Wikileaks owner arrested

[byteware]

But they don't illegally seize his knives and guns so he can't kill someone. Nor do they lean on his employers to fire him. Nor do they lean on his bank and other financial institutions to cut off his funding when they don't have enough evidence to arrest him.

But they DO disarm his bombs that they find and confiscate them.

No, we leaned on Visa, Mastercard and Paypal to cut him off. Homeland Security has called for Wikileaks to be labeled a "terrorist organization." Ironically I can use Visa and Mastercard to donate to the KKK, but not to Wikileaks. Weird.

While the KKK's beliefs are distasteful, they aren't actually attempting to do harm to the United States.

Also, I assume you aren't advocating that we try organizations before we label them as terrorists.. right? I mean, we would have a heck of time getting the heads of Hamas and Hezbollah in the US for trial.

The feds leaned on Amazon to drop his site. They dropped it. Strangely enough EveryDNS not only hosts wikileaks.org (which they dropped), but they also point to wikileaks.ch (which is still up). The dropped the US domain only. Yeah, that was because routing was affected and had nothing to do with political pressure.

Amazon released a statement telling you why they dropped the site... sorry if that isn't good enough for you.

Homeland Security has called his organization a terrorist organization. Mike Huckabee has called for him to be executed. Joe Lieberman is calling for all businesses to cut off their ties to him. Once again, the guy has not been accused of one, single, solitary crime here in the US.

A guy announces that he plans to ship bombs in all of his packages to the united states... a plane blows up the next day... do we launch an investigation and see if we can charge him? Or do we disable his ability to cause death?

We confiscate his packages and destroy them... simple as that.

 

[byteware]

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?

Yes.

Just as I am with them doing the same for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. These organizations admit to taking lives, and/or putting lives in danger. It's that simple.

 

[EarlyMon]

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

We did in the Korean Conflict ... er, Korean War.

 

[krouget]

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.

Bob, out of respect for the discussion, I gave you specifics and elaborated when asked. In return, I asked you do the same. You've claimed there are "perhaps" hundreds of laws, but you've been unable to point out 1, which would go lengths to validate your argument. The burden of proof is on you-- not me. I've already searched, and in doing so, I haven't found anything; neither has our supreme court, justice department, or anyone in a position of power, to press formal charges against Wikileaks. That's the bottom line.

At most, there is an attempt to modify the espionage act, but that would already incriminate the person(s) responsible for providing the information, while crossing into dangerous territory with regard to broader press freedoms. You'd then have to make a pretty convincing distinction between Wikileaks and the regular practice of our own domestic media.

I can

 

[A.Nonymous]

But they DO disarm his bombs that they find and confiscate them.

It's a crime in most states to assemble explosives without the proper licenses, permits, etc...... So the person has committed a crime and the consequence is his bombs are disassembled/confiscated. Again, Assange has not been accused of a single crime related to these leaks either here or abroad.

While the KKK's beliefs are distasteful, they aren't actually attempting to do harm to the United States.

Also, I assume you aren't advocating that we try organizations before we label them as terrorists.. right? I mean, we would have a heck of time getting the heads of Hamas and Hezbollah in the US for trial.

Hamas and Hezbollah (and their appropriate leadership) have all been accused and/or charged with crimes. There are arrest warrants out for just about everyone in leadership in both organizations. Assange has not been accused of a single crime here in the States.

Amazon released a statement telling you why they dropped the site... sorry if that isn't good enough for you.

Paypal has said they dropped wikileaks because the feds told them to. Amazon's statement is a bit sketchy to me. Wikileaks has been posting this kind of info for years, but all of a sudden Amazon pulls them?

A guy announces that he plans to ship bombs in all of his packages to the united states... a plane blows up the next day... do we launch an investigation and see if we can charge him? Or do we disable his ability to cause death?

We investigate him. No problem with that. We don't freeze his assets, seize his property, toss him in jail and then start investigating him to see if he's committed any crimes.

We confiscate his packages and destroy them... simple as that.

Again, only after he's been accused of a crime. That's how the system works. The cops can't just pick me up on the street and toss me in jail. They have to have a reason to accuse me of a crime. When they arrest me they have to list a reason why they arrested me on an arrest report. If they don't have enough information to arrest me but want to search my house or seize my property, they have to go to a judge and get a judge to approve that. They can't call up my bank without any sort of warrant or court order and say, "Look, this guy is making bombs. Shut off his bank accounts." Regardless of whether the bank complies or not, the authorities have committed a crime just by making that request and if they do end up charging me there's a very good chance I can get the whole case thrown out just on that basis.

Here's an article from a local paper. This guy confessed to a double murder and cops gathered evidence from his house confirming his story. They know he did it. He's confessed to doing it. However, the cops improperly and illegally searched his house. Net result - his confession and all the evidence they gathered are getting tossed out. The guy will likely walk even though he killed two people. Before they had a murder weapon, and property from both victims in the suspects house as well as a confession from their suspect. Now, they have the testimony of a 16 yr old who's also being charged with murder and robbery, a set of ear rings from one of the victims and a list of stuff that was at the house that the suspect's mom gave them. The guy's lawyer can easily argue that the 16 yr old is lieing to save his a**, the ear ring was left there previously and that the list is just hearsay. It's flimsy evidence. The guy did it. Everyone knows he did it. He admitted he did it, but an improper search is going to cause the guy to walk. This is how the system works. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. You can't start seizing a guy's property without accusing him of a crime. That's not how the system works.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yes.

Just as I am with them doing the same for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. These organizations admit to taking lives, and/or putting lives in danger. It's that simple.

And all of those organizations have been accused and/or charged with crimes. Assange and Wikileaks has not been accused or charged with anything.

 

[EarlyMon]

Yes.

Just as I am with them doing the same for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. These organizations admit to taking lives, and/or putting lives in danger. It's that simple.

I disagree that these are the same situation.

In one, we have what intel has identified as ongoing threats by armed groups presenting a clear and present danger to our lives and interests, or to those to whom we're bound by treaty.

I support operations, including covert, deemed appropriate by higher command authority. Those operations' goals are to end the problem and provide deterrent.

In the case of the wikileaks boy (I just refuse to say his name, for now), the damage is done - the horse has left the barn. Anyone nefarious already has the documents.

Further, in my personal opinion, he did this expecting that if a moral high ground failed, he'd work our system against us.

By using our legal system to now defeat him, we can have basis to end his operations and provide deterrent to other like-minded individuals.

Covert operations against this type of mind only encourages their further delusions of "lone-wolf/rebel/righteous" - give them the opportunity to see that when someone puts lives in harms way, none of that counts - they're in for boring trials, long imprisonment, and a fate of obscurity.

While we as a nation don't always meet our ideals, they are to define freedom and defend it - our most successful operations have always been deterrents and not retributions.

Going after wikileak boy now by any means necessary is merely retribution.

He seems to like claiming rights and shining a bright light on things.

We're best served by giving him a dose of the same - openly, legally and through our justice system working in coordination with other governments pursuant to treaty and law.

That's how our opinions differ on this matter.

 

[byteware]

At most, there is an attempt to modify the espionage act, but that would already incriminate the person(s) responsible for providing the information, while crossing into dangerous territory with regard to broader press freedoms. You'd then have to make a pretty convincing distinction between Wikileaks and the regular practice of our own domestic media.

When domestic media receives classified information, they contact the Federal Government. They give the government a chance to make a case for certain parts of the information being dangerous to national security (in some cases all of it).

Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/Govt.Secrecy.Stone.pdf

I previously outlined the difference between a person of trust releasing classified information, and the free press releasing classified information, and gave a personal example. There is a breach in obligation when looking at the first case, which is 100% illegal, but the latter addresses the responsibility, in the form of ethics and what value is derived by the release of that information. There are enough historical references I could also provide, as this isn't the first or last case of the media releasing sensitive information.

There is a difference between theory and lawful practice.

If I may... what value was there in releasing a list of sites that were vital to our national security?

What value was there in releasing the names of people who have helped us in Afghanistan? People who have been murdered since their names were released?

It's a crime in most states to assemble explosives without the proper licenses, permits, etc...... So the person has committed a crime and the consequence is his bombs are disassembled/confiscated. Again, Assange has not been accused of a single crime related to these leaks either here or abroad.

It's a crime to release classified information that puts people in danger... or endangers national security.

Hamas and Hezbollah (and their appropriate leadership) have all been accused and/or charged with crimes. There are arrest warrants out for just about everyone in leadership in both organizations. Assange has not been accused of a single crime here in the States.

He's been accused of espionage.

United States Code: Title 18,798. Disclosure of classified information | LII / Legal Information Institute

The marine didn't just up and leak the information... it has been reported that Wikileaks recruited him and convinced him to leak the information.

That fits the definition of espionage.

Paypal has said they dropped wikileaks because the feds told them to. Amazon's statement is a bit sketchy to me. Wikileaks has been posting this kind of info for years, but all of a sudden Amazon pulls them?

When a group commits espionage against a country, that country has a right to retaliate... whether you like it or not.

We investigate him. No problem with that. We don't freeze his assets, seize his property, toss him in jail and then start investigating him to see if he's committed any crimes.

Well, since we haven't done any of that... I think we're good. We haven't seized his property. We haven't frozen his assets. We haven't tossed him in jail even...

Again, only after he's been accused of a crime. That's how the system works. The cops can't just pick me up on the street and toss me in jail. They have to have a reason to accuse me of a crime. When they arrest me they have to list a reason why they arrested me on an arrest report. If they don't have enough information to arrest me but want to search my house or seize my property, they have to go to a judge and get a judge to approve that. They can't call up my bank without any sort of warrant or court order and say, "Look, this guy is making bombs. Shut off his bank accounts." Regardless of whether the bank complies or not, the authorities have committed a crime just by making that request and if they do end up charging me there's a very good chance I can get the whole case thrown out just on that basis.

Here's an article from a local paper. This guy confessed to a double murder and cops gathered evidence from his house confirming his story. They know he did it. He's confessed to doing it. However, the cops improperly and illegally searched his house. Net result - his confession and all the evidence they gathered are getting tossed out. The guy will likely walk even though he killed two people. Before they had a murder weapon, and property from both victims in the suspects house as well as a confession from their suspect. Now, they have the testimony of a 16 yr old who's also being charged with murder and robbery, a set of ear rings from one of the victims and a list of stuff that was at the house that the suspect's mom gave them. The guy's lawyer can easily argue that the 16 yr old is lieing to save his a**, the ear ring was left there previously and that the list is just hearsay. It's flimsy evidence. The guy did it. Everyone knows he did it. He admitted he did it, but an improper search is going to cause the guy to walk. This is how the system works. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. You can't start seizing a guy's property without accusing him of a crime. That's not how the system works.

The problem you are coming across is the distinction between spies and criminals. Spies can be charged with a crime, but governments have a right to retaliate against organizations that commit espionage against them.

And all of those organizations have been accused and/or charged with crimes. Assange and Wikileaks has not been accused or charged with anything.

Accused? He's accused of committing espionage. He's admitted committing espionage... how exactly is that different again?

 

[EarlyMon]

The problem you are coming across is the distinction between spies and criminals. Spies can be charged with a crime, but governments have a right to retaliate against organizations that commit espionage against them.

Very good point. I'll have to ponder that.

I'll have to go back and see where he's been finally accused of espionage.

I've been living under a box, and maybe I missed that. I've only seen debates that he should be charged, not actually charged - not arguing a point, just admitting potential ignorance.

 

[byteware]

Very good point. I'll have to ponder that.

I'll have to go back and see where he's been finally accused of espionage.

I've been living under a box, and maybe I missed that. I've only seen debates that he should be charged, not actually charged - not arguing a point, just admitting potential ignorance.

There is a distinction between accused and charged with espionage.

 

[EarlyMon]

There is a distinction between accused and charged with espionage.

<forehead slap>

I know that - but in my mind, that word totally did not say accused.

Perhaps not my sharpest day, so far.

And yeah, ok, I accuse him of what he admitted to, too.

 

[A.Nonymous]

When domestic media receives classified information, they contact the Federal Government. They give the government a chance to make a case for certain parts of the information being dangerous to national security (in some cases all of it).

And yet Sen. Lieberman also claims the NY Times should be charged with a crime. If Visa and Mastercard were cutting off their ties to the NY Times would you not care?

What value was there in releasing the names of people who have helped us in Afghanistan? People who have been murdered since their names were released?

Who has been murdered?

It's a crime to release classified information that puts people in danger... or endangers national security.

Fine then freaking accuse him of a crime. So far it hasn't happened. You can say that I've committed murder. Maybe I really have. Until I've been accused or charged with it you can't do anything about it.

He's been accused of espionage.

United States Code: Title 18,798. Disclosure of classified information | LII / Legal Information Institute

The marine didn't just up and leak the information... it has been reported that Wikileaks recruited him and convinced him to leak the information.

That fits the definition of espionage.

Accused by who? You? The media? His critics in the media? Senators on Capital Hill? That's all fine and good, but legally he's not been accused of anything. The US has filed no charges against him. They've not issued any warrants for his arrest. They've not asked Interpol or anyone else to pick him up. He's not been formally or informally charged with a single crime in the US or anywhere else relating to these cables being leaked. Accusing someone in the media doesn't give you the legal right to bully and strong arm people into cutting their ties with him.

When a group commits espionage against a country, that country has a right to retaliate... whether you like it or not.

Again, the Fifth Amendment comes in to play here. Prove it. Accuse him of something. Anything at all will probably work. So far, they've accused him of nothing.

Well, since we haven't done any of that... I think we're good. We haven't seized his property. We haven't frozen his assets. We haven't tossed him in jail even...

No, we've just bullied and strong armed Amazon, Visa, Mastercard and Paypal into cutting ties with him. I guess bullying is ok in these circumstances. We can't charge him with a crime apparently, so we'll bully him instead.

The problem you are coming across is the distinction between spies and criminals. Spies can be charged with a crime, but governments have a right to retaliate against organizations that commit espionage against them.

If he is a spy (which hasn't been proven yet), then fine. But you've got to prove that first. Before you take any action, you've got to accuse the guy and prove that he actually did something. It's ok with you if I decide that you're a terrorist and start leaning on everyone that has anything to do with you to cut their ties to you without proving a thing?

Accused? He's accused of committing espionage. He's admitted committing espionage... how exactly is that different again?

I can't find the quote where he's admitted espionage. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find it.

 

[byteware]

And yet Sen. Lieberman also claims the NY Times should be charged with a crime. If Visa and Mastercard were cutting off their ties to the NY Times would you not care?

The NY Times takes great care to coordinate it's news stories with the government to ensure it does not do damage to national security... so yes, I would.

Who has been murdered?

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks - Newsweek

Fine then freaking accuse him of a crime. So far it hasn't happened. You can say that I've committed murder. Maybe I really have. Until I've been accused or charged with it you can't do anything about it.

Espionage... Spies and criminals are two different things. A Sovereign nation has a right to retaliate against those who commit espionage. Period.

Accused by who? You? The media? His critics in the media? Senators on Capital Hill? That's all fine and good, but legally he's not been accused of anything. The US has filed no charges against him. They've not issued any warrants for his arrest. They've not asked Interpol or anyone else to pick him up. He's not been formally or informally charged with a single crime in the US or anywhere else relating to these cables being leaked. Accusing someone in the media doesn't give you the legal right to bully and strong arm people into cutting their ties with him.

While he's been accused by just about everybody... the most important person is himself. He has accused himself of espionage... (and also admitted to it).

Again, the Fifth Amendment comes in to play here. Prove it. Accuse him of something. Anything at all will probably work. So far, they've accused him of nothing.

The fifth amendment absolutely does not come into play. He is neither a US citizen or on US soil. Sorry.

No, we've just bullied and strong armed Amazon, Visa, Mastercard and Paypal into cutting ties with him. I guess bullying is ok in these circumstances. We can't charge him with a crime apparently, so we'll bully him instead.

Right... so the DDoS attack had NOTHING to do with it... why? Because that fits better in your world view.

If he is a spy (which hasn't been proven yet), then fine.

I'm gonna stop right there. Why are we going after Bin Laden? Because he's a terrorist. Have we proven that yet? Ever? No. He admitted it. We determined it was true, but there was never a court case, was there. People who attack the US, either with violence or espionage, and then admit it, are going to be retaliated against, and there are no constitutional protections to prevent it. Sorry.

I can't find the quote where he's admitted espionage. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find it.

You can't find the quotes where he's admitted to acquiring classified documents and them releasing them to our enemies?... wow, I thought it was bad that you didn't know that people had been murdered as a result of Wikileaks... but that's even worse.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks - Newsweek

Hyperbole and fear mongering. The Taliban kills people it thinks are cooperating with Americans. That's hardly news. There's no evidence linking these killings with Wikileaks and the article states as much.

Espionage... Spies and criminals are two different things. A Sovereign nation has a right to retaliate against those who commit espionage. Period.

And yet there is still a legal process to do that. If Assange is a spy as you allege, then who is he spying for? By definition, a spy is employed by someone (usually a country, but sometimes a company or an individual) for the purposes of surreptitiously gathering information about someone or something else. Who is Assange spying for? What country or body employs him? You keep claiming he's a spy. Who does he spy for?

While he's been accused by just about everybody... the most important person is himself. He has accused himself of espionage... (and also admitted to it).

Again, where? He acquired classified documents. Factually only half true if that. There are approximately 250,000 documents. 130,000 of them are not classified at all. 100,000 of them are labeled as confidential and about 15,000 of them are classified as secret. None of them are top secret and more than half of them aren't classified at all. I guess the information that the US government is funding child trafficking overseas is something the Feds should be able to keep secret. Or the fact that the US is using diplomats to spy on other countries in the UN which is a clear violation of International law. The people have no right to know this information. Or how about the US using bribes and threats to convince reticent countries to sign the Copenhagen accord. The voters have no right to know that our government is engaging in behaviors that are illegal?

You may loudly assert that what he did qualifies as espionage, but legally, that's not the case. There have been no espionage charges filed against him. No warrants have been issued for his arrest for espionage. The State Department is still investigating whether they can legally charge him with anything at all. Legally, the man has committed no crime in the US related to these cables. He is as legally not guilty as you or I.

And for the record, Assange contacted the State Department prior to released any information and offered to redact any names or information they deemed would pose a danger to anyone. The State Department declined.

The fifth amendment absolutely does not come into play. He is neither a US citizen or on US soil. Sorry.

You are dead wrong. The US has no more right to toss a foreign national into the klink without due process than they do a US citizen. It's been upheld in court many times that foreigners are protected by the Constitution just as much as citizens are.

Right... so the DDoS attack had NOTHING to do with it... why? Because that fits better in your world view.

The DDoS gave them a convenient excuse to cave to the Feds request. Visa, Mastercard and Paypal all cut off Assange before they were DDoSed. So, no, the DDoS attacks had nothing to do with those companies cutting him off.

I'm gonna stop right there. Why are we going after Bin Laden? Because he's a terrorist. Have we proven that yet? Ever? No. He admitted it. We determined it was true, but there was never a court case, was there. People who attack the US, either with violence or espionage, and then admit it, are going to be retaliated against, and there are no constitutional protections to prevent it. Sorry.

Bin Ladin is wanted for several crimes in the US. He's been on the FBI's most wanted list since the mid-90s if memory serves me correct. So yes, there are warrants out for his arrest. He's wanted for a truckload of crimes. Assange is wanted for nothing connected to the cable leaks, he's not on any most wanted list that I'm aware of and there are no warrants for his arrest issued by the US. The analogy doesn't fly. I'm sorry.

 

[hakr100]

When your government lies you into a war that has needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, it deserves to be shoved out of the closet and into the sunlight.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Heard an interesting argument on a podcast this morning. Guy argued that the person who should be punished is the soldier who leaked these documents to Wikileaks in the first place and it looks like he is. No one seems to have any issues there as they shouldn't. Wikileaks just re-published the leaked materials which is pretty much what press outlets have done for a long, long time and have never been punished for it historically.

 

[byteware]

Hyperbole and fear mongering. The Taliban kills people it thinks are cooperating with Americans. That's hardly news. There's no evidence linking these killings with Wikileaks and the article states as much.

Wikileaks revealed him as a collaborator. That wasn't general knowledge before Wikileaks revealed that information.

Then the Taliban announce that they are going to use the information that Wikileaks revealed to hunt and kill collaborators.

They kill him.

And that's hyperbole and fear mongering?

Ok, I'm gonna stop reading right here, as you appear more interested in being right, than understanding what the facts are.

 

[byteware]

When your government lies you into a war that has needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, it deserves to be shoved out of the closet and into the sunlight.

Exactly how did it lie us into either war?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Wikileaks revealed him as a collaborator. That wasn't general knowledge before Wikileaks revealed that information.

Then the Taliban announce that they are going to use the information that Wikileaks revealed to hunt and kill collaborators.

They kill him.

And that's hyperbole and fear mongering?

Ok, I'm gonna stop reading right here, as you appear more interested in being right, than understanding what the facts are.

Not sure where you're getting that information from the article. Here's a quote right from the article (emphasis mine):

threatening letters have been delivered to 70 elders in Panjwaii district. While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents, it

 

[byteware]

Not sure where you're getting that information from the article. Here's a quote right from the article (emphasis mine):



Those are the facts from the article you cited.

Wow... that was the entire article... oh wait, no it wasn't. Maybe if you had read THIS:

And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province

 

[A.Nonymous]

From the article that you commented on, and supposedly read.

And that's linked to Wikileaks how? His name was in the reports? Nope. That's not what the article says. His identity was indicated in the cables? No. That's not what it says either. It says they thought he was cooperating with the US. It doesn't say why they thought that. You have to connect the dots.

 

[hakr100]

Exactly how did it lie us into either war?

You've already forgotten the Bush Administration, eh? How many legitimate news articles and researched opinion pieces did you not read in re: how the Bush Administration manipulated data so as to push its agenda to invade Iraq?

 

[byteware]

And that's linked to Wikileaks how? His name was in the reports? Nope. That's not what the article says. His identity was indicated in the cables? No. That's not what it says either. It says they thought he was cooperating with the US. It doesn't say why they thought that. You have to connect the dots.

You are correct.

But correct me if I'm wrong here...

Wikileaks published the names of collaborators.

The Taliban has been reviewing those names.

The Taliban has sworn to kill them.


If I am wrong on any of these, please point them out.

So, if I'm right on all of those... please answer the following:

Do you think the Taliban is lying?

Do you think they cannot read the names of the Collaborators?

What reason do you have for believing that they have not begun executing the collaborators already?

 

[byteware]

You've already forgotten the Bush Administration, eh? How many legitimate news articles and researched opinion pieces did you not read in re: how the Bush Administration manipulated data so as to push its agenda to invade Iraq?

I just wanted to make sure you couldn't actually provide any factual information to support your claim. It's typical and expected, but I wanted to make sure that anyone who read the thread knew that as well.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You are correct.

But correct me if I'm wrong here...

Wikileaks published the names of collaborators.

The Taliban has been reviewing those names.

The Taliban has sworn to kill them.

And the NYT published them as well. These people know their names are there and are seeking asylum.

If I am wrong on any of these, please point them out.

So, if I'm right on all of those... please answer the following:

Do you think the Taliban is lying?

Do you think they cannot read the names of the Collaborators?

What reason do you have for believing that they have not begun executing the collaborators already?

What reason do you have to believe that they are executing collaborators revealed in Wikileaks? They've been executing collaborators since the war started. That's not news.