ryacko wrote: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?
How can you possibly think that it can, when the crime is not committed on US soil?
Zacarias Moussaoui was indicted, many individuals were indicted by the US government. Apparently I understand far more then you comprehend.
Their crime occurred on US soil. Please give me a way that Assange's alleged crime did.
By US soil, do you mean that victims ought to be on US soil (the government is in fact on US soil btw, most of it), or that the events as they transpired occurred on US soil (on which grounds Bradley Manning, Gary McKinnon, Ian Norris, and many more are innocent)?
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Bradley Manning was under military law - different kettle of fish.
The price fixing that was the heart of the Norris case was worldwide. Thats the consequences of entering a countries business markets, you make yourself subject to its business regulation.
Gary McKinnon is certainly a governmental overreach, and I really think it would have been a really interesting case to see before the Supreme Courts, unfortunately the Brits had too much sense to allow it to go that far. Of course, the actual servers he hacked were in the US, which was the basis for the jurisdictional decisions in the first place, as stupid as they were.
You seem to assume a fair bit. But clearly Assange violated US law. The internet is worldwide, and thus anything he publishes is also published in the US. People cannot assume they can hide overseas to violate US laws.
Keep in mind wikileaks was once hosted by the Amazon cloud.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
The act of publishing it is not. Do you seriously not get this? Whether Assange violated US law is moot because he is not subject to US law.
The only possible stretch you could use is that the wikileaks.org ip resolves to a hosting service in California, but you've got a number of issues with that, starting with the fact that the hosting service has immunity. Unless you make the argument that jurisdiction passes through the hosting service to Assange (assuming that you can prove Assange actually posted anything, rather than simply taking credit for it), Assange has still not actually committted an act while within US jurisdiction of some kind.
Ryacko, have you ever done anything on the internet that violates the law in any jurisdiction in the world? Including viewing content? Can those jurisdictions now try to extradite you and apply whatever the punishment they judge necessary? I hope not.
Questor wrote:The act of publishing it is not. Do you seriously not get this? Whether Assange violated US law is moot because he is not subject to US law.
The only possible stretch you could use is that the wikileaks.org ip resolves to a hosting service in California, but you've got a number of issues with that, starting with the fact that the hosting service has immunity. Unless you make the argument that jurisdiction passes through the hosting service to Assange (assuming that you can prove Assange actually posted anything, rather than simply taking credit for it), Assange has still not actually committted an act while within US jurisdiction of some kind.
Ryacko, have you ever done anything on the internet that violates the law in any jurisdiction in the world? Including viewing content? Can those jurisdictions now try to extradite you and apply whatever the punishment they judge necessary? I hope not.
You equate viewing and publishing to be the same. Your entire argument is quite moot considering your insufficient knowledge of legal standards and your assumptions that your limited knowledge of law is all encompassing - it is not. The act of listening as compared to the act of shouting are two very different acts as recognized by the law, perhaps recognized for centuries, and it should be noted that publishing something illegal, be it an illegal number or otherwise, is clearly in contravention to US laws regarding prior restraint.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Your claims that Julian Assange is beyond US jurisdiction is far more staggering, and certainly does not mean Julian Assange is free from being prosecuted, particularly since there a conditionals in legal matters.
I simply remarked that you don't seem to understand a single thing I was saying, a situation I hoped and presumed a result of your laziness in researching basic legal doctrine and matters online.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
You know what? I'm happy to send my grades in Intro to Evidence and Criminal Law I to Dalton, Thanas, or Aaron. * As jurisdiction is one of the foundational concepts of law, that's all that should be necessary.
* Posting it publicly won't happen, and wouldn't mean anything anyway.
You're evading my arguments. You treat supreme court rulings as binary and sweeping and seem to treat Assange as having to responsibility in this matter.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Questor wrote:Put up or shut up! Prove you're an authority.
Are you actually arguing that one college course makes you an expert on US law?
Next you're going to say that if journalists don't have degrees or educations in the subjects they write about, they can't write about them. Second-hand experience is a legitimate source of knowledge, of which I have much experience of.
Your inability to actually argue the key point that the Supreme Court ruled that "In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger."
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Questor wrote:Put up or shut up! Prove you're an authority.
Are you actually arguing that one college course makes you an expert on US law?
Nope, I'm saying that two college courses have given me a foundation to understand the way jurisdiction works better than you. I'm still waiting for you to present your qualifications.
Questor wrote:Put up or shut up! Prove you're an authority.
Are you actually arguing that one college course makes you an expert on US law?
Nope, I'm saying that two college courses have given me a foundation to understand the way jurisdiction works better than you. I'm still waiting for you to present your qualifications.
You have yet to actually prove you've take those courses.
I'm not even sure you have proven that you can comprehend English.
You continue to avoid actual discussion.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
Questor wrote:
Nope, I'm saying that two college courses have given me a foundation to understand the way jurisdiction works better than you. I'm still waiting for you to present your qualifications.
You have yet to actually prove you've take those courses.
I've told you how I'm willing to prove it. How are you willing to prove it?
PS: A call for evidence such as this has a history in this forum. I know it. Do you?
Your inability to actually argue the key point that the Supreme Court ruled that "In order to exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger," which your continued avoidance is quite telling considering your overall failings in gainful knowledge regarding legal jurisprudence.
Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
