Is this not the act of a terrorist?

[hornadylnl]

I'm still trying to figure out how 18 U.S.C. § 793 applies to not US citizens not on US soil. Because if we can enforce our laws on people in other countries, I've got the perfect solution to the US debt problem. We can train our satellite on roads throughout the world. We will then mail out traffic tickets to all who violate US traffics laws. If they refuse to pay, we'll either send in motorcycle assassins, drones or hellfire missiles.

I don't think too many of our allies would appreciate us sending spooks on their soil to carry out a hit. What would we as a nation do if Israeli Mossad assassinated a person on US soil who they claimed was a threat to them? Are the Israelis justified in killing any American citizen on our soil who sends money to Palestinian causes?

 

[machete]

YOU are one sick MF!
Assange has endangered the lives of every single one of our Troops in the Middle East.

...are you crazy??? everyone already knows where our troops are...

theyre in those big fortified bases... if the iraqis and afghanis had artillery and air wings,,,we couldnt have such forward bases... our bases would be sitting ducks...

quit with the hysterics to try to make this something it isnt... he didnt give up the landing plans to Omaha Beach...

Not to mention the very fabric of Diplomacy around the world.

which were usually on the wrong side of... we need to quit playing around in the world,,,and let people live the way they want to...

If he should happen to die a painful, lingering, death it would be too merciful for him.

i think hes a hero,,,standing up to evil... he also has balls bigger than anyone else,,,standing up to a big vengeful country that likes to rendition and kill people... hes some skinny guy,,,but hes one of the toughest people ive ever heard of...

his website is completely legal,,,and the UN is going to speak out on this,,,real soon...

 

[machete]

But if America has a national security interest it needs to mobilize.

well be able to see their ships coming from hundreds of miles away... call me when that happens,,,and Ill muster up with you on the Maine coast to fight them off...

We have an interest in standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies.

no,,,we dont!!! thats just a neocon excuse to get us involved in everything around the world..

We had an interest in shutting down terrorist camps in Afganistan.

maybe,,,but that was done one week after we went there...we should have come home,,,years ago...

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.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saddam could never threaten us,,,and hes entitled to whatever oil he can get... whats he going to do??? eat it??? so hed sell it to us instead of the kuwaitis selling it to us... so what??? its still the same price... not our business who sits on top of that land...

America does not go to war over resources... thats neocon treason...

We had an incredibly weak interest in Bosnia. And Somolia. And Haiti. And lots of other places we've been.

the only time we get to be in another country is if that country is attacking us... btw,,,the Taliban never attacked us...they just let OBL live among them...

its immoral for us to spend another day in Iraq or Afghanistan...

 

[machete]

I'm still trying to figure out how 18 U.S.C. § 793 applies to not US citizens not on US soil.

It dont... law boy still aint come back with an answer to that jurisdiction problem...

What would we as a nation do if Israeli Mossad assassinated a person on US soil who they claimed was a threat to them? Are the Israelis justified in killing any American citizen on our soil who sends money to Palestinian causes?

SIR,,,many people here and in the GOP would side with the israelis!!!

aint like you dont also know it...

and yes,,,many gun owners and GOP would have no problem seeing the Israelis kill any American who funds the Palestinians...even if it happened on American soil,,,in the guys own house... theyll just say ---you fund terrorists,,,you die!!!

they get to make up their own definition of terrorist,,,too!!!

some of these people have a loyalty to something that aint America...still trying to figure out what theyre serving...

 

[UncleMike]

...are you crazy??? everyone already knows where our troops are...

theyre in those big fortified bases... if the iraqis and afghanis had artillery and air wings,,,we couldnt have such forward bases... our bases would be sitting ducks...

quit with the hysterics to try to make this something it isnt... he didnt give up the landing plans to Omaha Beach...



which were usually on the wrong side of... we need to quit playing around in the world,,,and let people live the way they want to...



i think hes a hero,,,standing up to evil... he also has balls bigger than anyone else,,,standing up to a big vengeful country that likes to rendition and kill people... hes some skinny guy,,,but hes one of the toughest people ive ever heard of...

his website is completely legal,,,and the UN is going to speak out on this,,,real soon...

You're well within your rights to be a lunatic.
But I don't have to listen to your rantings any more.

 

[CombatVet]

18 U.S.C. § 793

You're really misconstruing that wording. I could go through a law and pick sentences out to do the same thing.

Like you said though it's pointless. I'm talking to a brick wall here.

 

[CombatVet]

YOU are one sick MF!
Assange has endangered the lives of every single one of our Troops in the Middle East. /snip

Respectfully, our troops are always in danger over seas. It's why we got hazardous duty pay etc. Unless he had current secret data such as troop movements/strength etc they where in no more danger than they are already. Don't try playing the troops card on this one.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

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.

You're really misconstruing that wording. I could go through a law and pick sentences out to do the same thing.

Like you said though it's pointless. I'm talking to a brick wall here.

In other words neither of you know how to read a law and interpret the meaning of the words and, or, may, shall, and punctuation like commas, semi colons, and periods. You can just say that. You don't have to get nasty.

 

[CombatVet]

In other words neither of you know how to read a law and interpret the meaning of the words and, or, may, shall, and punctuation like commas, semi colons, and periods. You can just say that. You don't have to get nasty.

I read fine, and know how to punctuate a sentence. I'm getting another 95% in English. This is a message forum about guns, not grammar. Nice attempt at trolling though, you get a A for effort. Keep attacking something other than what we're talking about though, makes you look like a cool guy.

It's funny when people attempt to insult my intelligence because I've had TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury while serving in the sand. My speech is affected by it and up until about 9 months ago wasn't able to use English properly and had to be re-taught. Would you like to make fun of any of my other disabilities sir? Or maybe my race? How about my religion? I find you extremely offensive. You shouldn't make fun of some one for a disability.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I read fine, and know how to punctuate a sentence. I'm getting another 95% in English. This is a message forum about guns, not grammar. Nice attempt at trolling though, you get a A for effort. Keep attacking something other than what we're talking about though, makes you look like a cool guy.

It's funny when people attempt to insult my intelligence because I've had TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury while serving in the sand. My speech is affected by it and up until about 9 months ago wasn't able to use English properly and had to be re-taught. Would you like to make fun of any of my other disabilities sir? Or maybe my race? How about my religion? I find you extremely offensive. You shouldn't make fun of some one for a disability.

I said you don't know how to read a legal document. I wasn't making fun of anything. I wasn't denegrating you or Pro. This was not an English class review of grammer. Reading the law is nuanced. A comma v semi colon changes the meaning of a phrase. The words may, will and shall all mean something different. That's exactly what I said. If you take it differently that's not my fault.

We're talking about 18 USC § 793. You're the one that raised the issue of how I disected the phrases. And you want to bust on me for saying you're wrong? I could have said you're a stupid f-g idiot who can't read. I didn't do that - I generally don't, other than to tell people if they want to learn to read and understand statutes and legal documents they should go to school to learn to do so (although I like the word libtard more from a standpoint of ). Get a grip.

I don't know you. I don't know what you have or don't have. But now I do. That said my inital point stands. Your analysis of the law is flawed. No amount of trying to dress me down for some perceived slight changes that.

If you think I'm making fun of you there a little button called the ignore list. You just click it and type my name. You'll never be bothered again.

Since people tend to agree with what I have to say as evidenced by the rep I seem to continue to receive, I'll take that as evidence that only a small vocal group of people unable to defend their position claim I'm trollling as a last resort. Kinda like claiming I'm picking on the handicapped. Oh well. See previous paragraph.

 

[hornadylnl]

Semper, I'm not as smart as you so I'm incapable of understanding 18 USC. Please translate it into libtardese for me where it has jurisdiction over not us citizens not on us soil.

 

[rambone]

Semper, I'm not as smart as you so I'm incapable of understanding 18 USC. Please translate it into libtardese for me where it has jurisdiction over not us citizens not on us soil.

Nice red herring!! Spoken like a true Anarchist.

 

[hornadylnl]

Nice red herring!! Spoken like a true Anarchist.

I think I got put on ignore as well. This is the this or fourth time I've asked this question and it has yet to be answered.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Semper, I'm not as smart as you so I'm incapable of understanding 18 USC. Please translate it into libtardese for me where it has jurisdiction over not us citizens not on us soil.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a well respected tenent of international law. The objective territorial principle allows jurisdiction of an offense committed elsewhere but taking affect within a sovereign that proscribes conduct and asserts jurisdiction. Unless the clear intent of the language precludes extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is assumed.

In this case the United States has clear authority to regulate its own classified information, and under international law can assert extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce its laws and protect its assets, regardless of citizenship or physical location.

 

[hornadylnl]

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a well respected tenent of international law. The objective territorial principle allows jurisdiction of an offense committed elsewhere but taking affect within a sovereign that proscribes conduct and asserts jurisdiction. Unless the clear intent of the language precludes extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is assumed. In this case the United States has clear authority to regulate its own classified information, and under international law can assert extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce its authority.

Assumed?

I could understand if the country he posted these from offered him up to us for extradition. Has that occured? Or should we put out contracts on anyone who we deem a threat to us?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Assumed?

I could understand if the country he posted these from offered him up to us for extradition. Has that occured? Or should we put out contracts on anyone who we deem a threat to us?

Under international law we can request his extradition if charges are preferred. If he is in a country that has an extradition treaty with us, he may or may not be extradited. Not only do we have to have an extradition treaty (generally), but part of that treaty will spell out the conditions under which someone may be extradited. Some countries will extradict a foreigner but not a citizen. Others will extradict only if the subject is charged with a crime that is also a crime in that country.

Under Swedish law extradition is permitted to any sovereign provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year.

Now, why was Assange in such a rush to get journalist credentials in Sweden a few months ago? And why did these goofy rape charges come up when he was in England? I think the answer is simple. We found him. He knows we found him. From what I've read charges are imminent. England will send him to us in a heartbeat as long as we promise no death penalty. Two or three of his supporters in Sweden claim he raped them. Sweden files for extradition, and it's request is processed first by English courts. He get put on a plane, sent back to Sweden to face rape charges, which are determined to be goofy. Charges dropped. We then ask Sweden to extradict him for espionage. They say no, because he has journalist credentials and what he did is not against the law in Sweden. He then claims asylum in Sweden so he isn't arrested and killed by the big bad wolf. The only way to stop him is send in Jason Bourne.

That's my conspiracy theory.

 

[hornadylnl]

Under international law we can request his extradition if charges are preferred. If he is in a country that has an extradition treaty with us, he may or may not be extradited. Not only do we have to have an extradition treaty (generally), but part of that treaty will spell out the conditions under which someone may be extradited. Some countries will extradict a foreigner but not a citizen. Others will extradict only if the subject is charged with a crime that is also a crime in that country.

Under Swedish law extradition is permitted to any sovereign provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year.

Now, why was Assange in such a rush to get journalist credentials in Sweden a few months ago? And why did these goofy rape charges come up when he was in England? I think the answer is simple. We found him. He knows we found him. From what I've read charges are imminent. England will send him to us in a heartbeat as long as we promise no death penalty. Two or three of his supporters in Sweden claim he raped them. Sweden files for extradition, and it's request is processed first by English courts. He get put on a plane, sent back to Sweden to face rape charges, which are determined to be goofy. Charges dropped. We then ask Sweden to extradict him for espionage. They say no, because he has journalist credentials and what he did is not against the law in Sweden. He then claims asylum in Sweden so he isn't arrested and killed by the big bad wolf. The only way to stop him is send in Jason Bourne.

That's my conspiracy theory.

With a congress that writes 1000+ page bills, it's assumed doesn't cut it with me. Congress can't f up a bill, and then try to prosecute based on "we meant to put that in there".

If the country he's in refuses to extradite, I'd say it's a pretty good indication they don't want our spooks disappearing Assange on their sovereign soil. Wouldn't doing so be an act of war?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

With a congress that writes 1000+ page bills, it's assumed doesn't cut it with me. Congress can't f up a bill, and then try to prosecute based on "we meant to put that in there".

If the country he's in refuses to extradite, I'd say it's a pretty good indication they don't want our spooks disappearing Assange on their sovereign soil. Wouldn't doing so be an act of war?

Assumed simply means that extraterritoral jurisdiction is asserted by default. The override is to disclaim extraterritorial jurisdiction within the language.

As to your second paragraph, I don't think it's an act of war if Assange is disappeared. And I'm not even sure I would agree with the premise of the first part of your statement. Part of what the document dump has shown is as with a woman, governments have one face in public and another in private.

 

[ocsdor]

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a well respected tenent of international law. The objective territorial principle allows jurisdiction of an offense committed elsewhere but taking affect within a sovereign that proscribes conduct and asserts jurisdiction. Unless the clear intent of the language precludes extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is assumed.

Therefore, Hitler invaded Poland. duh.

 

[Garb]

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

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.

No, I am not relying on the idea that man's nature is generally good. I'm saying that we're only pissing them off more by being over there, which gives them more recruitment opportunities, and makes those recruits more passionate about what they believe is a Holy War. And I thought the war wasn't about oil?