New Wikileaks Dump is Unconscionable

[Bells]

WAY overblown.

First, only the Executive branch of the Gov can Arrest/Charge him with anything, so what ever some Congressmen says (Legislative Branch) means diddly squat.

And so far, the Justice Dept has not charged him with anything.

The fact is that while Gov prosecutors have used the Espionage Act to convict OFFICIALS who leaked classified information they have never prevailed in a case where a leak recipient simply passed the information along and, because of 1st Amendment issues, the Justice Department has never even tried to prosecute a journalist for doing so, which is why there will be no charges leveled against the NY Times.

As to your contention that we could change our laws so that we could then charge him, NO, that is not possible. One can not be charged retroactively in the US. The idea of changing the law would be so he could be charged in the FUTURE, but the reality, is I see no such change in the law in the works (Constitutional issues and all that), though it does make a good sound bite.

Arthur

Sooo.. Do you want to tell your legislators that?

They have been parading on the media discussing execution and assassination, branding him a terrorist and a spy. We all know he is none of that. Your own lawmakers have been very candid about how the laws could be changed to prosecute him. That is what has been going on. Now we both agree that would be ridiculous. But that is a small portion of the US's reaction to this.

Now, you claim that no journalists have ever been charged for publishing information given to them, to the general public. Pray tell, why is the US Government trying to charge Assange, in effect a journalist, with espionage? Mr Countzero claimed that mere possession and publication of such items is illegal. Why hasn't the NYT been dragged into court? Along with other news agencies who have copies of the leaks and are publishing them daily?

Do you understand the anger now? Do you understand the hypocrisy?

Mr Assange has no legal responsibility to protect the US's secrets (secrets available and wholly unprotected to its 3 million or so users). That is the reality of this situation. The US has been embarrassed by these leaks and instead of addressing the problem (their lax security in their systems), they attempt to shoot the messenger instead.

 

[nirakar]

If He can get hold of these cables, then you can be assured our enemies already had them a long time ago.

Governments can cut deals with their "enemies". The enemies keep each others secrets because they don't want to reveal what they know and because they don't want to get in leak wars in which both enemy sides lose but public knowledge gains. I don't think the stronger governments are all that scared of their "enemies". What scares them is their own people.

Maybe the west, the US in particular will now have to conduct business honourably. If this is the net result, then I applaud Assagne.

At least slightly more honorably though the governments won't like being held more accountable for their actions.

 

[Red Devil]

I see people stating that the person who leaked the stuff is not liable, sorry but you are wrong. I was in the British Army, I actually signed the official secrets act and it is still extant now although I have been out many years.

IF this gent signed anything covering his job with regards to confidentiality clauses and unauthorised disclosures, they have him by the proverbials. The best he can expect is sacking for gross misconduct, which means he will probably never work again, except for Wiki!!

The other side of the coin is that, in the USA, nobody signs anything?????

 

[hypewaders]

Another aspect of duty and patriotism in lawful and democratic nations: The whistle-blower concept- that secrecy is not the legal refuge of criminality. "My country right or wrong" is blind loyalty conducive to tyranny- not part of mindset of those who believe in liberty. Whether a patriot is afforded the protections of whistleblower status depends on the case- whether the rule of law and the good of the country are advanced in uncovering privileged information, and on whether the country is a functional democracy or not.

 

[countezero]

I see people stating that the person who leaked the stuff is not liable, sorry but you are wrong. I was in the British Army, I actually signed the official secrets act and it is still extant now although I have been out many years.

IF this gent signed anything covering his job with regards to confidentiality clauses and unauthorised disclosures, they have him by the proverbials. The best he can expect is sacking for gross misconduct, which means he will probably never work again, except for Wiki!!

The other side of the coin is that, in the USA, nobody signs anything?????

No, the soldier violated his oath and several agreements he signed. He's under arrest and up for trial next month, I believe. He will be going away for a very long time, I imagine.

 

[Red Devil]

thanks

 

[adoucette]

Sooo.. Do you want to tell your legislators that?

They have been parading on the media discussing execution and assassination, branding him a terrorist and a spy. We all know he is none of that. Your own lawmakers have been very candid about how the laws could be changed to prosecute him. That is what has been going on. Now we both agree that would be ridiculous. But that is a small portion of the US's reaction to this.

Like I said, legislators can't charge Assange with anything, their statements are just hot air, and any discussions about changing laws would only apply to FUTURE actions, so it's incorrect to say that "the laws could be changed to prosecute him". The laws could possibly be changed to allow charging him for future actions, but as of yet, no such law has been submitted to Congress, so you are getting WAY ahead of yourself.

You seem to make no distinction between actual US legal actions and Sound Bites on TV by polititicians.

Now, you claim that no journalists have ever been charged for publishing information given to them, to the general public. Pray tell, why is the US Government trying to charge Assange, in effect a journalist, with espionage? Mr Countzero claimed that mere possession and publication of such items is illegal. Why hasn't the NYT been dragged into court? Along with other news agencies who have copies of the leaks and are publishing them daily?

Do you understand the anger now? Do you understand the hypocrisy?

No I don't.

Since Assange has NOT been charged with anything by the US Justice department I have no idea what are you angry about?

They are not trying to charge him what they are doing is looking into his actions to see if he did anything illegal in obtaining the material. From what I can tell, he didn't do anything illegal (or he would be charged), but do you think they shouldn't explore that possibility?

And since neither he nor the NY Times has been charged with anything likewise there is no hypocrisy. If they charge him and not the NYT, then I'd agree with you, but they haven't.

Mr Assange has no legal responsibility to protect the US's secrets (secrets available and wholly unprotected to its 3 million or so users). That is the reality of this situation. The US has been embarrassed by these leaks and instead of addressing the problem (their lax security in their systems), they attempt to shoot the messenger instead.

No attempt has been made to shoot the messenger since they have not fired a single bullet.

Like I said, way overblown.

For a somewhat more balanced view of the thoughts behind this:

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act

Arthur

 

[darksidZz]

What's the big deal the war is over right? WTF you care :-\

 

[Bells]

Like I said, legislators can't charge Assange with anything, their statements are just hot air, and any discussions about changing laws would only apply to FUTURE actions, so it's incorrect to say that "the laws could be changed to prosecute him". The laws could possibly be changed to allow charging him for future actions, but as of yet, no such law has been submitted to Congress, so you are getting WAY ahead of yourself.

You seem to make no distinction between actual US legal actions and Sound Bites on TV by polititicians.

This is what we are discussing.

Now, don't you think your politicians should know your laws a bit better and not make "sound bites" on TV about having charged under the Espionage Act? Laws can and have been changed in the past to apply retroactively. There is nothing to say this cannot happen again.

I am merely speculating on what your lawmakers are saying in public. Don't you mean they are getting ahead of themselves?

Since Assange has NOT been charged with anything by the US Justice department I have no idea what are you angry about?

They are not trying to charge him what they are doing is looking into his actions to see if he did anything illegal in obtaining the material. From what I can tell, he didn't do anything illegal (or he would be charged), but do you think they shouldn't explore that possibility?

And since neither he nor the NY Times has been charged with anything likewise there is no hypocrisy. If they charge him and not the NYT, then I'd agree with you, but they haven't.

That comment had been aimed at another member here who stated that mere possession of the documents constituted a crime, so I asked him why no news organisations had not been prosecuted since they not only had possessions of the documents, they also published it and continue to do so. Do try to keep up.

My anger is at your politicians threatening him with death. Again, do try to keep up.

For a somewhat more balanced view of the thoughts behind this:

From your link:

The Obama administration should, in addition to prosecuting Assange for espionage, seek to replace the Espionage Act with a Secrecy Act that is more useable. Many (but not all) sections of the Espionage Act require demonstrating an intent to harm the United States. Demonstrating intent is virtually impossible and shouldn't be required anyway: The damage to U.S. national security is the same regardless of the source or motivation of the leak. A generic Secrecy Act should define as a crime the leaking and publishing of classified information regardless of intent.

Additionally, espionage convictions carry steep penalties, ranging from decades in prison to the death penalty. Secrecy violations, by contrast, should allow a range of lesser penalties starting with fines. If the FCC can fine television stations for uttering profanity on air, why can't the government fine newspapers for disclosing classified information? That would equip the administration with a far more useable tool that would impose a real cost on media outlets. It goes without saying that such a law should include appropriate oversight and accountability, and also include a mechanism to oversee the government's classification decisions, many of which are truthfully unjustifiable. But it is past time to update the law to protect classified information and cope with the new media realities.
​

You consider that more balanced? Linking an article that states he should be charged (after you claim he apparently cannot be charged) and also states that the laws should be changed so that even news organisations could be fined for disclosing anything the Government deeps classified.

I am guessing freedom of the press and an informed public don't rate too highly on your list of priorities?

 

[nirakar]

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/06/replace_the_espionage_act

Whether prosecution of journalism and political opinion is successful or not comes down to politics/ to what degree the people and the majority of journalists are willing to accept prosecution of journalists.

There have been a number of times that the US has been willing to prosecute Journalists. Supreme courts are political. Law bends to fit the current political mood.

The US has alway been a comparatively strong supporter of free speech despite occasionally prosecuting it. Most other nations have not been as strong supporters of free speech.

 

[S.A.M.]

The US has alway been a comparatively strong supporter of free speech despite occasionally prosecuting it

For whom? Non-Americans?

 

[superstring01]

For whom? Non-Americans?

For everybody, and compared to the vast majority of the world's governments.

~String

 

[S.A.M.]

For everybody, and compared to the vast majority of the world's governments.

~String

Okay give me an example of how the US has supported free speech in Saudi Arabia. Tell me how support for dictatorial regimes is compatible with free speech

edit: actually wait, I want to hear nirakars POV on this

 

[adoucette]

This is what we are discussing.

Now, don't you think your politicians should know your laws a bit better and not make "sound bites" on TV about having charged under the Espionage Act? Laws can and have been changed in the past to apply retroactively. There is nothing to say this cannot happen again.

You know not what you talk about.

Ex Post Facto laws are expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of our Constitution.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...es_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress

I am merely speculating on what your lawmakers are saying in public. Don't you mean they are getting ahead of themselves?

Well that's ~535 people, so you have to expect some far out views from some of them.
Why dwell on what one representative says?
Why not focus on ACTUAL actions by the legislature, since that's all that actually matters?
Talk is cheap.

That comment had been aimed at another member here who stated that mere possession of the documents constituted a crime, so I asked him why no news organisations had not been prosecuted since they not only had possessions of the documents, they also published it and continue to do so.

Actually neither Assange or the NYTimes have the actual documents, they have copies. The actual documents are sitting where they always were, so even in this area, you have a case where a 100 year old law doesn't quite apply.

Do try to keep up.

FU

My anger is at your politicians threatening him with death.

I've not seen you post a link to a politician threatening him with death, do so and I'll evaluate it as to being a legitimate threat.

My guess is no such legitimate threat was made.

Again, do try to keep up.

Again, FU

From your link:

The Obama administration should, in addition to prosecuting Assange for espionage, seek to replace the Espionage Act with a Secrecy Act that is more useable. Many (but not all) sections of the Espionage Act require demonstrating an intent to harm the United States. Demonstrating intent is virtually impossible and shouldn't be required anyway: The damage to U.S. national security is the same regardless of the source or motivation of the leak. A generic Secrecy Act should define as a crime the leaking and publishing of classified information regardless of intent.

Additionally, espionage convictions carry steep penalties, ranging from decades in prison to the death penalty. Secrecy violations, by contrast, should allow a range of lesser penalties starting with fines. If the FCC can fine television stations for uttering profanity on air, why can't the government fine newspapers for disclosing classified information? That would equip the administration with a far more useable tool that would impose a real cost on media outlets. It goes without saying that such a law should include appropriate oversight and accountability, and also include a mechanism to oversee the government's classification decisions, many of which are truthfully unjustifiable. But it is past time to update the law to protect classified information and cope with the new media realities.
​

You consider that more balanced? Linking an article that states he should be charged (after you claim he apparently cannot be charged) and also states that the laws should be changed so that even news organisations could be fined for disclosing anything the Government deeps classified.

I am guessing freedom of the press and an informed public don't rate too highly on your list of priorities?

No, freedom of the press and an imformed public are high on my priority list.
I didn't say I agreed with everything in the article, but that it was a more balanced look at the issue, such as pointing out that if you could charge Assange then you should charge the NYTimes as well and I thought that the part about Secrecy violations should allow a range of lesser penalties starting with fines, was somewhat more rational view of the nature of the crime and appropriate punishment.

Arthur

 

[superstring01]

Okay give me an example of how the US has supported free speech in Saudi Arabia. Tell me how support for dictatorial regimes is compatible with free speech

I never said the record of the US is perfect. In fact, I'm quite unhappy with our current foreign policy direction. But, generally speaking, the black's in South Africa, all of Europe, Japan and a host of other nations can trace their current freedoms back to either direct American intervention or subtle political pressure.

~String

 

[nirakar]

For whom? Non-Americans?

No, just for Americans. A majority of the American people would be upset if they were forced to know how often their government has funded and helped create regimes that persecute free speech. That is why Wikileaks is important. If the people were in support of their governments secret activity then WikiLeaks would be irrelevant.

Of course if enough American people lie to themselves or just ignore US foreign policy then the US government would be able to continue with a foreign policy that the American people would not approve of regardless of what sort of documents WikiLeaks is able to produce. Even without WikiLeaks the American people have had opportunities to learn that their government's foreign policy is not a foreign policy that they could approve of but the American people chose to be oblivious.

 

[Tiassa]

And yet we do ....

You know not what you talk about.

Ex Post Facto laws are expressly prohibited by Article 1, Section 9 of our Constitution.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...es_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress

I think you should be careful about leading off with an insult. Congress regularly passes retroactive laws. Retroactive tax cuts, for instance.

The difference between an acceptable "retroactive" law and a prohibited ex post facto law seems primarily to be benefit, with some consideration of venue. Beneficial changes that would be argued in civil court are almost always good to go. Beneficial changes that would be argued in criminal courts are a bit more touchy, though convicts have benefitted from sentencing reforms applied to their cases retroactively, and constitutional overturning of certain prohibitions has resulted in the vacation of convictions. However, harmful changes that would land someone under criminal scrutiny are generally rejected as ex post facto, which is something close to what the rule originally intended.

I wouldn't be too hard on Bells; I regularly encounter Americans who get confused by ex post facto, too. And we in this country do, it seems, have a little bit of cultural coding going on about how we speak about our laws. We're not supposed to write ex post facto laws, but we do, so we call them "retroactive". To someone not indoctrinated to the hip lingo of American exceptionalism, it might just seem, well, backwards.
____________________

Notes:

Ohlemacher, Stephen. "IRS warns lawmakers about retroactive tax changes". Lexington Herald-Leader. December 1, 2010. Kentucky.com. December 10, 2010. http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/01/1547930/irs-warns-lawmakers-about-retroactive.html

 

[adoucette]

I think you should be careful about leading off with an insult. Congress regularly passes retroactive laws. Retroactive tax cuts, for instance.

The difference between an acceptable "retroactive" law and a prohibited ex post facto law seems primarily to be benefit, with some consideration of venue. Beneficial changes that would be argued in civil court are almost always good to go. Beneficial changes that would be argued in criminal courts are a bit more touchy, though convicts have benefitted from sentencing reforms applied to their cases retroactively, and constitutional overturning of certain prohibitions has resulted in the vacation of convictions. However, harmful changes that would land someone under criminal scrutiny are generally rejected as ex post facto, which is something close to what the rule originally intended.

I wouldn't be too hard on Bells; I regularly encounter Americans who get confused by ex post facto, too. And we in this country do, it seems, have a little bit of cultural coding going on about how we speak about our laws. We're not supposed to write ex post facto laws, but we do, so we call them "retroactive". To someone not indoctrinated to the hip lingo of American exceptionalism, it might just seem, well, backwards.
____________________

Notes:

Ohlemacher, Stephen. "IRS warns lawmakers about retroactive tax changes". Lexington Herald-Leader. December 1, 2010. Kentucky.com. December 10, 2010. http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/01/1547930/irs-warns-lawmakers-about-retroactive.html

Actually those are considered regulations, not CRIMINAL laws.

You could NOT get an ex post facto criminal law passed, prosecuted or upheld by the Supremes.

Arthur

 

[countezero]

I never said the record of the US is perfect. In fact, I'm quite unhappy with our current foreign policy direction. But, generally speaking, the black's in South Africa, all of Europe, Japan and a host of other nations can trace their current freedoms back to either direct American intervention or subtle political pressure.

~String

The problem with the Sam's of the world is that they have no real argument, beyond the usual inane attempt to apply an absolute standard no one can live up to, let alone corrupt dumps like India.

I would put the US record on speech up against any nation. And the laws governing espionage in the US are much less harsh than the laws in places like Britain and France. Is the US pefect and completely 100 percent wonderful? Of course, not. But the Hate America crowd let their rage run away with their thinking when the allege the kind of crap that routinely gets posted on this forum.

 

[adoucette]

but the American people chose to be oblivious.

No we don't.

A lot of us AGREE with American foriegn policy, in general, even if we might disagree with certain aspects.

You might think that we don't because we aren't aware of it but you would be wrong.

Arthur