Another Wikileaks release

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

No... I'm rightfully pointing out there are flaws in the system. Anything that can be build can be broken. Any system no matter how well thought out will have it flaws. Every person has a price. You are the one comparing the three judge panel to the supreme court.

If the government really wants something changed in a law, it'll happen one way or another, shady means or not. Amendments to law happen all the time. I'm done arguing with you in any case.

I compared a 3 judge panel to the Supreme Court? Where exactly? Odd that I could do that without actually bringing it up.

And yes, a system can fall apart. That's a fact with everything in existence, anything can potentially cease to exist. I'm not sure how that's an argument though. If I say that I could potentially play in the NHL next season that's not inherently false, I mean it COULD happen. Without anything else though it is nothing more than an unsupported claim. That's what you've presented, the it COULD is evident, the how and why is where the actual argument lies.

[theonlywhiteout]

i think assange and wikileaks may be the most important break thru in free speach and ending the tyranny of government in decades.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by valo403

You do understand that the "government" doesn't get to just label anyone as journalist or non-journalist for purposes of legal protection right?

Just like the US government doesn't get to label anyone as a terrorist or enemy combatant with no Geneva convention protection and with no due process. Hm...

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you have any examples of manipulation of the judicial branch by the executive? And don't give me Angola, we're talking about the US legal system here. There are many examples of the judicial branch making decisions that were directly counter to the position the executive branch wanted.

All I've been saying the whole time is the US system is not without flaws and if they want to prosecute Assange they'll find some way of doing it shady or not while you on the other hand just keep on denying that the US system is fallible and corruptable even after I provided examples. The why is pretty well established already given how many US gov't officials are pissed of... the how, like I said... there are ways. I'm done with this regardless.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Just like the US government doesn't get to label anyone as a terrorist or enemy combatant with no Geneva convention protection and with no due process. Hm...



All I've been saying the whole time is the US system is not without flaws and if they want to prosecute Assange they'll find some way of doing it shady or not while you on the other hand just keep on denying that the US system is fallible and corruptable even after I provided examples. The why is pretty well established already given how many US gov't officials are pissed of... the how, like I said... there are ways. I'm done with this regardless.

You provide quite possibly the best example I could have asked for. A case that denied rights at a lower level, and was reversed by the Supreme Court. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the protections inherent in the structure of the US judicial arm. Better yet, you chose a case that was far from a slam dunk in either direction and insinuated that the tribunals decision could only have been possible due to executive influence. The Supreme Court was highly divided on Hamdan, even the majority didn't fully agree on its reasoning, and legal scholars continue to be highly divided on a number of the issues at play. Are they all on the take too? All under pressure from the executive branch? I should also point out that the Justice that was apparently influenced to make a certain decision at a lower level recused himself from the Supreme Court case.

And let's not pretend your argument is a simple "the US system is not without flaws". The statement I responded to was your assertion that the government simply gets to label Assange as a journalist or non-journalist as they see fit, which is 100% inaccurate. I have never argued that the US system is infalliable, all systems have weaknesses and the potential to be corrupted. I've simply rebutted the incredibly thorough argument you've presented ("there are ways") and asked you to actually demonstrate or support your claim. The Supreme Court may well come to a decision on the First Amendment issues at play here that runs counter to your belief, but unless you've got more than "there are ways" your argument that it's due to corruption is pretty hollow.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by valo403

You provide quite possibly the best example I could have asked for. A case that denied rights at a lower level, and was reversed by the Supreme Court. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the protections inherent in the structure of the US judicial arm. Better yet, you chose a case that was far from a slam dunk in either direction and insinuated that the tribunals decision could only have been possible due to executive influence. The Supreme Court was highly divided on Hamdan, even the majority didn't fully agree on its reasoning, and legal scholars continue to be highly divided on a number of the issues at play. Are they all on the take too? All under pressure from the executive branch? I should also point out that the Justice that was apparently influenced to make a certain decision at a lower level recused himself from the Supreme Court case.

And let's not pretend your argument is a simple "the US system is not without flaws". The statement I responded to was your assertion that the government simply gets to label Assange as a journalist or non-journalist as they see fit, which is 100% inaccurate. I have never argued that the US system is infalliable, all systems have weaknesses and the potential to be corrupted. I've simply rebutted the incredibly thorough argument you've presented ("there are ways") and asked you to actually demonstrate or support your claim. The Supreme Court may well come to a decision on the First Amendment issues at play here that runs counter to your belief, but unless you've got more than "there are ways" your argument that it's due to corruption is pretty hollow.

Ok, well how about the El-Masri case?

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831

When he tries to sue the US government, they claim "state secrets" and then dismiss the case. Absolutely repugnant; demonstrates that they have no accountability and are corrupt.

Here's an op-ed from El-Masri himself who's account seems to be a very accurate portrayal of what happens when the CIA goes wrong.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,3766980.story

The bottom line is don't be surprised to see the US government label Assange however they want to suppress him.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Ok, well how about the El-Masri case?

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831

When he tries to sue the US government, they claim "state secrets" and then dismiss the case. Absolutely repugnant; demonstrates that they have no accountability and are corrupt.

Here's an op-ed from El-Masri himself who's account seems to be a very accurate portrayal of what happens when the CIA goes wrong.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,3766980.story

The bottom line is don't be surprised to see the US government label Assange however they want to suppress him.

I don't really see where that shows judicial corruption or influence by the executive branch. The dismissal was based upon the state secrets privilege, which goes back as far as Aaron Burr in US jurisprudence. I would agree that there is certainly cause for concern with the way the privlege has been applied and extended over the years, it's an inherently troubling area as its use requires basically no explanation. I'd love to see the privilege scaled back substantially, but the fact that it exists and was applied in a manner consistent with precedent doesn't demonstrate corruption or executive influence upon the judiciary.

I also acknowledge that the activities of the CIA and other agencies are highly troubling, that's not something I have ever disagreed with.

Again, my entry into this discussion was over the comment that the US government could simply label Assange a non-journalist and be done with it. That's patently false.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't really see where that shows judicial corruption or influence by the executive branch. The dismissal was based upon the state secrets privilege, which goes back as far as Aaron Burr in US jurisprudence.

How do you invoke a state secrets privilege in relation to a person who wasn't the one you *thought* you were apprehending?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

How do you invoke a state secrets privilege in relation to a person who wasn't the one you *thought* you were apprehending?

The privilege is basically that any discussion of the events at issue would compromise state secrets, so the identity of the person wouldn't really matter. The claim would obviously be based upon incidents that ocurred under CIA command, which I assume would be highly confidential. I assume that the argument was something along the lines of 'if he presents these facts we'll have to present other facts to defend ourselves, and those facts would compromise the state in x manner'.

An interesting thing I just thought of in relation to this privilege and the wikileaks releases is whether or not a failure to adequately protect the confidential information would cause the privilege to be waived. That's how it works with most other forms of privilege, there's a duty to be diligent in guarding the information. I'd have to assume the ACLU has already latched onto that idea and will be running with it at some point in the near future.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by valo403

The privilege is basically that any discussion of the events at issue would compromise state secrets, so the identity of the person wouldn't really matter. The claim would obviously be based upon incidents that ocurred under CIA command, which I assume would be highly confidential. I assume that the argument was something along the lines of 'if he presents these facts we'll have to present other facts to defend ourselves, and those facts would compromise the state in x manner'.

An interesting thing I just thought of in relation to this privilege and the wikileaks releases is whether or not a failure to adequately protect the confidential information would cause the privilege to be waived. That's how it works with most other forms of privilege, there's a duty to be diligent in guarding the information. I'd have to assume the ACLU has already latched onto that idea and will be running with it at some point in the near future.

So essentially invoking the "state secrets" privilege has more to do with making the US not look bad in the El-Masri case.

I think this is a perfect example of the executive branch meddling with the judicial branch. Regardless of precedent, it's pretty clear that the US is just refusing to acknowledge the terror they have wrought. Surely this isn't the only time this has happened.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by valo403

The privilege is basically that any discussion of the events at issue would compromise state secrets, so the identity of the person wouldn't really matter. The claim would obviously be based upon incidents that ocurred under CIA command, which I assume would be highly confidential. I assume that the argument was something along the lines of 'if he presents these facts we'll have to present other facts to defend ourselves, and those facts would compromise the state in x manner'.

I disagree. In the case where you kidnap an unrelated person, there is no necessity to divulge state secrets in order to admit guilt.

Nobody says that the government has to divulge everything they knew about Al-Masri, and then say that El-Masri isn't Al-Masri.

[kirant]

Bit off topic guys...but how much legal right did PayPal/Mastercard/Visa have in freezing his accounts? I've heard of cases where one's assets have been frozen by said companies before for being charged with something (and at least PayPal's sites do state that they're allowed to remove an account if its owner is caught in illegal activities)...but is it an overextension of their powers to do this? I mean, Assange hasn't been officially found guilty of such actions yet and my interpretation of the rules laid out by PayPal are a bit iffy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ikaris

So essentially invoking the "state secrets" privilege has more to do with making the US not look bad in the El-Masri case.

I think this is a perfect example of the executive branch meddling with the judicial branch. Regardless of precedent, it's pretty clear that the US is just refusing to acknowledge the terror they have wrought. Surely this isn't the only time this has happened.

Invoking the privilege goes well beyond "making the US not look bad", it entails protection of exactly what the name suggests.

And I still don't see how you get to the conclusion that this involves executive meddling. Where does that occur? I guess if you're arguing that it occurs by the nature of the privilege itself then I can see it, but that's an argument pointing at meddling by the US government in 1807, and the British government long before that. In the case you provided it's the judicial arm applying the law in line with the precedents. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the outcome, but nothing there indicates meddling.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I disagree. In the case where you kidnap an unrelated person, there is no necessity to divulge state secrets in order to admit guilt.

Nobody says that the government has to divulge everything they knew about Al-Masri, and then say that El-Masri isn't Al-Masri.

It's not simply divulging information about the intended target, it's about divulging information about how the intelligence operated, how the detention was carried out, methods used etc. If it was as simple as getting the CIA to say 'whoops, sorry about that' then you're right, there wouldn't be much need to disclose anything else, but I don't think that's what was being requested as relief. There's also the fact that the mere acknowledgement of the legitimacy of any facts included in el-Masri's complaint would effectively reveal state secrets.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by kirant

Bit off topic guys...but how much legal right did PayPal/Mastercard/Visa have in freezing his accounts? I've heard of cases where one's assets have been frozen by said companies before for being charged with something (and at least PayPal's sites do state that they're allowed to remove an account if its owner is caught in illegal activities)...but is it an overextension of their powers to do this? I mean, Assange hasn't been officially found guilty of such actions yet and my interpretation of the rules laid out by PayPal are a bit iffy.

I don't know how much for VISA/MASTERCARD yet... but Paypal is a different beast than than the other two altogether. They try to act as a banking organization but when the US tried to regulate them as such, they moved their operations off US soil. As for the rights... Paypal has a 25 page long TOS where they can freeze/terminate your account for any number of reasons. By using paypal you are agreeing to their TOS and they can terminate based on rules outlined there.

For example, in their TOS your account can be terminated for the simple act of requesting a chargeback from your back on an unauthorized transaction. Maybe one of Assange's donors initiated a chargeback

PayPal reserves the right to terminate or limit account access privileges of buyers in any of the following cases: abuse by a buyer of the reversal process provided by the buyer's issuing bank; filing a chargeback against an unauthorized transaction;

http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...plaint-outside

Check out the wikipedia page for more criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#...nd_limitations

[kirant]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I don't know how much for VISA/MASTERCARD yet... but Paypal is a different beast than than the other two altogether. They try to act as a banking organization but when the US tried to regulate them as such, they moved their operations off US soil. As for the rights... Paypal has a 25 page long TOS where they can freeze/terminate your account for any number of reasons. By using paypal you are agreeing to their TOS and they can terminate based on rules outlined there.

For example, in their TOS your account can be terminated for the simple act of requesting a chargeback from your back on an unauthorized transaction. Maybe one of Assange's donators initiated a chargeback

I've been looking through their ToS myself and I don't think that's the case. First, PayPal officially stated their termination was illegal activities by Assange (CTV News coverage), but everything I've seen so far is stuff that I think has to be proven. They COULD say that he's holds copyrighted material...but wouldn't that or taking part in criminal activity (in this case, alleged rape) need to be proven in court?

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by kirant

I've been looking through their ToS myself and I don't think that's the case. First, PayPal officially stated their termination was illegal activities by Assange (CTV News coverage), but everything I've seen so far is stuff that I think has to be proven. They COULD say that he's holds copyrighted material...but wouldn't that or taking part in criminal activity (in this case, alleged rape) need to be proven in court?

Actually they could not say that any copyright violations took place because by definition those diplomatic cables are not commercially owned and cannot be copyrighted.

The US can go after the leaker and if Wikileaks had somehow helped the leaker obtain the leaked documentation then they could be held accountable. It seems thus far though that there is no evidence of this and the US is scrambling to find a way prosecute Assange even though he has done nothing illegal as a journalist. Note that there seems to be no backlash directed at the media organizations that are working with Wikileaks (NY Times, the Guardian, der Spiegel, etc).

Intrestingly enough though, if Wikileaks chooses to release their alleged data that they have from a major American bank (speculated to be BoA) then that could create precedent to prosecute Wikileaks for copyright infringement.

[HPLovecraft]

With all this legal talk, here is the 21-page "memo" to Congress written by Congress's own non-partisan research arm, CRS, concerning the WikiLeaks issue, released Dec. 6th. It discusses what actions could be taken, why, and why not, along with other interesting stuff. The CRS is supposed to give objective, simple legal advice to Congress, and if you're patient enough to read through all 21 pages, you get an apple.

"Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information"

The summary page states:

This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply [to dissemination of classified documents], but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship.

It then talks about the Espionage Act, the Pentagon Papers, etc. Courtesy of the EFF.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not simply divulging information about the intended target, it's about divulging information about how the intelligence operated, how the detention was carried out, methods used etc. If it was as simple as getting the CIA to say 'whoops, sorry about that' then you're right, there wouldn't be much need to disclose anything else, but I don't think that's what was being requested as relief. There's also the fact that the mere acknowledgement of the legitimacy of any facts included in el-Masri's complaint would effectively reveal state secrets.

Right. So basically your argument ends up being a roundabout way of saying that nobody can vet the legitimacy of the state secrets claim (for fear of the state secrets being mentioned), and if anyone is deemed by the government to be a casualty of the government's invoked state secrets privilege, then tough.

Since the government vets its own claim, I think it is clear why people have little interest in accepting the legitimacy of the US government's due process in this general area.

Also, it's immaterial how the intelligence operated if the case brought forth by Al-Masri is intended to protect his rights. The government need not reveal any element of their state secrets and/or divulge internal operations because none of those were ever intended for Al-Masri anyways. However, what your constructed framework is doing is forbidding Al-Masri from freely presenting to the court what happened to him. In other words, an individual can no longer retell his personal experience for fear that it will incriminate the opposition. Pretty chilling.

[Ramsayfarian]

Wikileaks has dropped the bomb.

http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt

[Reggie Dunlop]

Well, this was inevitable.

The Pakistani government now churning out disinformation and claiming it was Wikileaks.

http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/p...kileaks_scoops