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.

You've got me there. Fine.

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.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

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?

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.)

ChrisWWII wrote:You've got me there. Fine.

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?

Gibbsey wrote:And since when did i say the military were a bunch of psychotics?

I didn't say you said that; I just said they weren't. Your attitude and the language you use strongly implies you think it though.

ChrisWWII wrote:You've got me there. Fine.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:And since when did i say the military were a bunch of psychotics?

I didn't say you said that; I just said they weren't. Your attitude and the language you use strongly implies you think it though.

Ahtman wrote:To your chagrin, our military aren't a bunch of psychotics and don't just bomb and blow up stuff for fun.

Oh i see your not saying that i said that, you were saying i was thinking it, right got ya

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.)

*sigh*

And how many pages can this thread go.....................

Apparently 14...

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, there are two interesting international arrests on the go in the UK right now.

The other one is the man whose wife got shot on honeymoon in South Africa. Less political.

On what legal basis could Assange be sent to the US for questioning? He isn't suspected of any crime there.

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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:
There are multiple countries that have laws that specifically state jurisdiction is worldwide.

Name one that isn't party to either the ICJ or the ICC.

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?

It might be useful to define national security, and see how these leaks affect it.

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.

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.

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.

M.

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.

It isn't Assange's job to help the security service with their problems.

He might do so if kindly disposed towards the US government. For three obvious reasons, that isn't the case.

What would happen is that he would be brought into court, refuse to give evidence, and then what?

Maybe an unwilling witness can be sent down for contempt.

Alternatively, interrogate him "with extreme prejudice"?

Either of those possibilities just brings us back to the idea that the US government is persecuting him because they are pissed off.

The best thing for the US to do is tighten up security and track down the Wikileaks servers using cyber warfare.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't Assange's job to help the security service with their problems.

He might do so if kindly disposed towards the US government. For three obvious reasons, that isn't the case.

What would happen is that he would be brought into court, refuse to give evidence, and then what?

Maybe an unwilling witness can be sent down for contempt.

Alternatively, interrogate him "with extreme prejudice"?

Either of those possibilities just brings us back to the idea that the US government is persecuting him because they are pissed off.

The best thing for the US to do is tighten up security and track down the Wikileaks servers using cyber warfare.

Agreed i think the most that could happen is they request he appears, i dont think he would be that stupid though

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.

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;"