Wikileaks to release more info

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

MC, please read my previous post. I apologize if you thought I was belittling your abilities. I was not.

Not to worry. I didn't take anything otherwise at all.

I see an "or" in the Constitution which kind of changes my perception of what it means. I.E. - or ... giving them aid and comfort. This is where the lawyers could/would split hairs.

Only if the lawyer also rewrites the Constitution, or at least the rule of grammar.

The "or" comes between "levying War against them" and "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So merely giving enemies aid and comfort is not enough to satisfy the definition. The aid and comfort is linked to adhering to the enemy. So the bottom line is that for treason, one either has to actually fight for the enemy or at the least give some allegiance to the enemy, with aid and comfort in furtherance of that allegiance.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As a lawyer (good or not is debatable DF ), I do not agree.

Your fan club believes you are only capable of good...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

i akin it to hiding in plain sight.

Right - which worked beautifully in The Purloined Letter, but shouldn't be a standard operating practice for national security, at least in my opinion - it's too clever by at least half.

[DaemonSeid]

Dude was arrested
Julian Assange Arrested: What's Next?

Max Fisher – Tue Dec 7, 9:06 am ET

WASHINGTON, DC – British police have arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on a European arrest warrant that originated in Sweden, where he is wanted for an alleged sex crime. The U.K. received the warrant on Monday afternoon, Eastern Standard Time in the U.S. Assange had threatened, if arrested, to release the encryption key for a large file he says contains damaging U.S. secrets. Here's what we know about the arrest, what comes next, and how people are reacting.


Assange in British Court Now The Guardian's Matthew Weaver reported a few minutes before 8 a.m., Eastern U.S. time: "Assange has entered the court. He went in the back entrance and was accompanied by his lawyers Mark Stephens and Jennifer Robinson. They are due to to examine the charges against him. I was on the phone to my colleague Sam Jones, when it happened." The court is in the City of Westminster. CNN describes the charges: "Sweden first issued the arrest warrant for Assange in November, saying he is suspected of one count of rape, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of unlawful coercion--or illegal use of force--allegedly committed in August."
Will He Be Allowed Bail? Or will he have to remain in prison? The Guardian's Afua Hirsch writes that "his lawyers are reported to be putting together a generous bail package, including a security of at least £100,000 and a surety--where third parties guarantee to pay the court if he absconds. Experts say a large bail amount is likely to secure bail, although the crime for which Assange is wanted by Sweden is rape, a serious offence for which bail is often harder to secure."

Can He Beat Extradition? "Even though the Swedish warrant is a European arrest warrant designed for easy transfer of suspects among European states," reports CNN, "Assange may still choose to fight it--something his London lawyer has promised to do, according to the Press Association. If the court does decide to allow his extradition, Assange will be allowed to appeal that decision." If he is extradited to Sweden, The Guardian's Afua Hirsch says "Assange will be vulnerable to other extradition requests from countries including the US."

WikiLeaks Vows to Continue Publishing The Associated Press reports that "the spokesman for WikiLeaks says founder Julian Assange's arrest is an attack on media freedom and that it won't prevent the organization from spilling secrets on the web." Says the spokesman: "this will not change our operation."

U.S. Should Prosecute Assange Under Espionage Act Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein argues in the Wall Street Journal that Assange violated the 1917 Espionage Act by publishing classified material with the intent of damaging U.S. national security. "As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/201...hatsnext6073_1

I wonder how many years this will drag out before he is prosecuted?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The "or" comes between "levying War against them" and "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So merely giving enemies aid and comfort is not enough to satisfy the definition. The aid and comfort is linked to adhering to the enemy. So the bottom line is that for treason, one either has to actually fight for the enemy or at the least give some allegiance to the enemy, with aid and comfort in furtherance of that allegiance.

To further this, the noun use of "comfort" is an archaic one, meaning literally "assistance or strengthening aid" and not the modern senses of the term.

So ... yeah, as I'm no Constitutional scholar (but I appear to know a good one ), I'll agree with MC's assertion that "tough road to hoe" would be the minimum here.

There are better ways to get a conviction, and I assume that's all anyone really wants.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

To further this, the noun use of "comfort" is an archaic one, meaning literally "assistance or strengthening aid" and not the modern senses of the term.

Exactly. Thanks for adding this.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

Yeah, we'll certainly see what's going on with those rape charges soon enough, I think.

Although the victim blaming has taken a different route this time: Instead of "she deserved it" it's "she trapped him because she's a radical feminist!"

Yes, ugh I hate that. I don't doubt her story, but I don't really know her story either. Reports have varied wildly from this being a clear case of her withdrawing consent for sex after finding out he wasn't using a condom and him continuing which is clear rape, to allegations that the Swedish law is any sex without a condom is rape which is afaik false, to reports that one or both women really just wanted him to be forced to consent to STD testing and not to bring rape charges.

In addition the way the prosecutors have handled the case, not interviewing him when they could, charging, dropping, recharging (or threatening to charge, dropping it and picking it up) and so on has made me rather cynical about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

To further this, the noun use of "comfort" is an archaic one, meaning literally "assistance or strengthening aid" and not the modern senses of the term.

I still prefer to imagine people sending Soviet spies chicken noodle soup and tucking them into bed...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Yawn! Your honor, I rest my case.

Translation: "I can't defend my statements so I'll attack your character and pretend I'm above it all."

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes, ugh I hate that. I don't doubt her story, but I don't really know her story either. Reports have varied wildly from this being a clear case of her withdrawing consent for sex after finding out he wasn't using a condom and him continuing which is clear rape, to allegations that the Swedish law is any sex without a condom is rape which is afaik false, to reports that one or both women really just wanted him to be forced to consent to STD testing and not to bring rape charges.

In addition the way the prosecutors have handled the case, not interviewing him when they could, charging, dropping, recharging (or threatening to charge, dropping it and picking it up) and so on has made me rather cynical about the whole thing.

The media's all over the map on this one. I suppose we'll see what happens when the Swedes get a hold of him physically (I believe he's still in London, right)?

Or they could send Lisbeth Salander to tattoo his belly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

The media's all over the map on this one. I suppose we'll see what happens when the Swedes get a hold of him physically (I believe he's still in London, right)?

Or they could send Lisbeth Salander to tattoo his belly.

I believe so, or was at last notice. He lost his hearing to get bail and stay in London while he appeals the extradition I think. Because of the type of warrant there isn't a lot of review upfront due to EU agreements.

[dreamseeker]

Originally Posted by agzg

The media's all over the map on this one. I suppose we'll see what happens when the Swedes get a hold of him physically (I believe he's still in London, right)?

Or they could send Lisbeth Salander to tattoo his belly.

!!!!!

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Only if the lawyer also rewrites the Constitution, or at least the rule of grammar.

Need your expertize here. If this is so cut and dried on treason, why do we have split decisions on it based on Constitutional issues?

Reference the Burr, Cramer and Haupt cases. With the Haupt case being a really strange one as:

"...it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason--defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant--were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said: ''No matter whether young Haupt's mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him."

That is a pretty broad brush they painted with.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Need your expertize here. If this is so cut and dried on treason, why do we have split decisions on it based on Constitutional issues?

Not to speak for MC, but the answer is likely the same as everything else that requires judicial review: different situations require different applications, different people perform the application, etc.

In other words - why require a judge to rule on anything? After all, the laws are there in black and white ... particularly with something that is as serious as treason, you will naturally have this.

[trimmed]
That is a pretty broad brush they painted with.

That application, no matter how broad, isn't at odds with MC's estimation of this specific case at all, I don't think.

It's probably not correct to think that because a "broad" interpretation was taken in one dissimilar instance that another broad interpretation (in another direction) would thus be appropriate. You can only apply like to like.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not to speak for MC . . . .

You did fine speaking for me.

GW, where is that quote from? Unless it's from a court opinion, then there may be an additional issue of someone characterizing a court's opinion in a way that doesn't really reflect the holding of the court. Regardless, I wouldn't/couldn't really comment on it without knowing the source.

[agzg]

With all the 4chan DDOS attacks going on, I can't help but wonder what would happen if, say, Google had "social activist" units that staged counter-attacks.

Or the NSA. But I guess that would automatically put them on Sarah Palin's side. No self-respecting hacker wants that.