Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:its not trolling because someone disagrees with you. I know thats an alien concept in your part of town.

don't ruin a perfectly good meme in it's infancy.

Nice, but it needs more Wiener dogs...

There's a difference between a free press and what wikiLeaks is doing. Some of the information released can obviously be downright harmful to relations between states or to the national security of a state.

That type of behavior is not to be condoned, even with a free press.

I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Yes, yes you can

New political party!! we hate everything and everyone, but at least we hate you all equaly

Frazzled wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:Now what? Guantanamo? Shot while trying to escape?

B is preferred but Gitmo is not needed. Put him in fed prison (not Club Fed - real prison) with the general population.

He'll be someone's prison bitch in about a week. Look at that long lustrous hair!


I find it galling that he appears to think its OK to sit around and make an appointment to turn himself in. Mighty civilized, but once again very telling about his level of personal arrogance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me be really clear though, I don't think he's violated a single US law. The deal in Sweden well whatever...thats for the Swede's to handle. I just think the guy is a self righteous twit that has poinsoned and destroyed what I think an anonymous leak facilitating organization should have been.

I'd love to see him get a beat down on GP.Y'know...good old fashioned ass whooping where you get your shoes, coat, and hat tooken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Besides he's really starting to get on my nearves, the little geek terrorist. We need to link him up with that Palin show.

"Today's going to be a good hunt, we're going to bag us some Assange, you betcha!"

I'd watch it. Personally I think that releasing universally annoying folks into the wild and letting rednecks hunt them is a fabulous idea. Can we do it with Pauly Shore next?

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Yes.

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Yes.

Welcome. You've just taken your first step into a larger universe.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Yes.

Welcome. You've just taken your first step into a larger universe.

What party would Vader run under? I mean he cant be republican because he actually gets stuff done.....

And he cant be a democrat because he wouldent roll over for the republicans

Gibbsey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Yes.

Welcome. You've just taken your first step into a larger universe.

What party would Vader run under? I mean he cant be republican because he actually gets stuff done.....

And he cant be a democrat because he wouldent roll over for the republicans

Weiner Dog party. Join the winners, join the Weiner Dog Legions.
Or vote for the losers, and be eaten. Eventually...

Wrexasaur wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The host might have been objective, but none of the guests (that I saw) were and they were doing most of the talking. He set them up and they would knock them away; he was a pitcher throwing softballs. There was no real discussion and he didn't press them on anything.

Can you reference a show that does what you're talking about on this issue?

Hardball, Meet the Press, NPR, hell, even Bill O' Rielly well press his guests to elaborate.

Wrexasaur wrote:I thought the guy asked a few good questions

I thought the questions were good as well but then he didn't do anything with them. The answers were less than satisfying and nothing much came of them.

Wrexasaur wrote:Sorry anyway. My apologies for providing you the opportunity to waste twelve minutes of your time, then spend five more minutes explaining why you don't want to spend twelve more minutes talking about it. Not that I think you are just being mean or anything.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. For one I didn't ask for an apology becuase one isn't needed. You didn't do anything wrong by posting it. I also never said anything about my time being wasted, just that I was doing other things. I didn't say they were productive things. I got tired of listening to it. The discussion of it was more engaging so it got more time.

Wrexasaur wrote:You probably know much more about this issue, but whatever.

Oh I doubt it.

Ahtman wrote:Hardball, Meet the Press, NPR, hell, even Bill O' Rielly well press his guests to elaborate.

Hmm... I haven't been following this story all that closely, and I should probably just look farther into the coverage.

I thought the questions were good as well but then he didn't do anything with them. The answers were less than satisfying and nothing much came of them.

Yeah, it wasn't amazing.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. For one I didn't ask for an apology becuase one isn't needed. You didn't do anything wrong by posting it. I also never said anything about my time being wasted, just that I was doing other things. I didn't say they were productive things. I got tired of listening to it. The discussion of it was more engaging so it got more time.

Fair enough.

Oh I doubt it.

I get the impression that you've followed this much more than I have. The constant references to Assange in the coverage I've seen have really made me lose interest.

I'll just look a bit further into this when I have the time.

Ouze wrote: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.

It's really, really weird, isn't it. People will invent all kinds of bizarre interpretations to argue that you can't expand healthcare under the constitution, but be fine with the idea of black ops teams killing people who oppose government. Really, really weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Nah. Espionage is easy. He's a foreign national who's received classified documents that were obtained illegally.

Which you know from your extensive experience in prosecuting people for espionage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:I really cant make my mind up on this one.. i dunno who i agree with?

Can i hate the government AND Julian?

Oh and everyone in between.

Only as long as you hate the traditional media as well, and think their failure to undertake investigative journalism produced the vacuum that allowed a wingnut like Assange to come in.

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.

Source: Cornell University Law School

Assuming Assange would be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, this is the piece of US Code of relevance to Assange as it currently stands (in fact, Assange is already being considered for such a trial. Source. ) As far as the law itself is concerned he is definitely guilty. He has willfully made available to an unauthorized person classified information, and the punishment for that is clearly listed.

The law is clear, at least within the United States, and I can see no defense for him. It's not like he's trying to deny what he's done....

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

Source: Cornell University Law School

Assuming Assange would be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, this is the piece of US Code of relevance to Assange as it currently stands (in fact, Assange is already being considered for such a trial. Source. ) As far as the law itself is concerned he is definitely guilty. He has willfully made available to an unauthorized person classified information, and the punishment for that is clearly listed.

The law is clear, at least within the United States, and I can see no defense for him. It's not like he's trying to deny what he's done....

He's not a US citizen, kind of moronic to hold him to US law. At most we should be pressing charges with the international justice system....but being America we tend to think we ARE the international justice system.

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?

I'd really like to say its because he put up classified docs from all sorts of world governments.........................


But I can't, cause he didn't. Again, Assange's own self centered, arrogant, pointlessly anti-American stance has poisoned what an anonymous leak site should be. I think 10 years is fair for the amount of EVERYONE's time that he's taken up over the last couple of weeks.




Basically I think he's a completely self righteous twit, and if he's smart enough to figure a way out of getting tried in the US more power to him. However if he does get the book thrown at him I won't shed a tear.

ChrisWWII wrote: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?

They shouldn't, but I doubt he will get extradited.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

Source: Cornell University Law School

Assuming Assange would be prosecuted for espionage against the United States, this is the piece of US Code of relevance to Assange as it currently stands (in fact, Assange is already being considered for such a trial. Source. ) As far as the law itself is concerned he is definitely guilty. He has willfully made available to an unauthorized person classified information, and the punishment for that is clearly listed.

The law is clear, at least within the United States, and I can see no defense for him. It's not like he's trying to deny what he's done....

yes, the law is clear. Unfortunately you have glossed some of the elements of it which make his prosecution decidedly less possible.

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

The first part of the law would apply to Bradley Manning, but not Assange. The precedent set by the the Pentagon Papers case is fairly unambiguous; you cannot be prosecuted for simply receiving classified information. If that were the case any person who read this information in the NY Times could be successfully prosecuted.

For the middle part, you'd have to prove that the information thus provided was in fact prejudicial to the safety and interest of the US; it's likely you'd have to release more classified information to do so. Unlikely.

Finally, you'd have to prove for the latter part that he explicitly provided this information to a foreign government, simply publishing it would not pass this test.

Additionally, there is the "question" of whether or not US law is applicable to a noncitizen who committed an act in a foreign country which is not illegal in their jurisdiction. I put the word question in quotes because I don't think it's much of a legal argument.

I know that the media is pounding a relentless drumbeat of using the espionage act to prosecute this man, and that several politicians are echoing the same noise in a wonderful cacophony of stupidity. After all, when you have all these wise intellectuals, these commentators and lawmakers and pundits in such pure agreement, how could they all be wrong? It's clear he violated the espionage act. The Duke Lacrosse team definitely raped that woman. There is no question that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The election will definitely be Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Guiliani. There is no way the dems will pass healthcare. Ad nauseum.


Here's a better question: if the espionage act is so well suited to prosecuting Assange, why have we introduced amendments to it covering what Wikileaks have done?

Kanluwen wrote:
Nope, they're "Psychological warfare"!

So is terrorism, at least if we're taking this whole "War on Terror" thing seriously.

Kanluwen wrote:
There's a huge difference between sanctioned military operations, conducted during war, and things done outside of a war.

There is? I mean, I realize that one of the acting bodies doing the sanctioning (because I imagine that Asange sanctions his own behavior in the same way the US sanctions its behavior) is way more powerful than the other, but I'm having a hard time seeing a difference that isn't merely one of degree.

I mean, its not like we pay a whole lot of attention to the conventional rules of war anymore, formal declarations being a thing of the past, so the "war is different" line of reasoning doesn't really hold a lot of water. Basically, either this is nothing more than a crime, its terrorism and terrorism is nothing more than a crime, or its terrorism and a whole ton of other things have suddenly been include in the definition of "terrorism".

Personally, I think the whole "This is terrorism!" commentary is obnoxiously stupid because it cheapens tactics that not only actually induce terror, but are explicitly intended to do so.

Kanluwen wrote:
No they wouldn't. They're reading published documents.

If your standard of espionage is simply receiving confidential material, then yes, they absolutely would be.

Kanluwen wrote:
It's the whole "intent" thing again. Assange has made it publicly known that anyone who sends classified or illegally obtained documents to WikiLeaks will be protected.
He's, for all purposes, stating that he "wants" the information made available to him. A good prosecutor could spin this far better than I could.

Again, the receipt of classified documents is not illegal, and neither is soliciting them, no matter how its spun. What is illegal is publishing those documents, or providing material aid to people in obtaining them. The case is difficult because the prosecutor must prove that Assange either published the documents, or provided material aid to the people who obtained them. That's much more difficult than proving that he had them in his possession once.

Kanluwen wrote:
They've got a system in place that really has only had to deal with accidental publishing of classified information(barring that douchebag Scooter Libby).
Now we've got Assange to practice on! A foreign national, with no affiliation to any government agency to back him up, who's requested classified information relating to deployment schedules, etc...it's a goldmine for an espionage charge.

Why do I say that?
Because they can nail him with a publishing classified information at the very least.

Well, they can try. There a whole bunch of jurisdictional rules in the way, not to mention nominal standards of proof.

Kanluwen wrote:
He's also violated the protection of anonymity for informants(which is a huge deal to prosecutors. Anytime it crops up in mob related cases, even accidentally blowing the cover of a witness is jailtime at the least. This is far more than that).

As far as I know the jurisdictional rules regarding informants in the US do not apply to informants abroad, not as of yet anyway. You're basically talking about what would be a landmark case.

Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's not.
It's the difference between responsibly publishing classified material intended to cast light upon previously unknown or hidden facts(ex: Pentagon Papers/Watergate) and just publishing everything because you have relative anonymity.

Nice attempt at deflection, but there is no reason that a leak that sheds light on hidden facts cannot cause incidental death. You're treating the two categories as though they're implicitly distinct, when that isn't the case at all. What I initially said is absolutely correct, the difference between correlation and causation is the difference between "may have caused" and "have caused"; essentially by definition.

Kanluwen wrote:
I really find it hard to believe that there's a "group of journalists who carefully work with government agencies" to verify what is/isn't proper to publish. The list of informants alone proved that it's BS.

Sure, but that's not material to the issue. Assange isn't especially bight, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

Now he's in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T2

I'm really starting to get bored with the US and it's arrogant bullying stance that it's constantly taking nowadays. Assange is just one man, he's the head of Wikileaks, he didn't hack in and get the info, one of your own people gave it to Wikileaks (notice I said Wikileaks here, it's a group not a person). Assange didn't sit there typing this up himself, his staff would of, so that's a larger group of people who think what they were doing was right, not just one ego.

If the US does try to extridite him, although I'm only one person, I will refuse to, to the best of my abilities, stop buying anything that will profit a US company. The US has the right to defend itself, but you are turning into a twisted empire that wishes to impose it's views on the rest of the world. Nice to see that the principles your constitution aply just to yourdelf and nobody else.

Wolfstan wrote:I'm really starting to get bored with the US and it's arrogant bullying stance that it's constantly taking nowadays. Assange is just one man, he's the head of Wikileaks, he didn't hack in and get the info, one of your own people gave it to Wikileaks (notice I said Wikileaks here, it's a group not a person). Assange didn't sit there typing this up himself, his staff would of, so that's a larger group of people who think what they were doing was right, not just one ego.

If the US does try to extridite him, although I'm only one person, I will refuse to, to the best of my abilities, stop buying anything that will profit a US company. The US has the right to defend itself, but you are turning into a twisted empire that wishes to impose it's views on the rest of the world. Nice to see that the principles your constitution aply just to yourdelf and nobody else.

Well hello there Mr. IpostedbutIdidntbotherreadingthethreadoranyoneelsesviewsingit.

Hey, the thread is a hell of a long on and if from me scanning it I've come to the incorrect conclusion that the US posters are after his blood then I'm sorry. I'm probably grouping all the stuff I've been reading and grouping it together as a mafority opinion.

Ouze wrote:
yes, the law is clear. Unfortunately you have glossed some of the elements of it which make his prosecution decidedly less possible.

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

The first part of the law would apply to Bradley Manning, but not Assange. The precedent set by the the Pentagon Papers case is fairly unambiguous; you cannot be prosecuted for simply receiving classified information. If that were the case any person who read this information in the NY Times could be successfully prosecuted.

You have a point, but if you notice, the law does not say that anyone who RECEIVES such information is a violation of the act, but instead, that it's publishing, communicating or otherwise making the information available. In that case, as editor in chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange is indeed guilty of this violation.

For the middle part, you'd have to prove that the information thus provided was in fact prejudicial to the safety and interest of the US; it's likely you'd have to release more classified information to do so. Unlikely.

No, we won't. If you notice the wording of the act uses OR instead of AND in all of its criterion. He doesn't have to publish the informationg AND use it in a manner prejudicial to the safery and the interest of the US, he has to, according to the law, communicate, furnish, transmit, make available, OR us in any manner prejudicial to the safety of the US. The use of the word OR here is key, as it quite simply means that a violation of just one of those is enough for him to qualify as violating the act, and valid for a 10 year sentence.

Finally, you'd have to prove for the latter part that he explicitly provided this information to a foreign government, simply publishing it would not pass this test.

No. No we won't. The same semantical argument applies here. He doesn't have to publish information AND be doing it to assist a foreign government, the publishing is a crime in and of itself.

Additionally, there is the "question" of whether or not US law is applicable to a noncitizen who committed an act in a foreign country which is not illegal in their jurisdiction. I put the word question in quotes because I don't think it's much of a legal argument.

Well, we've prosecuted terrorist suspects for murder and all other kinds of crimes against US citizens...I fail to see why the same logic could not be applies to Assange. He violated an American law, by publishing American classified documentation. That's what cringes it for me...if it was classified documentation stolen from Russia, I'd say send him to Moscow, and let them prosecute him. But the information he made available was mostly American classified diplomatic communiques. As such, I think it's fair for the US to want to extradite him back here for trial.

Snipped.
Here's a better question: if the espionage act is so well suited to prosecuting Assange, why have we introduced amendments to it covering what Wikileaks have done?

Because law changes over time. We can prosecute him now, and have a decent case against him, but that doesn't stop us from wanting to change the law to specifically ban the kind of thing he did. '

Edit:
Wolfstan. So it's wrong for the US to want to prosecute someone whose been taking secrets from the United States government and publishing them left and right without a thought as to who would actually benefit, or be hurt by the release? Yes, a lot of Americans are out for his blood. But imagine if he's instead been publish secrets of the Russian government, or the British one....especially LISTS of sites that its diplomats considered vital to the nation all over the world, or releasing plans that could lead to an undue increase in tension? They'd be screaming for his blood too.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, the thread is a hell of a long on and if from me scanning it I've come to the incorrect conclusion that the US posters are after his blood then I'm sorry. I'm probably grouping all the stuff I've been reading and grouping it together as a mafority opinion.

Hey now, I don't assume all you guys like "shrimp on dah barby" (though you do) and get smashed before you challenge kangaroo's to a boxing match.

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, the thread is a hell of a long on and if from me scanning it I've come to the incorrect conclusion that the US posters are after his blood then I'm sorry. I'm probably grouping all the stuff I've been reading and grouping it together as a mafority opinion.

Some US posters are as you have assumed, and so are some UK posters.

OTOH some posters from both countries are arguing for following due process of the law.

Edit:
Wolfstan. So it's wrong for the US to want to prosecute someone whose been taking secrets from the United States government and publishing them left and right without a thought as to who would actually benefit, or be hurt by the release? Yes, a lot of Americans are out for his blood. But imagine if he's instead been publish secrets of the Russian government, or the British one....especially LISTS of sites that its diplomats considered vital to the nation all over the world, or releasing plans that could lead to an undue increase in tension? They'd be screaming for his blood too.

You're missing my point. He's the public face Wikileaks, there are plenty below him, so if it was so wrong surely some of his own people would of spoken up or been in the press saying so.

As also mentioned, he didn't hack the US systems, one of their own people handed it over. Just because he took advantage of this dosen't make him a criminal.

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.

And...given that he's got a whole website dedicated to spreading out leaked infromation? I doubt any of his underlings would have 'spoken out' against the 'wrongness' of leaking classified info stolen from the US. I'm willing to be most of them though of such actions as a great thing instead of a bad thing.

Should the US pursue all the media outlets that have released the information?

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.

I read it, and do not agree with your statement. Please explain to me how a man who is not even a citizen of the country is guilty in the same way/to the same degree as the Pfc in question that actually downloaded the files.