Wikileaks to Start 2013 will world reaching data release

[Keevan_Colton]

Would that be the testimony of the person that tweeted about how awesome he was after the rape, didnt take up the offer for him to stay with someone else, threw a party in his honour after, oh, and had posted a blog prior to all this about how to get back at someone that cheats on you by accusing them of rape?

I just want to be clear on who it is we're listening to after all...

[Spoonist]

Would that be the testimony of the person that tweeted about how awesome he was after the rape, didnt take up the offer for him to stay with someone else, threw a party in his honour after, oh, and had posted a blog prior to all this about how to get back at someone that cheats on you by accusing them of rape?

I just want to be clear on who it is we're listening to after all...

Which part of Assange admitting to most of the actual circumstances didn't you understand?
Does any of the things you regurgitate there about one of the plaintiffs have any relevance at all if the accused admitted to most of that person's account?

[ryacko]

I thought it was universally well known that the law is not founded upon logic, but upon emotion and evidence.

Why would these fallacies not apply to Assange?

If he surprised her in the middle of the night with sex, and if the Swedes consider it to be rape, then he could be proved guilty in a court of law.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Now who will take Assange's defense?

Sure. I will. Last I checked the United States does not have jurisdiction. US law does not apply to a foreign national unless they commit (or are conspiring to commit) a crime upon US soil or within an area occupied by the US, so the PATRIOT Act and Espionage Act etc do not apply. Not only is he a foreign national, but he is a journalist, and his digging up of classified documents is part of the job description, has been done under the auspices of a free press, the documents have been scrubbed to remove identifying information that would endanger lives, and thus his actions are protected by the first amendment. Even if he was not a foreign national and not, to my knowledge (I am not a lawyer, If I need correction, please do so), under US jurisdiction.

So... What would they charge him for? As far as I know, if the US wants to extradite him, it will have to be an extralegal rendition, because there is nothing he can be charged with. Legally anyway. I suppose they could take him to Afghanistan and treat him like Khalid el Masri.

[Aaron MkII]

What if he's conspiring with a member of the US military?

It's been tossed around a lot that Manning might have passed him info.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

[...] his actions are protected by the first amendment.

That's quite a thing. If ryacko is gonna charge Assange with laws that normally don't apply to him, it's only fair (and fairness is one of the principles of Justice) that the US legal code can also be used for his defense. First amendment for the win.

As to the alleged rape, he sure was a stupid asshole when he first fled the Swedish authorities. But even if he's changed his mind and wants to be questioned, he won't dare it; the case is word against word, and he lost face when he ran in panic (lost face, mind you, does not equate to evidence of guilt). He's afraid that his account of the events is far less defensible.

[Keevan_Colton]

Please note that he was questioned already and was told by swedish police that he was free to leave the country at that time.

[Questor]

Serious question: at what point, compared to the point Assange was at, does jeopardy attach in Sweden?

[ryacko]

Now who will take Assange's defense?

Sure. I will. Last I checked the United States does not have jurisdiction. US law does not apply to a foreign national unless they commit (or are conspiring to commit) a crime upon US soil or within an area occupied by the US, so the PATRIOT Act and Espionage Act etc do not apply. Not only is he a foreign national, but he is a journalist, and his digging up of classified documents is part of the job description, has been done under the auspices of a free press, the documents have been scrubbed to remove identifying information that would endanger lives, and thus his actions are protected by the first amendment. Even if he was not a foreign national and not, to my knowledge (I am not a lawyer, If I need correction, please do so), under US jurisdiction.

So... What would they charge him for? As far as I know, if the US wants to extradite him, it will have to be an extralegal rendition, because there is nothing he can be charged with. Legally anyway. I suppose they could take him to Afghanistan and treat him like Khalid el Masri.

He did commit a crime against the US government, a US entity incorporated in the United States beginning 1789. Crimes against the government are very much prosecuted by the US government. I would expect this to be obvious. Although the British government considers Assange's crime to be political.

First amendment? You do know about it? Strange. Evidently you don't know the legal tests behind it, since you ought to know what I've already said about it:

Assange furthermore has published via a peer-to-peer filesharing network an "insurance file," whose password was released inadvertently. This insurance file contained unredacted information regarding the names of collaborators and their locations. While previous cases involving the publishing of classified information were protected under the first amendment, this case is not. The release of the names of informants presents a threat of imminent lawless action of retribution against them, and is an example of the defendant's reckless disregard for US law and interests.

I already made an argument about it. If you wish to argue with me, you do have to address my arguments. Imminent lawless action. I would like to amend it to also include prior restraint.

Assange clearly recruited Manning into the Wikileaks spyring as well.

[Alyeska]

He did commit a crime against the US government, a US entity incorporated in the United States beginning 1789. Crimes against the government are very much prosecuted by the US government. I would expect this to be obvious. Although the British government considers Assange's crime to be political.

He was in receipt of information from a third party. Assange is not a US citizen and did not take any direct action against the United States. Publishing of classified information is not a crime.

First amendment? You do know about it? Strange. Evidently you don't know the legal tests behind it, since you ought to know what I've already said about it:

And neither do you. Read up on Deep Throat and the Pentagon Papers.

Assange clearly recruited Manning into the Wikileaks spyring as well.

Clearly. Just like "The Washington Post" had a spy ring gaining information on Richard Nixon.

You have just declared that every single journalist is a spy and a traitor to the united states. Even foreign journalists.

The US can pass any law it wants to criminalize any action in any country and then demand that person be extradited. German citizens are criticizing the United States. Pass a law and then demand Germany extradite the citizens.

[ryacko]

He was in receipt of information from a third party. Assange is not a US citizen and did not take any direct action against the United States. Publishing of classified information is not a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05973.html
Actually... it is?

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.

And neither do you. Read up on Deep Throat and the Pentagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers were a history of the vietnam war.
They didn't include US foreign policy plans, locations of mildly sensitive locations (such as locations vulnerable to terrorist attack), etc.

You have just declared that every single journalist is a spy and a traitor to the united states. Even foreign journalists.

Wouldn't the real prosecution of Assange have open ended language allowing for such an interpretation?

[Alyeska]

Actually... it is?

The Pentagon Papers were a history of the vietnam war.

The Pentagon Papers were also classified. So according to your own claims publishing of that information was illegal.

Except it wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_ ... ted_States

Wouldn't the real prosecution of Assange have open ended language allowing for such an interpretation?

Are you incapable of understanding the ramifications of what you just advocated? Journalism would become illegal in the United States. You know, that whole "Freedom of the press" thing would completely disappear.

[ryacko]

In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger.

I'm quite certain a judge would rule that wikileaks caused a grave and irreparable danger. But then again, Assange hasn't been tried yet.

Are you incapable of understanding the ramifications of what you just advocated? Journalism would become illegal in the United States. You know, that whole "Freedom of the press" thing would completely disappear.

Oh no, we might go down a slippery slope of gay marriage and socialism.... except that hasn't happened. The idea that banned one act of free speech would destroy free press is totally retarded.

[Alyeska]

I'm quite certain a judge would rule that wikileaks caused a grave and irreparable danger. But then again, Assange hasn't been tried yet.

Oh, you mean when the US checked and couldn't even find a single case of the information being used to actually go after informants? Which by the way, Wikileaks attempted to release the information without the informants and it was actually other media organizations that released all the names.

Oh no, we might go down a slippery slope of gay marriage and socialism.... except that hasn't happened. The idea that banned one act of free speech would destroy free press is totally retarded.

Except you even admitted the US could simply pass new laws specifically to attack foreigners and demand their extradition. For simply doing things outside of the United States.

[ryacko]

Oh, you mean when the US checked and couldn't even find a single case of the information being used to actually go after informants? Which by the way, Wikileaks attempted to release the information without the informants and it was actually other media organizations that released all the names.

It doesn't matter if any informants are dead. The fact of the matter is, that informants were endangered, and so were US foreign policy interests.

Except you even admitted the US could simply pass new laws specifically to attack foreigners and demand their extradition. For simply doing things outside of the United States.

I thought these laws already existed? Maybe there is a century long time lag between us...

[Alyeska]

It doesn't matter if any informants are dead. The fact of the matter is, that informants were endangered, and so were US foreign policy interests.

Guess what, leaking the Pentagon Papers did the same thing. It told about US ties to Vietnam and endangered US foreign policy interests.

I thought these laws already existed? Maybe there is a century long time lag between us...

The fact that you are OK with the United States arbitrarily passing laws specifically aimed at suppressing and silencing foreigners who have taken no action against the United States is showing of your views.

[ryacko]

Guess what, leaking the Pentagon Papers did the same thing. It told about US ties to Vietnam and endangered US foreign policy interests.

Guess what,

In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger.

Was the ruling.

The fact that you are OK with the United States arbitrarily passing laws specifically aimed at suppressing and silencing foreigners who have taken no action against the United States is showing of your views.

Taken no action? Who am I to question the authority and wisdom of the US government? They might know more about someone's innocence then you would think. Although bills of retainders are explicitly unconstitutional. But the magic of the internet means that anything posted online can be construed as a continued distribution.

[Alyeska]

Taken no action? Who am I to question the authority and wisdom of the US government? They might know more about someone's innocence then you would think. Although bills of retainders are explicitly unconstitutional. But the magic of the internet means that anything posted online can be construed as a continued distribution.

..........

[Terralthra]

Don't you see, Alyeska? It's just like how, since you and I have both posted about God's non-existence, we're both guilty of violating Pakistan's law against blasphemy, and can be extradited to Pakistan and executed.

[Stark]

Slow down pal. It only works for THE GOOD GUYS.

[Questor]

He did commit a crime against the US government, a US entity incorporated in the United States beginning 1789. Crimes against the government are very much prosecuted by the US government.

Are you completely ignorant, or are you just trolling?

What United States court has jurisdiction over Assange?

[Grumman]

Who am I to question the authority and wisdom of the US government?

It is your right and your responsibility to question what your government does in your name.

[ryacko]

He did commit a crime against the US government, a US entity incorporated in the United States beginning 1789. Crimes against the government are very much prosecuted by the US government.

Are you completely ignorant, or are you just trolling?

What United States court has jurisdiction over Assange?

Federal court?

I mean seriously, how can you possibly think that the US government cannot indict foreign nationals?

[Alyeska]

Federal court?

I mean seriously, how can you possibly think that the US government cannot indict foreign nationals?

You don't seem to understand how far down the rabbit hole that goes.

[ryacko]

Federal court?

I mean seriously, how can you possibly think that the US government cannot indict foreign nationals?

You don't seem to understand how far down the rabbit hole that goes.

Zacarias Moussaoui was indicted, many individuals were indicted by the US government. Apparently I understand far more then you comprehend.