismiss a "conspiracy theory"), the fact is that it is a serious international problem for the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the legality of diplomats spying, for halonachos:
The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".
The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable".
So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?
I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.
My mind is fething blown.
You do realize that every country can(and incidentally does) "collect" DNA and biometric data, right?
It's not like people sterilize their trash before they throw it away.
I think you should review this post for wild, unsupported, non sensical and silly accusations Kan. I believe there might be a few in there.
In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security.
In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security.
So he asked the U.S. to corroborate and assist with the dissemination of it's own classified documents, then when they refused he concluded that the harm was somehow "fanciful" (this is the part about him being a douchey idiot) because he didn't want to have to have his organization actually do some work vetting the documents and acting like a professional journalistic organization?
This doesn't exactly help his case, logically the U.S. is going to refuse that request, as would any nation, he should of hired a few people from intelligence or law fields to assist with doing it anyway because it's a fething important thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, do you sterilize your trash when you throw it away?
No? Then there's a bunch of your DNA and biometric data floating around there. Ziploc bags with fingerprints, tissues you used to blow your nose, etc.
No, I was stating that the idea that the government is rustling through my trash to get my hair follicles is a ridiculous and idiotic one.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
ShumaGorath wrote:So he asked the U.S. to corroborate and assist with the dissemination of it's own classified documents, then when they refused he concluded that the harm was somehow "fanciful" (this is the part about him being a douchey idiot) because he didn't want to have to have his organization actually do some work vetting the documents and acting like a professional journalistic organization?
This doesn't exactly help his case, logically the U.S. is going to refuse that request, as would any nation, he should of hired a few people from intelligence or law fields to assist with doing it anyway because it's a f-thing important thing to do.
He gave them the opportunity to review and avoid embarrasments. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents. If I had a "bomb" like that, I would leave to people with better judgement on the matter to evaluate them and say what and which content should be censored.
And that sounds like a good attitude out of him, actually. That he is or might be a douche or whatever is beyond the point - the US Gov would know better than anyone what they could've avoided, better than Assange or his group, so they still are responsible. Having prior knowledge and not acting on it, given the change, is another failure.
If they didn't even care about the fact that said documents would be released unedited by them, it stands to reason that they weren't that bad. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents.
Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy.
Good thing then. If I was spinning conspiracy theories, I could say that the US Gov knew that Assange's publishing of the unedited articles would serve to villify him later on at the expense of a few embarrasing secrets that had no consequence on the American public's view of the war and it's expenses, whether monetary or humanitary.
It also stands alone as your idea and I certainly hope you don't draw an equivalence to something else to somehow "prove yourself right". Thats one of the logical fallacies. I would have to quote it... Oh god, I see it. It's coming.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
Why did you have to go and do that..
An inconsistent comparison is a misleading argument popular in advertising. For example, an advertisement might say "product X is less expensive than product A, has better quality than product B, and has more features than product C". This is designed to give the impression that product X is better than products A, B, and C in all respects, but doesn't actually make that claim. In fact, product A may be the most expensive, product B may be the lowest quality, and product C may have the fewest features of the three. So, the original statement really only means "product X is not the most expensive, lowest quality, fewest feature product on the market". That would hardly be as effective of an advertisement, however.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
Wouldn't it be far more likely to be for mediatic exposure, blackmail, and so on?
The fact is that they collected sensitive and private information, illegaly. So we're to trust they had the best intentions on it?
Tracking people down, knowing where they are going to travel to, etc, facilitates the creation of certain embarassing scenarios. Like the Assange case. Not saying this was the case (once again, conspiracies!), but it is a more plausible scenario.
He gave them the opportunity to review and avoid embarrasments. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents. If I had a "bomb" like that, I would leave to people with better judgement on the matter to evaluate them and say what and which content should be censored.
No government will assist in the dissemination of its own classified documents and an ambassador doesn't have the level of authority to make that decision regardless.
And that sounds like a good attitude out of him, actually. That he is or might be a douche or whatever is beyond the point - the US Gov would know better than anyone what they could've avoided, better than Assange or his group, so they still are responsible. Having prior knowledge and not acting on it, given the change, is another failure.
So the U.S. government is responsible for the unedited release of stolen documents by a foreign private company because it refused to both corroborate and asst in handing them out? Are you high?
If they didn't even care about the fact that said documents would be released unedited by them, it stands to reason that they weren't that bad. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents.
Somehow I don't think ONE fething U.S. DIPLOMAT HAS READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES. Also, that one official doesn't have the authority to accept or refuse such a request as they don't have the authority to release classified documents to foreign civilian nationals. I think under technicalities if he had accepted he would have been guilty of espionage. Use your brain please.
Good thing then. If I was spinning conspiracy theories, I could say that the US Gov knew that Assange's publishing of the unedited articles would serve to villify him later on at the expense of a few embarrasing secrets that had no consequence on the American public's view of the war and it's expenses, whether monetary or humanitary.
Whelp, thats already been proven untrue, so you might as well just throw the bs conspiracies out the window.
I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.
Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.
You can collect DNA information from hair half a century after it falls off the head with a good level of accuracy so long as it hasn't been exposed to a lot environmental degradants.
ShumaGorath wrote:
So the U.S. government is responsible for the unedited release of stolen documents by a foreign private company because it refused to both corroborate and asst in handing them out? Are you high?
I might be, for trying to have a civilized discussion here. The documents were going to be released regardless, BUT the US were given the opportunity to minimize it's damage. They were only responsible for creating the embarassing scenario in the first place.
Somehow I don't think ONE fething U.S. DIPLOMAT HAS READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES.
I DON'T THINK THE CONDITION WAS THAT ONE SINGLE FCKN U.S. DIPLOMAT HAD TO READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES..
Insulting me, using caps, trying to turn this into another flame war... if you're tired of discussing it, don't read it.
Also, that one official doesn't have the authority to accept or refuse such a request as they don't have the authority to release classified documents to foreign civilian nationals. I think under technicalities if he had accepted he would have been guilty of espionage. Use your brain please.
So it wasn't up to the official. Please, do read before insulting someone or embarassing yourself. I held you in higher regard, though.
To your side, though, it might be said that the US GOV was represented by that individual, as nowhere it says that anyone higher than the ambassador was informed.
Whelp, thats already been proven untrue, so you might as well just throw the bs conspiracies out the window.
Funnily enough, it was proven untrue in this thread and nowhere else. And I'm not, as I said in all previous posts, spinning conspiracy theories. I presented an angle, I didn't say I thought it was 100% true, 50% true, or whatever.
Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.
Quiet you, no one wants to hear from people educated in biology.
Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?
We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.
Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.
Hey now, let's not facts get in the way of a good conspiracy
Kanluwen wrote:
Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?
See how stupid you look when you try to force jokes into sentences that won't bear them?
In any case, answer the question, don't deflect.
Nurglitch wrote:
We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.
No, we don't know that they're paid. At least assuming "they" is definitive of "WikiLeaks contributors".
I might be, for trying to have a civilized discussion here.
A civilized discussion had in ignorance isn't one that honors the idea of civility.
The documents were going to be released regardless, BUT the US were given the opportunity to minimize it's damage. They were only responsible for creating the embarassing scenario in the first place.
The U.S. government was responsible for creating the scenario in the first place? Explain that one please.
I DON'T THINK THE CONDITION WAS THAT ONE SINGLE FCKN U.S. DIPLOMAT HAD TO READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES..
And yet he asked one ambassador then herp derped into the belief that because they would't help him out he clearly had no responsibility to the thousands of people written about in the documents. Sounds like he asked one person their opinion concerning something they would have no idea about and then abdicated responsibility. I agree that shouldn't have been the condition, but it was the one that he created.
Insulting me, using caps, trying to turn this into another flame war... if you're tired of discussing it, don't read it.
I'm tired of the tirade of conspiracy and ignorance, not of the thread. I made an effort to silence one and add to the other, as I continue to do now.
I was talking about the ambassador, not assange. That was very clear in my choice of grammar.
So it wasn't up to the official. Please, do read before insulting someone or embarassing yourself. I held you in higher regard, though.
Who is "The U.S. government" in this instance? Given that this is a story stemming from Assange himself and we have no view into the inner workings of that consulate the sounding is that Assange asked one man, was quickly rebuffed, then went on his merry way. A response from an ambassador is a response from "the U.S. Government".
Funnily enough, it was proven untrue in this thread and nowhere else.
The release of operation Eagle Shield and covert military operations in Yemen alone have and likely will damage foreign relations and the causes of both war and peace. It's been proven out in reality, not just here. So these documents are not "harmless".
I presented an angle, I didn't say I thought it was 100% true.
You post something as a belief I'm going to take it as such. I don't really care for internet personas as I don't know you in reality.
Kanluwen wrote:
Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?
See how stupid you look when you try to force jokes into sentences that won't bear them?
In any case, answer the question, don't deflect.
There was no deflection there, smartass. Maybe you need some glasses because I think you're going blind.
dogma wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.
No, we don't know that they're paid. At least assuming "they" is definitive of "WikiLeaks contributors".
Stop going on emotion, it makes you look dumb.
Why are we talking about WikiLeaks here?
You wanted me to answer why and/or how "gathering information about diplomats" could help expose corruption.
The financial information for a diplomat isn't a state secret. We can request it, provided we have enough evidence to make the request.
All talk and no facts. Laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating.
Go read about civism, firstly. You seem to be missing some of it's finer points.
The U.S. created the scenario when they did everything that was leaked. I thought that one was easy to understand.
*sigh* and I was talking about the official. I highly doubt that the ambassor took that decision without contacting the Government. Still, the news source reported "the government refused". This could mean the ambassor, representing the US. Or this could mean the US, whom the ambassor contacted - which is more likely. We don't know the details of the conversation, but I doubt that he was given any ludicrous conditions, like you do say and do not even bother to fundament.
And do read my posts with a bit more care.
If I was spinning conspiracy theories, I could say that the US Gov knew that Assange's (...)
I thought it was obvious I wasn't posting conspiracy theories, God knows this thread has had enough of that.
Shuma: The methods are reliable enough to be good, and as you say, it varies depending on what's in the environment. But for individual level identification I'd still be a bit skeptical (this crops up in DNA profiling cases too). I'm also not sure what they'd use DNA information for.
Fingerprints and retinal scans, maybe. But not DNA, it hardly has any security applications.
I'm not a molecular biologist though. (I know a few, but I'm not trained above undergraduate level at molecular techniques.) (And I'm completely off topic at this stage)
Kanluwen wrote:
There was no deflection there, smartass. Maybe you need some glasses because I think you're going blind.
You're deflecting again.
I'll just assume that you cannot answer the question without impugning your assumed position.
Not a bad assumption, considering that my initial point was to illustrate what I just described.
Kanluwen wrote:
Why are we talking about WikiLeaks here?
Thread title?
Kanluwen wrote:
You wanted me to answer why and/or how "gathering information about diplomats" could help expose corruption.
The financial information for a diplomat isn't a state secret. We can request it, provided we have enough evidence to make the request.
That word you used, "provided", it indicates the presence of a state secret..
I mean, I can have access to Top Secret information provided that I have Top Secret clearance.
Operation Eagle Guardian's tactical details were worked out under Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, and are understood to have been leaked to Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper independently of WikiLeaks
I don't know how credible this was, and searched a bit more. EDIT: but only found something on the same site. Can't find anything on BBC at the moment.
One didn't have to wait for WikiLeaks or the Guardian to learn the above facts. And more.
On November 4 the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza reported extensively on Eagle Guardian. The paper has a history of breaking crucial, and accurate, information earlier than other sources.
So, a bit redundant, the part about Eagle Shield, though I can't find BBC's stuff on it. I've been reading way too many articles, and some of them are a bit dodgy.
Really quite a stretch. I'd go so far as to call the entire article a fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?
I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.
We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.
Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.
If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.
If you agree with the bolded portion (as I do for the large part although I recognize the necessity of certain things being secret) then your entire argument is null and void.
Plz don't use personal opinions as a basis for objective statements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:[
Sorry, do you sterilize your trash when you throw it away?
You probably won't believe me, but I compost all my paper products, I keep my hair short enough that its very very difficult to see when I shed, my nails are kept totally trimmed and cleaned under the potion of the nail where trace can collect, and I abrade my skin in the shower 3 times a week. I also wash out all my garbage and never use plastic throw away utensils.
I know...thats pretty odd, but hey just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Its really superfluous action though, I've been arrested so my prints are on file. Thankfully it was before mandatory mouth swabbing started poking its ugly head.
All talk and no facts. Laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating.
Go read about civism, firstly. You seem to be missing some of it's finer points.
What facts do you want me to site? I mean, I would put the burden of proof on you for claiming that the ambassador and his offices actions were approved by usgov officials, but you don't actually have that information and the crux of what you posted is based in Assanges words.
The U.S. created the scenario when they did everything that was leaked. I thought that one was easy to understand.
Ahh. So it's blame the victim. I see. It's their fault they had a thing that could be stolen. Hey, you using your credit card numbers? I want to publish them online. If you didn't want that to happen you wouldn't have them, right? I mean, it's not like they have a use outside of being your little black secret. Again, I ask, are you high? How is it the governments fault it keeps records on diplomatic transactions? Should the diplomatic view individuals hold for their colleagues in embassies be open information for everyone? That sure as hell makes doing the job a bit difficult, don't you think? Governments act in secrecy often as a necessity, and such acts do not easily function under political scrutiny in a democratic country.
*sigh* and I was talking about the official. I highly doubt that the ambassor took that decision without contacting the Government. Still, the news source reported "the government refused". This could mean the ambassor, representing the US. Or this could mean the US, whom the ambassor contacted - which is more likely. We don't know the details of the conversation, but I doubt that he was given any ludicrous conditions, like you do say and do not even bother to fundament.
I was positing that asking a foreign government to help you release their state secrets under threat is a ludicrous condition and that assange didn't try particularly hard to do the right thing in this instance since there is a clear business recourse for performing the act of redacting harmful information even if you don't have U.S. officials helping you do it.
And do read my posts with a bit more care.
Excuse me, I don't care when you devils advocate a conspiracy theory to subtly enter it into the conversation.
I thought it was obvious I wasn't posting conspiracy theories, God knows this thread has had enough of that.
Regardless you have both posted it and overtly aligned yourself alongside it's view by posting it. Which you did. When you posted it. I'm not sure how you can say you aren't posting conspiracy theories when you are actually acknowledging that you are posting conspiracy theories.
So, a bit redundant, the part about Eagle Shield, though I can't find BBC's stuff on it. I've been reading way too many articles, and some of them are a bit dodgy.
Wasn't aware that it was published beforehand elsewhere. Doesn't look like the russians were either given Kremlins responses to the cable though.
I don't know how credible this was, and searched a bit more. EDIT: but only found something on the same site. Can't find anything on BBC at the moment.
Yeah, my bad. It's eagle guardian, not eagle shield. I think I read eagle shield referenced as the implementation of the plan, but not it's title. Theres the BBC article.
Da Boss wrote:Shuma: The methods are reliable enough to be good, and as you say, it varies depending on what's in the environment. But for individual level identification I'd still be a bit skeptical (this crops up in DNA profiling cases too). I'm also not sure what they'd use DNA information for.
Fingerprints and retinal scans, maybe. But not DNA, it hardly has any security applications.
I'm not a molecular biologist though. (I know a few, but I'm not trained above undergraduate level at molecular techniques.) (And I'm completely off topic at this stage)
Perhaps the US is going to clone Ban Ki-mun and use the copy to take over the UN.
Da Boss wrote:Shuma: The methods are reliable enough to be good, and as you say, it varies depending on what's in the environment. But for individual level identification I'd still be a bit skeptical (this crops up in DNA profiling cases too). I'm also not sure what they'd use DNA information for.
Fingerprints and retinal scans, maybe. But not DNA, it hardly has any security applications.
I'm not a molecular biologist though. (I know a few, but I'm not trained above undergraduate level at molecular techniques.) (And I'm completely off topic at this stage)
Perhaps the US is going to clone Ban Ki-mun and use the copy to take over the UN.
You know...one thing I feel people might have overlooked...just how official are these documents? Can their veracity be confirmed? Seeing as how this cretin makes his living via donations, how easy would it be for him to pinch a bunch of documents, and sex them up a little? It's not like Governments are going to confess to the lot of them. Blanket denial, to the paranoid freaks, means blanket admission. You could (and most likely has) make up any old bollocks.
Mr Mystery wrote:You know...one thing I feel people might have overlooked...just how official are these documents? Can their veracity be confirmed? Seeing as how this cretin makes his living via donations, how easy would it be for him to pinch a bunch of documents, and sex them up a little? It's not like Governments are going to confess to the lot of them. Blanket denial, to the paranoid freaks, means blanket admission. You could (and most likely has) make up any old bollocks.
.
Off hand I'd say making the stuff up is likely not the case. That's the one thing we have yet to hear said by the governments in question, and the first thing I would have expected to hear.
Mr Mystery wrote:You know...one thing I feel people might have overlooked...just how official are these documents? Can their veracity be confirmed? Seeing as how this cretin makes his living via donations, how easy would it be for him to pinch a bunch of documents, and sex them up a little? It's not like Governments are going to confess to the lot of them. Blanket denial, to the paranoid freaks, means blanket admission. You could (and most likely has) make up any old bollocks.
.
Off hand I'd say making the stuff up is likely not the case. That's the one thing we have yet to hear said by the governments in question, and the first thing I would have expected to hear.
Eh, one conspiracy theory is as good as another. It isn't as if any of them are based on rigorous logic and review.
Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
Maybe. and also who's open to a quick bribe.
It's not like thats anything new in america, is it?
Oh ho ho, so only America takes bribes or uses politics now? It seems to me if you wanted to be honest you should have just stopped after 'new'.
Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
Maybe. and also who's open to a quick bribe.
It's not like thats anything new in america, is it?
Oh ho ho, so only America takes bribes or uses politics now? It seems to me if you wanted to be honest you should have just stopped after 'new'.
Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.
Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.
You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?
It's rare to see a website with more flash adverts then IGN.com decrying the sale of something. Though it's very common to then see such an article site no sources.
ShumaGorath wrote:What facts do you want me to site? I mean, I would put the burden of proof on you for claiming that the ambassador and his offices actions were approved by usgov officials, but you don't actually have that information and the crux of what you posted is based in Assanges words.
To which I say,
ShumaGorath wrote:Also, that one official doesn't have the authority to accept or refuse such a request as they don't have the authority to release classified documents to foreign civilian nationals. I think under technicalities if he had accepted he would have been guilty of espionage.
I based that one on the fact that the ambassor most likely reported that to the government. It would seem logical that it was so, but I'm not in any position to say that it's standard protocol. Assuming so, I based my opinion. If he didn't have the authority to accept or decline, as you said, I assume he communicated it to the USGOV.
Ahh. So it's blame the victim. I see. It's their fault they had a thing that could be stolen. Hey, you using your credit card numbers? I want to publish them online. If you didn't want that to happen you wouldn't have them, right? I mean, it's not like they have a use outside of being your little black secret. Again, I ask, are you high? How is it the governments fault it keeps records on diplomatic transactions? Should the diplomatic view individuals hold for their colleagues in embassies be open information for everyone? That sure as hell makes doing the job a bit difficult, don't you think? Governments act in secrecy often as a necessity, and such acts do not easily function under political scrutiny in a democratic country.
You're right and I should clear my position on this. I thought I said that certain facts shouldn't have been divulged. The document should've been properly edited, as the outrage caused by unecessary embarassments is outweighting on (and shifting the discussion from) the more pertinent facts regarding some US funded shady activities and the fact that some politicians knew about it. However, adressing your first point about victims,
I was positing that asking a foreign government to help you release their state secrets under threat is a ludicrous condition and that assange didn't try particularly hard to do the right thing in this instance since there is a clear business recourse for performing the act of redacting harmful information even if you don't have U.S. officials helping you do it.
It is unclear and I haven't searched for declarations from the involved ambassor. But the US had prior knowledge and could have tried to minimize the collateral damage as it was in their best interest. I'm not saying that they were helping Assange, they would be helping themselves, given that the documents were going to be published either way.
And like I said before, yes, Assange should've been more careful and try to work ways in which the divulged information wouldn't reveal sensitive military information, like dealings with China and North Korea.
About the credit card analogy, it's a bit different. I wouldn't state my opinion on a certain subject if I knew beforehand (which I doubt the diplomats didn't know) it was going on record. They were official state business, and as such are likely to come under some scrutiny by someone. A more accurate depiction would've been if I worked for a company, had access to it's funds, and used them wrongly. That would have been mis-usage of the assets I'm given, which I'm given to understand is what happened.
Excuse me, I don't care when you devils advocate a conspiracy theory to subtly enter it into the conversation.
Someone said some pages ago, regarding Assange's rape scandal, that it would be funny if it was another double-game. Given the timming, it was weird. Given the later information released regarding Woman A (or W) regarding CIA association... well, it's a bit too many coincidences, and given all the information manipulation involved, it certainly raised some eyebrows.
Regardless you have both posted it and overtly aligned yourself alongside it's view by posting it. Which you did. When you posted it. I'm not sure how you can say you aren't posting conspiracy theories when you are actually acknowledging that you are posting conspiracy theories.
I did post them, taking them lightly. I should've phrased them differently, and used an emoticon to emphasize. But that doesn't mean you can say whatever the heck you want, because I try to base my opinions on facts and "conspiracy theories" on speculation, even if wildly.
Wasn't aware that it was published beforehand elsewhere. Doesn't look like the russians were either given Kremlins responses to the cable though.
Kremlin's responses to the cable were, I suppose, because public in the West found out about it and the russians were expected to say something about it. Wikileaks certainly had more bang and exposure than the Polish newspaper.
Yeah, my bad. It's eagle guardian, not eagle shield. I think I read eagle shield referenced as the implementation of the plan, but not it's title. Theres the BBC article.
No problem, I'll read it later, as I will the Yemen bits. Media here didn't focus on that at all, and some articles online are hard to miss.
Now, is there anything not related to my opinion or theories? You're focussing on the diplomatic scandal, and hardly talking about the more monstruous things there.
Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?
We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.
Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.
Hey now, let's not facts get in the way of a good conspiracy
Where was the deflection, at all, there Dogma?
But since apparently you're going to be a smug git:
The "means of a given person" is what they can reliably have access to without liquidating everything they own.
It's why when police officers, who haven't won the lottery or come into money, have suddenly started buying things like boats or expensive cars are looked at with suspicion.
About the credit card analogy, it's a bit different. I wouldn't state my opinion on a certain subject if I knew beforehand (which I doubt the diplomats didn't know) it was going on record. They were official state business, and as such are likely to come under some scrutiny by someone. A more accurate depiction would've been if I worked for a company, had access to it's funds, and used them wrongly. That would have been mis-usage of the assets I'm given, which I'm given to understand is what happened.
It's a diplomats job to give frank and accurate assessments to his superiors. It is also decent and common conduct to not spread such views around like common gossip. What the diplomats confer to eachother and their superiors is what is needed to do the job, when you place that under scrutiny you politicize an entity that is meant to work for the common good but without public political pressure. If you want a good example of exactly why that is needed just look at the U.S. healthcare debates, the citizenry isn't intelligent enough to understand the nuances of everyday diplomacy and foreign governments do not need to know the interior thinking of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They don't interface with it's interior, they interface with it's actions which are guided by those internal conversations. Misgivings and embarrassments can be highly damaging on the diplomatic stage, and no one is particularly helped by the cables making fun of Silvio Berlusconi or Ghadaffi. They write secret things on those secret documents, because it's their job. It's what they do. Those documents are secret because the functionality of their job is hinged on the lack of foreign and public scrutiny.
Now, is there anything not related to my opinion or theories? You're focussing on the diplomatic scandal, and hardly talking about the more monstruous things there.
Such as Assanges arrest? If he's innocent and the swedish government functions as it brags then he will be found innocent. There will probably be a lengthy attempt by the U.S. to have him tried for espionage or something similar, but that hasn't happened yet. He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him. He's likely cost the lives of several people and he's done damage to the causes of world peace and mideast security by revealing top secret military files and NATO plans. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about that is "monstrous". "Free speech" and "revealing stolen classified information taken from another government concerning matters of national and international security" are two different things. I'm happy to wait to see what actually happens before I travel down the path of predictive conspiracy mining.
Destrado wrote:
Someone said some pages ago, regarding Assange's rape scandal, that it would be funny if it was another double-game. Given the timming, it was weird.
Hi, that was me....at like page 3 I think.
After reading MANY articles and looking up past case information I think it really is just a strange coincidence....and the "ties" that the girl has to the CIA are laughable at best. I'm a conspiracy believer, but at least look at the facts before screaming about the Tri Lateral Commision. lol
Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?
Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?
Also
Shumagorath wrote:
Now, is there anything not related to my opinion or theories? You're focussing on the diplomatic scandal, and hardly talking about the more monstruous things there.
Such as Assanges arrest? If he's innocent and the swedish government functions as it brags then he will be found innocent. There will probably be a lengthy attempt by the U.S. to have him tried for espionage or something similar, but that hasn't happened yet. He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him. He's likely cost the lives of several people and he's done damage to the causes of world peace and mideast security by revealing top secret military files and NATO plans.
1. I beleive he was talking about content of the leaks, like yemen missile strikes / PMC sex trade / etc.
2. "He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him" ....
3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
4. "he's done damage to the causes of world peace" Not really, he's just bringing to light all the stuff that has already been done, sure some of this stuff is just petty but it doesent change the fact that the US did them.
(Not singling out shuma here)
Can we seriously get a discussion thats more than just "he did stuff that makes the US look bad so lets lock him up".
Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.
1. I beleive he was talking about content of the leaks, like yemen missile strikes / PMC sex trade / etc.
I mentioned the Yemen missile strikes multiple times already as a specific example of something that shouldn't have been revealed for the specific reason that it can incite violence and further weaken a government in the midst of what it considers tantamount to a civil war while Al-Queda sets it up as the new afghanistan. It's going to be a lot harder to combat international terrorist organizations in yemen now that the governments elicit approval of our activities is on everyones radar.
This is the problem, and it's something the people in this thread seem to have a hard time grasping. Revealing the PMC sex slave thing? Thats great, thats the kind of thing wikileaks should exist to do and be awarded for. Compromising security agreements and enabling terrorist recruitment and training in a war torn region? Thats the kind of thing that wikileaks should be shut down for while it's owners are put on trial. Attempting to equivocate the two shows a severe lack of understanding of current events.
2. "He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him" ....
When you state that you're releasing the "new pentagon papers" and then go on to basically say "All those things you thought you knew about afghanistan? They're still true." you're basically showing yourself to be an egotistical douche. When you impair the ability of nation states to defend themselves and endanger post cold war nuclear draw downs for "free speech" you're a maniac.
I'm combining the two.
3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
No, they don't. Thats the crux of the issue. They are only verifying the documents for authenticity (as much as they can) they are still releasing them in full and for the most part without redaction or editing. Thats the entire point, they aren't being careful with what they release, they are just copy pasting everything onto the wiki.
4. "he's done damage to the causes of world peace" Not really, he's just bringing to light all the stuff that has already been done, sure some of this stuff is just petty but it doesent change the fact that the US did them.
I don't think you've actually read what they've released...
Can we seriously get a discussion thats more than just "he did stuff that makes the US look bad so lets lock him up".
We can try, but you're going to have to stop posting for that to happen. Or at the very least read what wikileaks has released.
Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.
Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed
Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.
Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed
The CIA can neither deny or confirm. Even after Valerie Plame was outed guess what the CIA said? The CIA can neither deny or confirm. We aren't talking about whether an NFL player is being traded to another team.
Shuma... Shuma... Shuma... what are we going to do with you?
ShumaGorath wrote:
1. I beleive he was talking about content of the leaks, like yemen missile strikes / PMC sex trade / etc.
I mentioned the Yemen missile strikes multiple times already as a specific example of something that shouldn't have been revealed for the specific reason that it can incite violence and further weaken a government in the midst of what it considers tantamount to a civil war while Al-Queda sets it up as the new afghanistan. It's going to be a lot harder to combat international terrorist organizations in yemen now that the governments elicit approval of our activities is on everyones radar.
This is the problem, and it's something the people in this thread seem to have a hard time grasping. Revealing the PMC sex slave thing? Thats great, thats the kind of thing wikileaks should exist to do and be awarded for. Compromising security agreements and enabling terrorist recruitment and training in a war torn region? Thats the kind of thing that wikileaks should be shut down for while it's owners are put on trial. Attempting to equivocate the two shows a severe lack of understanding of current events.
so revealing PMC sex trade is fine, but showing a country's people that they were lied to and that there really were american bombs responsible for taking civilian lives instead of you country's bombs is wrong because it "might incite violence". These people were lied to by their government, shouldent they have a right to know?
ShumaGorath wrote:
2. "He deserves it certainly, he's an egotistical maniac who finally had his power trip collapse under him" ....
When you state that you're releasing the "new pentagon papers" and then go on to basically say "All those things you thought you knew about afghanistan? They're still true." you're basically showing yourself to be an egotistical douche. When you impair the ability of nation states to defend themselves and endanger post cold war nuclear draw downs for "free speech" you're a maniac.
as has been said before in this thread being an "egotistical maniac" or douchbag is not enough to be arrested on
ShumaGorath wrote:
3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
No, they don't. Thats the crux of the issue. They are only verifying the documents for authenticity (as much as they can) they are still releasing them in full and for the most part without redaction or editing. Thats the entire point, they aren't being careful with what they release, they are just copy pasting everything onto the wiki.
Complaits were made after the first set of documents (70,000 Afghanistan not 400,000 iraq) , so now they are redacting more information.
ShumaGorath wrote:
4. "he's done damage to the causes of world peace" Not really, he's just bringing to light all the stuff that has already been done, sure some of this stuff is just petty but it doesent change the fact that the US did them.
I don't think you've actually read what they've released...
My point was the US has chosen to do these things in the first place, what wikileaks is releasing is American documents, wikileaks did not encourage america to do any of these things
ShumaGorath wrote:
Can we seriously get a discussion thats more than just "he did stuff that makes the US look bad so lets lock him up".
We can try, but you're going to have to stop posting for that to happen. Or at the very least read what wikileaks has released.
Wow i at least have a thought out opinon instead of one that not backed up and easy to tear through, please try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:3. "He's likely cost the lives of several people" Okay... im pretty sure that they said they have staff reviewing the documents, thats why they were not released all at once, but if you know of anyone who may have been harmed by this (informant etc) then please share.
Oh that should be easy, as we all have easy access to the contact information of foreign confidential informants. I'm sure that their handlers would also love to expose their networks even more by doing so.
Yep especially if their cover has been blown, should be pretty easy to find out if an informant died after being exposed. Dont you think this is something that would be released to show that Wikileaks is responsable for it? Also if the informant has been found out why would reveling that he died because of the release affect anymore of the network? i mean if they already found the guy and noone else then the rest of the network should remain intact unless their info is revealed
The CIA can neither deny or confirm. Even after Valerie Plame was outed guess what the CIA said? The CIA can neither deny or confirm. We aren't talking about whether an NFL player is being traded to another team.
The Moon is a lie! The CIA cannot deny or confirm that so we must assume it to be the case and use it as an argument!
Seriously saying the CIA cannot confirm or deny is not a reasonable argument when accusing someone of being responsible of someone elses death.
We aren't talking about general information silly boy, we are talking about the status of confidential informants. They will not disclose that information even if someones cover has theoretically been blown. Years from now they might but there isn't a chance in hell now and you know it. You are just being obtuse and calling others trolls.
Shuma... Shuma... Shuma... what are we going to do with you?
Give me a written apology for making me read this thread at all?
so revealing PMC sex trade is fine, but showing a country's people that they were lied to and that there really were american bombs responsible for taking civilian lives instead of you country's bombs is wrong because it "might incite violence". These people were lied to by their government, shouldent they have a right to know?
Since 2004, a civil war is being fought in Northern Yemen between Yemeni forces and Shiite Houthi rebels. In 2009, it spilled over into the neighbouring border region of Saudi Arabia. This conflict is increasingly becoming a danger to regional stability according to news reports by CNN[27] and the BBC[28] as various countries are said to be involved, e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.[29] The United Nations[30] and UNDP Yemen report about a growing problem of civilians fleeing from the region. Yemen is said to have more than 60 million guns.[31] The 2009 South Yemen insurgency has further destabilized the country.
If you think that it matters if the government is lying to its people in yemen about American strikes into Al Queda camps then you aren't particularly versed in current day yemen. That said, boo hoo they were lied too. You know why they were lied too? Because an islamist insurgency has griped the north of the country, spilled into other countries, and part of the effort of reunifying yemen involves not looking like it panders to western powers. You know why Al Queda is there? Because the Yemenese government can't remove them and they can find popular support for violent terrorist activity in regions effected by the insurgency.
You don't know what you're talking about if THIS is one of you're big points of praise for wikileaks, and it's really visible.
as has been said before in this thread being an "egotistical maniac" or douchbag is not enough to be arrested on
I know, I think thats why they went with molestation instead.That being said, international espionage is a big thing to be convicted for. I was mostly just insulting his character by stating those things, I figured stating that he performed acts that could (and are being) considered espionage or related to espionage meant that thats what I believed.
Wow i at least have a thought out opinon instead of one that not backed up and easy to tear through, please try again.
Excuse me? You're opinion was "This thread is getting bad, he's just showing off the US doing bad stuff LOLS!". When you actually learn a little bit about foreign affairs come on back down, until then don't walk around like some sort of man-of-the-yemen-town when you obviously have a very basic (and probably recently gained) amount of knowledge of the region and it's players as well as U.S. intelligence procedures and international law.
Ahtman wrote:We aren't talking about general information silly boy, we are talking about the status of confidential informants. They will not disclose that information even if someones cover has theoretically been blown. Years from now they might but there isn't a chance in hell now and you know it. You are just being obtuse and calling others trolls.
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?
Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?
Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?
Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?
Gibbsey wrote: Is it just me or does this thread seam to degrade into a completely irrelevant factless discussion every 2 pages or so?
Seriously guys can we try and stay on topic?
Dont you love it when a thread just comes together
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"
That was sourced from me, and I used the term "likely" specifically because we can't confirm if it happened or not. It's just a logical inference from the release of classified documents often sourced from informants who have their names on paper unedited.
I used the word 'likely'. You even quoted me using it. Do you not know what it means?
Gibbsey wrote:
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"
It was said they would probably lead to deaths, not with absolute certainty that they had. Though they almost certainly have, we can not prove it becuase the information is still classified. You are creating impossible levels of evidence and than using that as some form of proof. Well, the proof we have is that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Shuma... Shuma... Shuma... what are we going to do with you?
Give me a written apology for making me read this thread at all?
so revealing PMC sex trade is fine, but showing a country's people that they were lied to and that there really were american bombs responsible for taking civilian lives instead of you country's bombs is wrong because it "might incite violence". These people were lied to by their government, shouldent they have a right to know?
Since 2004, a civil war is being fought in Northern Yemen between Yemeni forces and Shiite Houthi rebels. In 2009, it spilled over into the neighbouring border region of Saudi Arabia. This conflict is increasingly becoming a danger to regional stability according to news reports by CNN[27] and the BBC[28] as various countries are said to be involved, e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.[29] The United Nations[30] and UNDP Yemen report about a growing problem of civilians fleeing from the region. Yemen is said to have more than 60 million guns.[31] The 2009 South Yemen insurgency has further destabilized the country.
If you think that it matters if the government is lying to its people in yemen about American strikes into Al Queda camps then you aren't particularly versed in current day yemen. That said, boo hoo they were lied too. You know why they were lied too? Because an islamist insurgency has griped the north of the country, spilled into other countries, and part of the effort of reunifying yemen involves not looking like it panders to western powers. You know why Al Queda is there? Because the Yemenese government can't remove them and they can find popular support for violent terrorist activity in regions effected by the insurgency.
You don't know what you're talking about if THIS is one of you're big points of praise for wikileaks, and it's really visible.
as has been said before in this thread being an "egotistical maniac" or douchbag is not enough to be arrested on
I know, I think thats why they went with molestation instead.That being said, international espionage is a big thing to be convicted for. I was mostly just insulting his character by stating those things, I figured stating that he performed acts that could (and are being) considered espionage or related to espionage meant that thats what I believed.
Wow i at least have a thought out opinon instead of one that not backed up and easy to tear through, please try again.
Excuse me? You're opinion was "This thread is getting bad, he's just showing off the US doing bad stuff LOLS!". When you actually learn a little bit about foreign affairs come on back down, until then don't walk around like some sort of man-of-the-yemen-town when you obviously have a very basic (and probably recently gained) amount of knowledge of the region and it's players as well as U.S. intelligence procedures and international law.
Shuma i have come to the conclusion that you are a troll, congratulations on being so sucessful thus far.
Although i may not be a man-of-the-yemen-town this does not change the fact that the people were lied to, like it or not in a country that is supposed to be a democracy the government should not lie to the people that it should be representing, even American air strikes on yemen approved targets would of been acceptable. Now what if americans were lied to like this? would that be acceptable in a western nation? no? then why should it be acceptable here, especially with the loss of civilian life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"
That was sourced from me, and I used the term "likely" specifically because we can't confirm if it happened or not. It's just a logical inference from the release of classified documents often sourced from informants who have their names on paper unedited.
I used the word 'likely'. You even quoted me using it. Do you not know what it means?
Hmmm likely, then maybe it shouldent be toted as fact
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
My point silly Ahtman, is that before you run around accusing someone of peoples deaths maybe you should have more evidence than "well the CIA cant tell us so we should assume the worst"
It was said they would probably lead to deaths, not with absolute certainty that they had. Though they almost certainly have, we can not prove it becuase the information is still classified. You are creating impossible levels of evidence and than using that as some form of proof. Well, the proof we have is that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
So you present something that cannot be disprooved because the "CIA cant tell us" and when i call you out on it im "creating impossible levels of evidence and than using that as some form of proof".
My level of evidence is actually based on having some evidence, since you cannot provide that then wouldent you agree that dropping that point until some evidence supports it would be the rational thing to do?
Shuma i have come to the conclusion that you are a troll, congratulations on being so sucessful thus far.
You aren't the first one to call me that or congratulate me for it. Much like the rest though, you aren't looking very good doing it rather then answering any of the points I've raised (as you failed to do in your last post to me as well).
Although i may not be a man-of-the-yemen-town this does not change the fact that the people were lied to, like it or not in a country that is supposed to be a democracy the government should not lie to the people that it should be representing, even American air strikes on yemen approved targets would of been acceptable.
Idealism is great until you're country is in the midst of a civil war and is being used as a training camp for international terrorists. At that point idealism has basically just cost you the farm. You're quite right, they lied to their people, and by doing so they were endeavoring to protect them from themselves. This was the polite thing to do for the yemenese people, and the best thing to do for their government. We could have just told them that we were going to bomb these areas regardless of their wishes. Is that a good alternative? Or how about just letting these camps run for a few years unharassed while they plan and implement terrorist acts on civilians locally and abroad?
Good old dogmatic idealism! Getting people killed since biblical times.
Now what if americans were lied to like this? would that be acceptable in a western nation? no? then why should it be acceptable here, especially with the loss of civilian life.
The difference being that America is a western nation at peace with itself, not battling a fundamentalist insurgency and it doesn't have sizable infiltration from violent fundamentalist terrorists. The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
You are really not doing yourself any favors by calling me a troll then equivocating and making appeals to idealism that are utterly unrealistic.
Hmmm likely, then maybe it shouldent be toted as fact
If I was toting it as fact I wouldn't have used the word likely. Thats the entire point of what I just said.
ShumaGorath wrote: The difference is that there is a huge fething difference between the U.S. and Yemen.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that a Yemenese (sp?) citizen should have different rights to a U.S. citizen, or whether rights should be defined and awarded by situation.
" is not a valid political position or response let alone a well reasoned argument
ing difference between a precision strike and carpet bombing?
