Is this not the act of a terrorist?

[SemperFiUSMC]

If you're going by this then every news source who also covered the cables is responsible for espionage as well. I think CNN is read more regularly by foreign nationals than WikiLeaks is.

I would still argue though that he is covered by the same law as freedom of the press. It hasn't been proved that any one has been harmed in any of this debacle.

If I'm not mistaken the US State department can't find anything to charge him with currently. That's why they've put so much pressure on the European countries to pursue these claims of rape etc.

Point 1. It would be difficult to prove reasonable belief or intent to cause injury to the United States when information already in the public domain is reprinted.

Point 2. What law covers freedom of the press? Actual harm need not be established as an element of the crime of espionage.

Point 3. The Department of Justice and FBI are investigating. It's not as quick and simple as "I think you did something bad so you're under arrest and going to prison".

 

[machete]

Point 2. What law covers freedom of the press?

This--

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

it trumps US law outside of the US,,,and it specifically says---

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

did they teach international law at that law school you went to??? guess not...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

just know that a lot of people around and in America the world consider him a hero,,,and would have no problem eradicating you,,,first!!!

A friend just emailed me this quote made by someone on my troll list.

If this is directed at me and is an invitation for a face to face meeting all you have to do is PM me. I'm your huckleberry.

 

[machete]

A friend just emailed me this quote made by someone on my troll list.

If this is directed at me and is an invitation for a face to face meeting all you have to do is PM me. I'm your huckleberry.

what-eh-vuh,,,tough guy

Assange has done more good for the world than you--EVER WILL!!! in a trade for him or you,,,almost everyone around the world will pick him over you!!! if he gets to Ecuador,,, take one of your guns down there,,,and find out just what sort of reception youll get.. this will be FUNNY!!!



keep playing tough guy and talking about killing people in violation of international law during Christmas!!! nothing baby Jesus likes to see more than people killing other people for speaking the truth---NOT!!! also keep cheering for war,,,baby Jesus just loves war,,,too--NOT!!!

 

[steveh_131]

A friend just emailed me this quote made by someone on my troll list.

If this is directed at me and is an invitation for a face to face meeting all you have to do is PM me. I'm your huckleberry.

Hilarious!

 

[hornadylnl]

Point 3. The Department of Justice and FBI are investigating. It's not as quick and simple as "I think you did something bad so you're under arrest and going to prison".

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?

 

[CombatVet]

Point 2. What law covers freedom of the press? Actual harm need not be established as an element of the crime of espionage.

I believe that would be the First Amendment if I understand your counter point correctly. If you believe the Constitution infallible, then he is innocent of espionage.

 

[Prometheus]

Just so we're on the same page, I copied portions of 18 U.S.C. § 793 from 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information . I highlighted the important parts. Looks to me like he could reasonably be charged with three specifications per document. Whether he is found guilty is another issue, but to say there is no proof of the commission of espionage by Assange and Wikileaks is more indicative of a particular political theory than of logic, reason, and understanding of law.

18 U.S.C. § 793

Cute job on the bolding to skip over definitions and how it is applied.

Remove your bolding and reread the code. Assange cannot be charged under current US espionage laws.

This is one reason why Newt Gingrich is now trying to say Assange is an "enemy combatant engaged in information warfare".

Try tried Treason, that failed. They tried Espionage, that failed. Now they are trying enemy combatant.

Keep kissing up to obama and clinton, gobble up their lies and rhetoric.

I've heard some idiot say that Wikileaks isn't "the press".

Can anyone tell me how many media conglomerates were around in the 1780's? The answer is zero.

CNN is no more (or less) the press than worldnet daily, wikileaks or drudge report... which by the way are all disseminating this "secret" information.

I'd like to point out that obama and clinton would be dragging the bodies of any dead Americans who were killed over these wikileaks thru Times Square if anyones death could actually be tied to these documents.

Of course many people here could care less about the truth. They just want to support their president and his secretary of state.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I believe that would be the First Amendment if I understand your counter point correctly. If you believe the Constitution infallible, then he is innocent of espionage.

So it's your contention that the Constitution authorizes the release of classified information in contravention of federal law? Even when it's been ruled exactly the opposite?

 

[CombatVet]

So it's your contention that the Constitution authorizes the release of classified information in contravention of federal law? Even when it's been ruled exactly the opposite?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply stating that if you feel his actions are covered by our laws, then our laws also protect him. I believe it was the freedom of information act that protects the media from this sort of thing.

 

[UncleMike]

Assange has done more good for the world than you--EVER WILL!!! in a trade for him or you,,,almost everyone around the world will pick him over you!!! if he gets to Ecuador,,, take one of your guns down there,,,and find out just what sort of reception youll get.. this will be FUNNY!!!



keep playing tough guy and talking about killing people in violation of international law during Christmas!!! nothing baby Jesus likes to see more than people killing other people for speaking the truth---NOT!!! also keep cheering for war,,,baby Jesus just loves war,,,too--NOT!!!

YOU are one sick MF!
Assange has endangered the lives of every single one of our Troops in the Middle East. Not to mention the very fabric of Diplomacy around the world.
If he should happen to die a painful, lingering, death it would be too merciful for him.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply stating that if you feel his actions are covered by our laws, then our laws also protect him. I believe it was the freedom of information act that protects the media from this sort of thing.

Our laws protect him to the extent that he submits to those laws. If he fails to submit and continues to cause injury to the national security of the United States of America, we are entitled under international law to protect ourselves. That includes extrajudicial remedies. IT's a moot issue since he's in custody now. We should continue to vigorously pursue Wikileaks and its officers until it has no capacity to harm us.

The freedom of information act has nothing to do with protecting the media. There is no federal law shielding the media from unauthorized publishing of classified material.

 

[Garb]

YOU are one sick MF!
Assange has endangered the lives of every single one of our Troops in the Middle East. Not to mention the very fabric of Diplomacy around the world.
If he should happen to die a painful, lingering, death it would be too merciful for him.

I would say our own presidential administrations since Bush Sr. have put our troops in FAR more danger than this guy could ever hope to.

SemperFiUSMC The freedom of information act has nothing to do with protecting the media. There is no federal law shielding the media from unauthorized publishing of classified material.

Is there a law against the media publishing classified material?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I would say our own presidential administrations since Bush Sr. have put our troops in FAR more danger than this guy could ever hope to.




Is there a law against the media publishing classified material?

18 U.S.C. § 793

 

[Garb]

18 U.S.C. § 793

Ok, you got me. However, I still think we wouldn't have this problem if we would stop playing world police and trying to save/control everybody. The Feds want to control people here, what makes you think it's any different overseas?

 

[hornadylnl]

Nowhere did I read in the above quoted law that it applies to not US citizens on not US soil. Is that anywhere in the full text of the law?

 

[mrjarrell]

Ok, you got me. However, I still think we wouldn't have this problem if we would stop playing world police and trying to save/control everybody. The Feds want to control people here, what makes you think it's any different overseas?

Of course no-one's bothered to try and explain why Daniel Ellsberg gets a pass with the Pentagon Papers. Here's a man who did the same thing Wikileaks did and he is a free man. Precedent counts in the world of law. Always has been, ever since he did his thing. They also fail to realise that Wikileaks is an organisation. Doing something to Assange will not stop the release of the cables, as we've seen every day since Assange was arrested. Anything happens to him and ALL of the cables will be released at once with no redactions. Internet warriors talk big, but they always fail to see the bigger picture.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Of course no-one's bothered to try and explain why Daniel Ellsberg gets a pass with the Pentagon Papers. Here's a man who did the same thing Wikileaks did and he is a free man. Precedent counts in the world of law. Always has been, ever since he did his thing. They also fail to realise that Wikileaks is an organisation. Doing something to Assange will not stop the release of the cables, as we've seen every day since Assange was arrested. Anything happens to him and ALL of the cables will be released at once with no redactions. Internet warriors talk big, but they always fail to see the bigger picture.

Really? Ellsberg and Assange did the same thing? So Assange authored the 500,000+ documents he illegally has in his possession? Have you read and digested any of the pleadings and decisions or are you quoting from Wikipedia? The only thing these two have in common is that they are both libtard heros. These are different situations.

SCOTUS never ruled on the Espionage Act. It issued a per curiam decision that the government failed to make a case for a prior restraint injunction against the NY Times release of the Pentagon Papers. Nothing more. In fact a majrity of the justices opined that the Times could be charged with violation of 18 USC § 793. Ellsberg was never acquitted. His trial ended in mistrial and he was not retried. You'd know that if you had a clue.

Maybe you can explain how someone who threatens to release unredacted information unless his demands are met is not a terrorist.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ok, you got me. However, I still think we wouldn't have this problem if we would stop playing world police and trying to save/control everybody. The Feds want to control people here, what makes you think it's any different overseas?

We disagree on this. You are relying on the generally good nature of man when man has proven his nature is not generally good.

On this we agree 100%. But if America has a national security interest it needs to mobilize. We have an interest in standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies. We had an interest in shutting down terrorist camps in Afganistan. We had an interest in ensuring that Saddam lacked the means to threaten us or our allies or control the majority of the world's oil reserves. We had an incredibly weak interest in Bosnia. And Somolia. And Haiti. And lots of other places we've been.

 

[rambone]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply stating that if you feel his actions are covered by our laws, then our laws also protect him. I believe it was the freedom of information act that protects the media from this sort of thing.

Perfecto.

Of course no-one's bothered to try and explain why Daniel Ellsberg gets a pass with the Pentagon Papers. Here's a man who did the same thing Wikileaks did and he is a free man. Precedent counts in the world of law.

SemperFiUSMC isn't too keen on legal precedents when he doesn't have some libtard court ruling to quote that justifies Big Government. This is the current state of case law. We don't shut down the media because it embarrasses the government.

This is not my analysis. It is not my desire. I don't like it. However it is the current state of case law. Want it changed? Elect enough legislators to the House and Senate who will support amending the Constitution to eliminate these silly rulings. I'm all for it.