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.

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.

@everyone referencing the IRA:

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/cable-reveals-airstrike-killed-21-children-yemen/

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

Really? how is this view justified then?

Albatross wrote:@everyone referencing the IRA:

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.

TLDR its not a crime to be an asshat.

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.

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.

Roast him over a fire.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

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 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.

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.

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

"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:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

ChrisWWII 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.

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".

Again, its not a crime to be an asshat.

Where did it say that the cruise missile was armed with a bomb? Do we have bombs armed with missiles as well?

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.

Gibbsey wrote:

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.

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

"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.

Frazzled wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

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.

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

"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.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

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.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

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.

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

"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.

http://www.rense.com/general17/UScarpetbombing.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also This:

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

Gibbsey wrote:carpet-bombing car'pet-bomb'ing n
To bomb in a systematic and extensive pattern, so as to devastate a large target area uniformly.

So blowing up a building fits that definition how?

key word large target area. Under your apparent definition dropping a mortar round on a building constitutes carpet bombing.

How about mass drivers from orbit?

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.

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:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

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.

You have to look at things in perspective.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

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.