Wikileaks owner arrested

[Bob Maxey]

You're certainly right. Now that I review, that portion probably didn't read as intended. The entire point behind my post, supports what you've stated, here. Wikileaks (including domestic publications), have protections from our federal government, thanks to what we've outlined in the first amendment.

What I was getting at, was even if Wikileaks violated some obscure law, which Bob has mentioned, they are not on US soil, and were never in a position of trust. They have no legal obligation to keep the material classified, as that becomes a matter of foreign policy.

To be clear, it is an obscure law. Releasing classified documents is a clear violation of existing law. It is all right there in black and white in Blacks.

You are right, publications are protected. But what this felon in waiting did was release classified materials and that is not protected. Illegal activity is never protected, nor should it be. Unless I miss your point.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Actually the First Amendment does apply here even though the guy is not a US citizen. If a Mexican national wants to come to DC and picket in front of the White House they can't arrest him for what he's doing. He's protected by the First Amendment even though he's not a citizen. If he publishes a book in Mexico and ships it to the US he's still protected by the First Amendment even though he's not in the US and the book isn't even published there.

We simply arrest him for violating immigration law and once in jail, his words go away. Two problems solved and the Constutition remains to be spit upon another day.

See how simple it is?

Bob Maxey

 

[A.Nonymous]

We simply arrest him for violating immigration law and once in jail, his words go away. Two problems solved and the Constutition remains to be spit upon another day.

See how simple it is?

Bob Maxey

Fair enough. As I type this though, he hasn't been accused of one single solitary crime in the US. Not one. You don't think it's a bit insane for the feds to lean on people to cut off their financial ties to a guy who hasn't even been accused of a crime? If you accuse and/or charge him with something and then lean on people, that's another story altogether.

 

[krouget]

To be clear, it is an obscure law. Releasing classified documents is a clear violation of existing law. It is all right there in black and white in Blacks.

You are right, publications are protected. But what this felon in waiting did was release classified materials and that is not protected. Illegal activity is never protected, nor should it be. Unless I miss your point.

Bob Maxey

It doesn't seem like you're responding to the information you've asked me to outline. Repeating "it's illegal", doesn't make it so, when I just previously offered evidence to counter the position. What "law" are you referring to?

I say "obscure law" in the sense that you haven't pointed me in the direction of this law, other than to say it somehow incriminates Wikileaks and various other media in the US.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

Sorry in advance for the long reply. Also, sorry for any typoes/spelling errors. I'm a horrible speller and the computer I'm on does not have spellcheck.

I think the problem is that we're looking at a number of different issues here.

I think the fact that anyone was able to get a hold of these cables is a problem. I think our government needs to worry less about the information that has been leaked and more about how to prevent this from happening in the future. How they are going to do that I don't really know. I understand that no matter who you think you can trust (ie the soldier that released these cables to begin with) there is ALWAYS the chance that this can happen again. With that said, they need to work harder on keeping the information secured.

Now, is Assange guilty, absolutely. If I have a source overseas that sends me stolen PS3 and I distribute them, guess what... I'm going to jail for receiving stolen property. This is exactly what Assange did. I completely agree that they have to follow all the correct paperwork procedures and throw him in jail, however...

All I'm saying is charge him with something before seizing his property. That's all.

Who seized his property?? I know you are enjoying the whole "the government made PayPal etc drop his services" arguement, but PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, etc all have the right to drop him for whatever reason they want. They can drop him because they decide they don't like his name. It is completely incorrect to say that anyone "seiz[ed] his property." For this same reason, no one is taking away his rights. Saying this is a freedom of speech issue would be like walking into a mom-and-pop book store and saying "you HAVE to sell this book or you are violating the author's freedom of speech." These companies choose who they do and don't do business with, and can change their minds at any time for any reason. Whether or not the government "leaned on" these companies to make them drop his services is completely irrevelant. They could easily have said "no I don't want to" and the US couldn't have done anything about it. They decided that it was in the best interest of their business to drop him and they did.

The whole rape charge thing is also completely irrevelant. That was a charge in another country and if you want to cry conspiracy on that go ahead, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For the record, anyone can decide at any point that the sex is not concentual. They could have been in the middle and the girl said "stop" and he ignored her and that's rape. Personally, I wasn't in the room when it was happening, and I assume no one here was either, so saying that the rape charges are all made up has even less backing than saying they are legitimate (because there are at least 2 girls saying he raped them, and only him saying he didn't.)

Personally, I don't know if WikiLeaks is a threat to our national security. I didn't read the leaks myself so all I know about is what I've heard. With that said, I DO believe the leaks have put lives in danger. Releasing information that, I believe it was Hillary Clinton, ordered us to spy on whatever country we have spies in is a threat to their lives, IMO. I don't care what country you are, you have spies in other countries. I'm sure we have a spy from every other country in the US right now and we just don't know it. Telling everyone where we have spies is a threat, not only to our relationships with these countries, but also to the spies. Now the other countries are going to be paying a lot more attention when in reality this is a practice every country participates in.

If that is the sort of information WikiLeaks is sharing with the world than I definitely believe it is putting us in danger. The US isn't perfect. No one is trying to claim it is. NO GOVERNMENT is perfect. We all do things we shouldn't. By broadcasting this stuff to the world about the US it is like saying we're the only country that does some things we probably shouldn't, and every other country out there is just so saintly.

On the topic of transparency, I agree that the government should be transparent in some aspects. Things like where our spies are and where we keep our nuclear weapons is NOT in the category of what anyone should be able to see. How anyone can say that these things do not threaten our national security is completely beyond me.

Again, I did not read the documents, so I may be completely off base about what is being leaked, but that is my stand on the matter.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Umm, the Feds leaned on everyone associated with the guy to cut financial ties. His domain name was taken away. All of this without due process. Means nothing? I guess it's ok for the Feds to pressure private companies to cut ties with an individual who hasn't even been accused of a crime?

 

[Sweet Chaos]

Umm, the Feds leaned on everyone associated with the guy to cut financial ties. His domain name was taken away. All of this without due process. Means nothing? I guess it's ok for the Feds to pressure private companies to cut ties with an individual who hasn't even been accused of a crime?

The point you're missing is that these companies can cut ties with whoever they want for whatever reason they want. The feds can say "hey look we'd like if you cut this guy off" all they want, but the companies decide if they want to or not. If PayPal had said "nah we wanna keep him on" the US would have had to deal with it. I could have called up PayPal and said "hey I don't like WikiLeaks. I think you should cut them off" and it would have been no difference, except that obviously they'll do what the government wants with less of a fight than I would have to give them. The companies shut down their funds, NOT the government. You can cry all day long that it's not fair but that's how business works. 1st Financial, who my credit card is through, can drop me tomorrow for any reason they decide to make up. Trying to say they can't is like trying to take away the companies rights to choose who they do business with.

 

[EarlyMon]

The point you're missing is that these companies can cut ties with whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

And your government pressuring these companies, including official, public statements by people at the Pentagon, to make his life miserable - are you ok with that?

 

[Sweet Chaos]

Make who's life miserable? Assange's? If by "making his life miserable" you mean encouraging these companies to shut down the funds to WikiLeaks then yes, I'm ok with that. Again, these companies can choose not to shut him out. If they choose not to, the government can't do anything to punish them (unless they charge him with something and try to hit any company that keeps supporting him with some type of aiding charge, but that's not the situation right now.)

If you mean something else, please explain.

 

[glockjs]

wikileaks and anybody arguing for assange is a part of the....axis of evil!

Will Ferrell "Axis of Evil" Video

 

[A.Nonymous]

Make who's life miserable? Assange's? If by "making his life miserable" you mean encouraging these companies to shut down the funds to WikiLeaks then yes, I'm ok with that. Again, these companies can choose not to shut him out. If they choose not to, the government can't do anything to punish them (unless they charge him with something and try to hit any company that keeps supporting him with some type of aiding charge, but that's not the situation right now.)

If you mean something else, please explain.

Wow. I'm shocked that you're ok with that. So the feds can pressure anyone and everyone they want for whatever reason they want and that doesn't bother you at all?

 

[Sweet Chaos]

Wow. I'm shocked that you're ok with that. So the feds can pressure anyone and everyone they want for whatever reason they want and that doesn't bother you at all?

Sure. These companies can say no. You're making it sound like they walked up to the heads of PayPal and held a gun to their head. They didn't. There would have been no legal repercussion (sp?) for these companies saying "nope, we're gonna keep him right here." The US would have just walked away saying "damn, now we have to think of something else."

Not to mention that I'm not convinced that every one of these companies dropped him because the US "leaned on them" to do so. And to be honest, that's the MAIN reason I'm ok with this. I really can't stand the "conspiracy" crap that everyone spouts when they are upset about something. Believe it or not, there are people who do not agree with what Assange did, and the chance that someone from Visa, PayPal, Amazon.com etc is one of those people is about 50/50. And the fact that even if those companies did agree with him, it could affect their business for keeping him around because a lot of other people don't agree with him and would stop doing business with them is something they have to consider as well. These companies are going to do what is best for THEIR BUSINESS whether you like it or not.

wikileaks and anybody arguing for assange is a part of the....axis of evil!

I wish I wasn't at work so I could watch that video =( It sounds funny haha.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yeah you're right. A US Senator getting up on capital hill and telling these companies that by associating with Assange they're supporting terrorism and a terrorist organization is not holding a gun to their PR head.

 

[EarlyMon]

Not to mention that I'm not convinced that every one of these companies dropped him because the US "leaned on them" to do so. And to be honest, that's the MAIN reason I'm ok with this. I really can't stand the "conspiracy" crap that everyone spouts when they are upset about something.

There's a far cry between the actual contents of this thread and actual exhibition whatsoever of conspiracy theory, in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly that conspiracy theory is typically crap. But those cases always involve some coverup.

I submit that linking this thread or its posters to conspiracy theorists is an unfair idea, and not supported by anything the posters at large have said or reported on.

This situation is entirely different.

Take this sequence of events:

• US government officials proclaim outrage over wikileaks
• Pentagon claims wikileaks is killing people
• Previously OK Swiss bank account frozen due to allegations of lying on his account application (old account)
• He turns himself in to British authorities for a crime in Sweden that he wasn't answering to previously
• US Congressfolk continue to flail on this issue - "Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) goes further and has urged the administration to consider charges against media outlets that produced news articles based on the leaked documents."

There - a United States senator advocating actions against the 1st Amendment.

The last time I saw things this entirely out of hand in our country, Richard M. Nixon was president.

I would further submit that a general complacency among a largely non-voting public is doing nothing to help this situation.

History will decide if there was some moral right to these wikileaks.

Many here are expressing their right that that will not occur by default.

But this much is very clear - your government and the national press are in a feeding frenzy over this, without taking any official, as in publicly accountable, actions whatsoever.

It's selling votes and it's selling newspapers - but legally nothing has been done.

And yet - the guy turns himself in for a crime he in which he claims innocence, in a foreign country, immediately after his assets were frozen.

I think history is very clear on what happens to people the American government and press come to despise.

Put colloquially, many years ago there was a saying to the effect that if America sneezed, you (foreign country or individual across the table) would catch a cold.

 

[Sweet Chaos]

There's a far cry between the actual contents of this thread and actual exhibition whatsoever of conspiracy theory, in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly that conspiracy theory is typically crap. But those cases always involve some coverup.
I submit that linking this thread or its posters to conspiracy theorists is an unfair idea, and not supported by anything the posters at large have said or reported on.

I am not trying to say that anyone is a conspiract theorist, and I apologize if I insulted anyone by coming across as that. My point is that I do not believe that the only reason all these companies shut Assange and WikiLeaks out is that the US government leaned on them to do so. I believe that, while this may be the reason for some of them, many of the companies shut him out because it was in the best interest of their business. In my opinion, saying that the only reason he was shut out was because the US forced these companies sounds like a conspiracy theory. As I said, there is no law (right now) saying that these companies HAVE TO drop him, so sure, the government can ask them to, but they cannot force them to.

US Congressfolk continue to flail on this issue - "Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) goes further and has urged the administration to consider charges against media outlets that produced news articles based on the leaked documents."

There - a United States senator advocating actions against the 1st Amendment.

I agree with you 100% on this matter. The media should not be penalized for producing articles based on the documents. They are neither the source that leaked the documents nor the source who received the illegal documents and published them.

But this much is very clear - your government and the national press are in a feeding frenzy over this, without taking any official, as in publicly accountable, actions whatsoever.

It's selling votes and it's selling newspapers - but legally nothing has been done.

I agree with this as well. As I believe I stated in my first post (I've had this discussion with so many people that I don't remember where I stated what!) I believe the government needs to stop worrying about what has been leaked and focus on charging Assange (receiving stolen property and whatever else they can hit him with) and more importantly, making sure a security breach like this does not happen again in the future. What has been leaked is done. Nothing can be done to take that away now. They need to shape up and worry about what is important.


I want to add that I really hope no one takes offence to anything I say. I have some strong opinions and sometimes when I get frustrated I word them in ways that someone may find insulting. I do not mean to be insulting (I'm probably one of the most non-confrontational people you will ever meet) and if I say anything that is offensive let me know and I will promptly clear up my thoughts.

Also, I don't know why my quotes are coming out like that. If a mod can fix it for me I'd appreciate it =)

 

[Bob Maxey]

I agree with you 100% on this matter. The media should not be penalized for producing articles based on the documents. They are neither the source that leaked the documents nor the source who received the illegal documents and published them.

So where do we draw the line? There must be a line, right? The problem is where the line is positioned.

Suppose a soldier sent the NYT info on troop movements and the NYT published them. As a result, a hundred soldiers died because the enemy reads the NYT. Do we say the press's freedom is all that matters and by God, they were justified in printing the article?

I would say that you must say yes or you are in the position of saying not in every case, and that leaves you in the unenviable position of drawing a line. When the line is drawn, you must start thinking that perhaps the press must be accountable for their unfettered freedoms and someone must decide what is allowed and what should never be allowed. Therefore, your argument (if it is your argument) about unfettered freedom of the press changes and you end up agreeing that some things should remain a secret. Then what is the punishment and what are the secrets to be protected?

Just tossing a few stone into the opinion pool and YES, the reply is a difficult mess. I only hope someone can clarify my thoughts.

Bob Maxey

 

[EarlyMon]

Bob, I think your thoughts are clear enough.

The whole situation is the mess where the press is concerned.

This action was announced as coming.

Lieberman's full statement is full of holes - he begins with a call for criminal charges against the press and ends with saying that if nothing else, they were bad citizens.

Washington and the press have us hijacked, and did long before the leaks.

The press can't be attacked for 1st Amendment issues (I recall several news services screwing up with announcements that violated security in Iraq, nothing was or could have been done).

It's a circus where theory and practice don't seem to intersect anymore.

 

[Bob Maxey]

It doesn't seem like you're responding to the information you've asked me to outline. Repeating "it's illegal", doesn't make it so, when I just previously offered evidence to counter the position. What "law" are you referring to?

I say "obscure law" in the sense that you haven't pointed me in the direction of this law, other than to say it somehow incriminates Wikileaks and various other media in the US.

The release of classified government documents is covered by perhaps hundreds of laws. There are privacy laws of concern as well. Because I did not quote specific laws means very little because all you need to do is a little searching.

So start here:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-ntel.htm#laws

I can

 

[Bob Maxey]

Bob, I think your thoughts are clear enough.

The whole situation is the mess where the press is concerned.

This action was announced as coming.

Lieberman's full statement is full of holes - he begins with a call for criminal charges against the press and ends with saying that if nothing else, they were bad citizens.

Washington and the press have us hijacked, and did long before the leaks.

The press can't be attacked for 1st Amendment issues (I recall several news services screwing up with announcements that violated security in Iraq, nothing was or could have been done).

It's a circus where theory and practice don't seem to intersect anymore.

The government and the press, for the longest time, kept at arms length from each other. The government had secrets and the press wanted them. The press employed actual reporters and actual research and actual footwork and actual deductive reasoning to ferret out the information the government wanted kept private. The government had injunctions and the press had lawyers. Sometimes, the press won and sometimes they lost; ditto the government.

What I think the press had also, was a sense of pride in the country and the last thing they would do is jeopardize our freedoms.

That has changed. Now, we have people stealing secrets and making them public and we have a under educated public wanting to know everything they really do not need to know. We have bloggers claiming to be journalists and soccer moms with cell phones and kids that can barely write claiming to be journalists with all of the freedoms legitimate journalists are granted.

But what they really are, are scavengers looking for content and quite often lacking in knowledge or skill or respect for one of the most important freedoms granted us: Freedom of the Press.

The worse the better and sadly, if it damages the United States, so much the better.
Bloggers can call themselves "journalists" but they have not earned the right to use that term because they lack everything the great journalists had. First and foremost, a sense of integrity. I once removed a thorn from the pup

 

[A.Nonymous]

I am not trying to say that anyone is a conspiract theorist, and I apologize if I insulted anyone by coming across as that. My point is that I do not believe that the only reason all these companies shut Assange and WikiLeaks out is that the US government leaned on them to do so. I believe that, while this may be the reason for some of them, many of the companies shut him out because it was in the best interest of their business. In my opinion, saying that the only reason he was shut out was because the US forced these companies sounds like a conspiracy theory. As I said, there is no law (right now) saying that these companies HAVE TO drop him, so sure, the government can ask them to, but they cannot force them to.

By your logic, bullying and strong arm tactics are completely ok. I can shove someone around and ask them for their lunch money, but it's ok as long as I don't physically take the money you. If you choose to give me the money after I shove you around, that's your choice so it's ok for me to shove you around. The fact is many of these companies have said that the reason they have dropped Assange is because the feds asked them to.

 

[EarlyMon]

What I think the press had also, was a sense of pride in the country and the last thing they would do is jeopardize our freedoms.

That has changed.

How about that night landing by Marines with night-vision googles in 1992, Mogadishu - accompanied by the full glare of bright lights.

They weren't met by armed opposition. They were met by the American television press.

There are journaled papers still coming out of Africa on our attempts to humiliate the people there, citing that example of an unarmed circus in the sand.

And I remember watching, trembling, while the newsvolk would not shut up and leave the first officer they found alone, no matter how badly he pleaded to have the lights turned off.

Marine - concerned for snipers, concerned for whatever intel put him in this position, concerned for his orders, mission and the lives of his troops.

Media - explaining don't worry, they checked, no bad guys, now tell us what it's like and how do you feel when conducting this sort of exercise.

My hat's off to whomever commanded that mess at the scene. I'd have given the order to douse those lights with gunfire, no questions asked.

Just shows, we got here nearly 20 years ago, did nothing as a body politic in all that time, and now are reaping the rewards.

 

[chimphappyhour]

Ron Paul sums it up perfectly.

Most intelligent post in this whole thread.

 

[Dark Jedi]

It has been shown over and again that some of those sent to GITMO were not combatants of any sort.

As to your posit, if they are enemy combatants, then they are POWs.

Show me where the declaration of war for afganistan is. then I will call them POW's

 

[Bob Maxey]

Show me where the declaration of war for afganistan is. then I will call them POW's

Here is a little background:

A United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368, adopted unanimously on September 12, 2001, after expressing its determination to combat threats to international peace and security caused by acts of terrorism and recognizing the right of individual and collective self-defense, the Council condemned the September 11 attacks in the United States.

The Security Council strongly condemned the attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania and regarded the incidents as a threat to international peace and security. It expressed sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and the United States government.

The resolution called on all countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors would be held accountable. The international community was called upon to increase efforts to suppress and prevent terrorist activities through co-operation and implementation of anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 1269 (1999).

Resolution 1368 concluded with the Council expressing its readiness to take steps to respond to the attacks and combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Bob Maxey

 

[Dark Jedi]

The UN dont declare war. THeir mission is of peace keeping and for enacting sanctions and embargo's. Plus it was the United States Mission as none of the military forces was wearing the UN's powder blue uniforms.

SO I say again where is the declaration of war as the united states headed this whole operation. So you cant call them POW's