Another Wikileaks release

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Freedom of speech should and can be restricted in certain circumstances.

Yes, for example, death threats against a journalist leaking information the government doesn't like should not be tolerated.

But what should not be restricted the leaking of information the government doesn't want to be leaked. The government can feel free to prosecute those that were privy to classified information and gave it to Assange/Wikileaks but Assange himself has broken no laws, and is, in fact, protected by both the spirit and wording of the First amendment.

Assange is probably reveling in how tyrannical the US government is acting, which I think was his main point all along.

[Locke]

My issue is that this seems to have been done to Assange without due process.

He has not been charged with a crime. The charges in Sweden are garbage, the Swedish police practically admitted as much.

No one, anywhere, has proven that anything Wikileaks has done is illegal.

They're calling him a terrorist, of course they are, for the past 10 years the US has used that label to justify the trampling of human rights, as soon as they label someone a terrorist all of a sudden they can do whatever they want with him and the law is left by the wayside.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Yes, for example, death threats against a journalist leaking information the government doesn't like should not be tolerated.

But what should not be restricted the leaking of information the government doesn't want to be leaked. The government can feel free to prosecute those that were privy to classified information and gave it to Assange/Wikileaks but Assange himself has broken no laws, and is, in fact, protected by both the spirit and wording of the First amendment.

Assange is probably reveling in how tyrannical the US government is acting, which I think was his main point all along.

That is far from a fact, he may well be protected by the First Amendment, but it's certainly debatable.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by valo403

That is far from a fact, he may well be protected by the First Amendment, but it's certainly debatable.

A journalist sharing information that he received from sources. How is that not protected under the First Amendment? How is Assange under a legal obligation not to share the information? The illegal is committed by leaking it to Assange. I fail to see how anything Assange has done could be construed as illegal.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by valo403

That is far from a fact, he may well be protected by the First Amendment, but it's certainly debatable.

Not only that but if he was a U.S. citizen he would charged with treason. The reason he hasn't is because he's a foreigner and is now relying on the constitution to protect him (and yes, I assume, like Canada the constitution applies to all persons not just U.S. citizens).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

A journalist sharing information that he received from sources. How is that not protected under the First Amendment? How is Assange under a legal obligation not to share the information? The illegal is committed by leaking it to Assange. I fail to see how anything Assange has done could be construed as illegal.

If you frame it like that it's obviously protected, but that's a pretty convenient way to frame it and certainly not an argument that would stand up in court.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Not only that but if he was a U.S. citizen he would charged with treason. The reason he hasn't is because he's a foreigner and is now relying on the constitution to protect him (and yes, I assume, like Canada the constitution applies to all persons not just U.S. citizens).

That's why it's the constitution of a free nation, and not guidelines that apply only to those perceived to be 'just'. And he wouldn't be charged with treason because all he's done is share information that was shared with him. You can't charge journalists for sharing leaks, that's what non free nations do.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by valo403

If you frame it like that it's obviously protected, but that's a pretty convenient way to frame it and certainly not an argument that would stand up in court.

How else is there to frame it? Did Assange take an oath and then given the information? Or did somebody who had taken an oath share that information with Assange? If Assange didn't access this information illegally, he has no obligation to not share the information. What has he done that's illegal? What actions has Assange engaged in that wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Locke

My issue is that this seems to have been done to Assange without due process.

He has not been charged with a crime. The charges in Sweden are garbage, the Swedish police practically admitted as much.

No one, anywhere, has proven that anything Wikileaks has done is illegal.

They're calling him a terrorist, of course they are, for the past 10 years the US has used that label to justify the trampling of human rights, as soon as they label someone a terrorist all of a sudden they can do whatever they want with him and the law is left by the wayside.

Here's something to put things in perspective: The KKK can accept money from VISA, Mastercard and PayPal. Wikileaks cannot.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by valo403

If you frame it like that it's obviously protected, but that's a pretty convenient way to frame it and certainly not an argument that would stand up in court.

Shouldn't a whole pile of newspaper owners, editors and writers (both US-based and worldwide) be hunted as terrorists too then? Why just go after this guy?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

That's why it's the constitution of a free nation, and not guidelines that apply only to those perceived to be 'just'. And he wouldn't be charged with treason because all he's done is share information that was shared with him. You can't charge journalists for sharing leaks, that's what non free nations do.

Actually, in a free nation, he can certainly be charged with something and an independant judiciary, also a characteristic of a free nation, would weigh the facts, charges, etc, and either convict him or set him free or decline to entertain the charges altogether.

That's what can happen in a free nation.

But don't say he can't be charged in a free nation.

A review of the potential cases that could be brought against Assange.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B00F020101201

Cowperson

[Weiser Wonder]

Well, obviously, I didn't mean literally. I meant can't as 'shouldn't based on Assange's actions as there is nothing illegal about sharing documents he obtained through legal means.' The government should value free speech, and I find a government intent on prosecuting journalists for sharing information extremely troubling.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Well, obviously, I didn't mean literally. I meant can't as 'shouldn't based on Assange's actions as there is nothing illegal about sharing documents he obtained through legal means.' The government should value free speech, and I find a government intent on prosecuting journalists for sharing information extremely troubling.

In your opinion . . . .

It's certainly debateable if he's a "journalist" and afforded the protections that group enjoys. It's also pretty debateable if he's guilty of espionage or something else.

He's probably one of those things we can't quite define in our constantly evolving New Age, something new and ever evolving, probably a criminal but for a crime we haven't put in the books yet.

As I noted in an earlier post, to quote a Pakistani diplomat, he's guilty of being "mischievious" for sure.

I don't see him as a hero though. I think he's an extremist A-hole.

In my opinion.

Cowperson

[tjinaz]

You buy a computer you know was stolen. You did not do the stealing but you can be charged with receiving stolen property. Or you are a magazine and buy a nude picture of some hollywood star that was on a computer that was stolen from them. Are you still able to be charged? Yes I think you are.

Same thing here. WikiLeaks is treading on very dangerous ground. If they tried this with Russia, China, or Israel... Mr Assange would we liquefied by now and his people would be running for their lives.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

You buy a computer you know was stolen. You did not do the stealing but you can be charged with receiving stolen property. Or you are a magazine and buy a nude picture of some hollywood star that was on a computer that was stolen from them. Are you still able to be charged? Yes I think you are.

Same thing here. WikiLeaks is treading on very dangerous ground. If they tried this with Russia, China, or Israel... Mr Assange would we liquefied by now and his people would be running for their lives.

What's that supposed to mean? We should be proud that we don't act in that way, and we should think it despicable to act in that way. Don't treat rights as privileges.

This is not the same thing as stolen, it's classified information. Once it's out, it can be shared among people without consequence. By your logic, the thread starter has committed an illegal act by linking to it.

[Cowperson]

Interactive conversation with legal experts at the Washington Post this afternoon.

Washington, D.C.: Is there any existing legal basis for Assange to be prosecuted in the United States?

Stuart Slotnick: We can expect that the DOJ will charge Assange in the United States based upon the harm that he has caused to the United States and the connections that Asssange has to the USA. We await to see the chain of events that allowed Assange to receive the classified materials.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: If Assange can be prosecuted in the United States, why not the New York Times?

Stuart Slotnick: The argument is that once the information is declassified by the worlwide disclosure that it can no longer be considered to be classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Cowperson

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

You buy a computer you know was stolen. You did not do the stealing but you can be charged with receiving stolen property. Or you are a magazine and buy a nude picture of some hollywood star that was on a computer that was stolen from them. Are you still able to be charged? Yes I think you are.

IANAL, but I think your analogies may be faulty. Did he actually receive anything physically? If no, which I don't think he did, I'm not sure if this qualifies as receiving stolen property. Also, AFAIK, none of this stuff is copyrighted so you can't get him there...

The most sure fire way to get him is to just give him the 'terrorist' label and strip him of all rights which is pretty underhanded, dishonest and sleazy...


In tangentially related news, I guess the DHS plans to play video messages in wal-marts, malls and other places encouraging people to report 'suspicious behavior'.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/h...-hotels-malls/
1984 was meant as a work of fiction, not a how to manual.

[HPLovecraft]

Washington, D.C.: If Assange can be prosecuted in the United States, why not the New York Times?

Stuart Slotnick: The argument is that once the information is declassified by the worlwide disclosure that it can no longer be considered to be classified.

The government claims it is still classified, however. That's why they warned all federal employees not to access the documents at home or at work.

Anyway, here is a good link, with previous cases as reference and sections labeled, arguing why Assange should not be prosecuted:

WikiLeaks has committed no crime

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

You buy a computer you know was stolen. You did not do the stealing but you can be charged with receiving stolen property. Or you are a magazine and buy a nude picture of some hollywood star that was on a computer that was stolen from them. Are you still able to be charged? Yes I think you are.

Same thing here. WikiLeaks is treading on very dangerous ground. If they tried this with Russia, China, or Israel... Mr Assange would we liquefied by now and his people would be running for their lives.

Again, lawyers can go into further depth here, I am not one, but information is not necessarily property. The computer analogy isn't apt and it isn't the same thing.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Well, obviously, I didn't mean literally. I meant can't as 'shouldn't based on Assange's actions as there is nothing illegal about sharing documents he obtained through legal means.' The government should value free speech, and I find a government intent on prosecuting journalists for sharing information extremely troubling.

Totally agree. While what wikileaks and Assange did is legally debatable and I don't really support a lot of what was leaked (with the exception of the apache hosing the journalists awhile back), I really find it troubling that a supposedly free nation like Sweden is easily strong armed into holding him and denying him bail on trumped up allegations and technicalities on a potential cia plant. Apparently, Assange has the means and will to abscond... I mean come on, the guy turned himself in.

Also, given that wikileaks hasn't even been formally charged with doing anything illegal yet I find it equally alarming that corporations are so easily pressured into denying wikileaks support. The US complains about China and Russia of using extra-judicial means and pressure tactics while employing said tactics themselves inside and outside of their own jurisdiction. Hypocrites.