Wikileaks to release more info

[AGDee]

Well, he is not a US Citizen so he has no allegiance to the US. He is an Australian citizen. I read that they are looking at charges based on the Espionage Act of 1917. What that says, I don't know

He has turned himself in.. in London, for the rape charges in Sweden.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, he is not a US Citizen so he has no allegiance to the US. He is an Australian citizen.

Exactly. One can only commit treason against one's own country. Even if he were a US citizen, treason in the US consists only of actually participating in war against the US or in giving "aid and comfort" to enemies of the US. I doubt what Assange has done would meet this test.

I don't know what qualifies as treason under Australian law.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, he is not a US Citizen so he has no allegiance to the US. He is an Australian citizen. I read that they are looking at charges based on the Espionage Act of 1917. What that says, I don't know

He has turned himself in.. in London, for the rape charges in Sweden.

You are correct with Assange but PFC Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen and therefore open to a charge of treason. We simply don't know the breadth of damage his actions may or may not have caused. There are certainly assets in the field that have been compromised. Whether these assets have or might be liquidated is now a concern. If Manning is found guilty he should be shot (but we probably don't have the balls to do so).

Whether one likes it or not there are certain documents that should remain classified for a purpose. There is just too many bad things that can come out of this for it to out weigh any positive.

Assange appears to have a deep hatred for "democracy". I believe he should be treated as either a spy or ememy combatant. Either way we should attempt to extradite him for trial or try him in absentia. Or even take him out.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

You are correct with Assange but PFC Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen and therefore open to a charge of treason. We simply don't know the breadth of damage his actions may or may not have caused. There are certainly assets in the field that have been compromised. Whether these assets have or might be liquidated is now a concern. If Manning is found guilty he should be shot (but we probably don't have the balls to do so).

How many assumptions did you make in that paragraph?

Assange appears to have a deep hatred for "democracy". I believe he should be treated as either a spy or ememy combatant. Either way we should attempt to extradite him for trial or try him in absentia. Or even take him out.

How the hell would you treat him as a spy? How is he any different than a journalist when you come down to the facts?

I'm sure shooting him would be the best answer though, Internet Tough Guy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

How many assumptions did you make in that paragraph?

Way too many.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

You are correct with Assange but PFC Bradley Manning is a U.S. citizen and therefore open to a charge of treason. We simply don't know the breadth of damage his actions may or may not have caused. There are certainly assets in the field that have been compromised. Whether these assets have or might be liquidated is now a concern. If Manning is found guilty he should be shot (but we probably don't have the balls to do so).

Per the United States Constitution, Article 3, § 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Though what constitutes "aid and comfort" to the "enemies" of the United States, can vary on a case-by-case basis, I haven't seen anything that would indicate PFC Manning meets either of the two constitutionally-required criteria. Did he give anything to an enemy of the United States? (Assange doesn't count -- we are not at war with him.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Way too many.

Seriously, these were diplomatic cables (emails in reality), not messages sent to spies, excuse me, assets who have since been shot, i mean liquidated.

Someone watches way too much Chuck.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Way too many.

Per the United States Constitution, Article 3, § 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Though what constitutes "aid and comfort" to the "enemies" of the United States, can vary on a case-by-case basis, I haven't seen anything that would indicate PFC Manning meets either of the two constitutionally-required criteria. Did he give anything to an enemy of the United States? (Assange doesn't count -- we are not at war with him.)

I believe a good lawyer could make the case that by deliberately giving a foreign national classified documents he was in turn giving aid and comfort to our ememies. It does not state that the aid has to be directly given to our enemies. This may be splitting hairs but isn't that what lawyers do? If assets (read informants/spys/diplomats) were compromised he could be considered to have rendered aid to our enemies. If a soldier loses his/her life due to one or more of these leaked documents that would also be aid to the enemy.

I think it is a moot point though as we, with our current DOJ, don't have the guts to bring him up on treason charges. He will be found guilty of some series of lesser charges and put into prison for the rest of his life. He will become a pariah to most and a hero to the wacky few and every few years there will be an uproar and petition to release him.

[agzg]

Harold James Nicholson, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen pretty clearly committed treason.

I'm not sure what PFC Manning did amounts to much more than a leak (on a large scale). I don't believe Scooter Libby was charged with treason, but with obstruction of justice and perjury.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

Harold James Nicholson, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen pretty clearly committed treason.

I'm not sure what PFC Manning did amounts to much more than a leak (on a large scale). I don't believe Scooter Libby was charged with treason, but with obstruction of justice and perjury.

Yeah, but Libby didn't leak anything classified to anyone as far as I can see. This makes it apples and oranges compared to Manning who deliberately did so. Bob Novak (RIP) was the one who leaked Valerie Plames' name.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Yeah, but Libby didn't leak anything classified to anyone as far as I can see. This makes it apples and oranges compared to Manning who deliberately did so. Bob Novak (RIP) was the one who leaked Valerie Plames' name.

Bob Novak was the journalist, not the source of the leak. Also, there was no evidence that he knew she was a covert officer.

Regardless of whether or not Libby was the one who pulled the trigger (I have my own doubts, there), he was the fall guy, and has been convicted, therefore takes the blame. You better believe the source of the leak in the Plame case did it deliberately.

[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?

[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.