WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Quit trying to shift the blame. Wiki should've done the right thing, but they failed to do so. If you've got a website that has users all over the world, you're subject to the laws of those areas of the world. Wiki was in the wrong for what it did. Governments are going after the right person.

You have way more confidence in secret governments than I do.

Are you Russian?... perhaps Venezuelan?...no wait a relative of Pinochet.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

If you go to the same place you got your information about who can, and can't be charged, with being a traitor, you'd probably run into information that shows that the US has laws against ESPIONAGE. Again, if you have an operation that operates in the United States, you're subject to US law. The same is applicable if you have an operation in other countries, you're subject to those other country's laws.

Yes, the US has laws on espionage, but clearly the Justice Department is not confident that any law it has will be useful against Wikileaks. Second, just because you have users all over the world does not subject you to the laws of every country. Take for example escort sites. Many now put their servers in places like The Netherlands because it is legal there; sure they have users in the US but the US government is pretty much unable to go after them at this point, even if it wanted to.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

You have way more confidence in secret governments than I do.

Are you Russian?... perhaps Venezuelan?...no wait a relative of Pinochet.

Again, you're missing the point. There's information that shouldn't be getting out in the open, information that our enemies could use to their advantage... at our expense.

Using your argument, your family, children, etc, have every right to not only know that you're hobbying, but precisely what you do during each session.

As for who I am? Hint, got back from a combat deployment to Iraq, prior to "
Operation New Dawn."

[herfacechair]

discreetgent: Yes, the US has laws on espionage,

The only thing you said that I agree with.

discreetgent: but clearly the Justice Department is not confident that any law it has will be useful against Wikileaks.

The degree of confidence in pursuing any case, in the beginning, is low. But after research, investigations, etc, that degree of confidence goes up.

discreetgent: Second, just because you have users all over the world does not subject you to the laws of every country.

Yes it does, especially in Wiki's case. This is why websites, like google, are forced to adjust their operations in different countries. If you have a user in another country, you're subject to that other country's laws. It's that simple.

Here's why:

discreetgent: Take for example escort sites. Many now put their servers in places like The Netherlands because it is legal there; sure they have users in the US but the US government is pretty much unable to go after them at this point, even if it wanted to.

I'm glad you brought this up. I've viewed both BDSM and escort related sites that were hosted in different countries. I've constantly seen disclaimers such as, "It is legal for me to view such material in my community, state, country or province..."

That's a disclaimer that protects the website from legal action stemming from a country that this website is viewed in.

Again, if you have users from around the world, who access your site from around the world, your operation is subject to those country's laws.

[discreetgent]

Lets try it this way.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

discreetgent: but clearly the Justice Department is not confident that any law it has will be useful against Wikileaks.

The degree of confidence in pursuing any case, in the beginning, is low. But after research, investigations, etc, that degree of confidence goes up.

Perhaps, but I don't see where the US is filing extradition requests with the British government; if DoJ had real confidence they would certainly file a claim.

discreetgent: Second, just because you have users all over the world does not subject you to the laws of every country.

Yes it does, especially in Wiki's case. This is why websites, like google, are forced to adjust their operations in different countries. If you have a user in another country, you're subject to that other country's laws. It's that simple.


Again oversimplification. Google, etc have operations in France, Germany, and so forth, wikileaks, TER do not which changes the equation considerably. Take TER or bigdoggie as an example: In theory the US MIGHT be able to claim that since they receive payments from US based customers that they are subject to US law, perhaps with Wikileaks in regards to donations; but this theory of law is untested and it does not seem like DoJ has any desire to test the theory and perhaps lose.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Lets try it this way.

I've seen my debate opponents try all sorts of stuff over the past few years. Doesn't work.

discreetgent: Perhaps, but I don't see where the US is filing extradition requests with the British government; if DoJ had real confidence they would certainly file a claim.

Inductive fallacy. Lack of action in the matter isn't proof of lack of confidence. They don't have to push for extradition until they get the argument they want, based on the length of investigation they want.

discreetgent: Again oversimplification.

Not oversimplification, but calling it as I see it, based on my research on cases like this.

discreetgent: Google, etc have operations in France, Germany, and so forth,

Google's website is available in those and other countries. Users can use the search engine everywhere in the world there's access to it. The same thing with WIKI, people can access and "benefit" from WIKI everywhere in the world people have access to it.

discreetgent: wikileaks, TER do not which changes the equation considerably.

No it doesn't. Simply put, if you could access those sites, and utilize the information from them, then those sites are "operating" in said countries.

discreetgent: Take TER or bigdoggie as an example: In theory the US MIGHT be able to claim that since they receive payments from US based customers that they are subject to US law,

No theory about it. This example would fall under business law. All that's needed is a presence in a certain local for you to be subject to that local's laws. No "might" about this.

discreetgent: perhaps with Wikileaks in regards to donations;

More than just donations. Most countries have laws prohibiting their citizens from acting contrary to said country's diplomatic and other interests. In the United State's case, in a time of war, you have someone, whose site has "beneficiaries" in the US, doing something that goes counter to our efforts in the War on Terrorism. WIKI's founder didn't just cross the US, but other countries as well. All the US has to do is build its case against him.

discreetgent: but this theory of law is untested and it does not seem like DoJ has any desire to test the theory and perhaps lose.

Not true, we've already tested "untestable" "theories." For example, Andrew Jackson's deploying to Spanish Territory and subjecting a couple British miscreants to a Court Martial... followed by executions... for crimes against the United States.

This isn't a case of the DOJ being afraid to push a "weak" case. They'd be in the right for doing so. The proper course of action for them would be to build their case.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Again, you're missing the point. There's information that shouldn't be getting out in the open, information that our enemies could use to their advantage... at our expense.

Have you seen "Fair Game"?

The reason we have this huge military industrial complex is because they can control the flow of information. It is not suprising that you are part of it.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Using your argument, your family, children, etc, have every right to not only know that you're hobbying, but precisely what you do during each session.

No using my argument...you would not blame others for your actions. If you got caught cheating on your wife because the newspaper published your name in a prostitution sting , you would take responsibility for your actions and not blame it in the publisher. Gawd, this ain't rocket science.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

As for who I am? Hint, got back from a combat deployment to Iraq, prior to "
Operation New Dawn."

That is what your job is, it is what you signed up for.... not who you are.

I doubt that people are signing up to fight a war so our government can be more secretive.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I've seen my debate opponents try all sorts of stuff over the past few years. Doesn't work.

That is not necessarily a good thing; not being able to accept a reasonable argument (which I may or may not be making here) is not a positive. I think in this discussion we are going to "agree to disagree."

discreetgent: Perhaps, but I don't see where the US is filing extradition requests with the British government; if DoJ had real confidence they would certainly file a claim.

Inductive fallacy. Lack of action in the matter isn't proof of lack of confidence. They don't have to push for extradition until they get the argument they want, based on the length of investigation they want.

Fallacy on your part as well making an assumption that we have no way of verifying.

discreetgent: Again oversimplification.

Not oversimplification, but calling it as I see it, based on my research on cases like this.

Our research has left us with different conclusions. It will be fascinating to see what happens if a case against a website located outside the US and its only operations within the US is it can be viewed ever gets filed in the US.

More than just donations. Most countries have laws prohibiting their citizens from acting contrary to said country's diplomatic and other interests. In the United State's case, in a time of war, you have someone, whose site has "beneficiaries" in the US, doing something that goes counter to our efforts in the War on Terrorism. WIKI's founder didn't just cross the US, but other countries as well. All the US has to do is build its case against him.

First, the Wikileaks guy is not a US citizen. Second, the argument becomes a stretch considering that the US did not prosecute the NYT for the Pentagon papers where a similar argument could be made AND the information was directly handed to them by a US citizen. In this case Wikileaks is a 3rd party that was give information and at least in the past that has made a difference in terms of case law. The US courts have historically been very very wary of impeding anything that may seem like political speech.

[charlestudor2005]

Your analysis is flawed in several respects:

• It is hornbook law that you have to prosecute a criminal case in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. Since there is no evidence that Wikileaks did anything inside the US or its territories, no crime, including treason or espionage can be pursued.
• Even if you could pursue a crime, there is no jurisdiction in the US.
• There is no evidence that Wikileaks did anything illegal in gaining the information. If they just received the information unsolicited, it is really hard to pursue a criminal case since each crime prosecuted must show criminal intent.
• As far as extradition is concerned, it's a fairly complicated process, and not a slam dunk as you might think. First of all, there must be a US indictment, yet to have happened. Second, there must be some reasonable expectation of a guilty verdict. Third (and I think this is true for England), the US must, in advance, waive the death penalty. Fourth, the US must pay all the costs of extradition. Fifth, it is not certain by any stretch of the imagination that a court would agree to extradite. It would clearly be a blow to ask for extradition and be turned down. After Roman Polanski, it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Your knowledge of the law and your research leaves quite a bit to be desired, as does you realistic POV of what the US can accomplish in another country. Contrary to your experience in Afghanistan, or wherever it was you served, the US does not control every country in the world. As a matter of fact, most countries find ways to thumb their noses at us.

[herfacechair]

WTF: Have you seen "Fair Game"?

I don't base my arguments on movies.

WTF: The reason we have this huge military industrial complex is because they can control the flow of information.

Wrong. A reason to why we have this huge military industrial complex is that the Department of Defense has demands for military industrial services, and the related industrial complex is there to meet the demand. This would happen regardless of how well, or how poorly, information flow is controlled.

WTF: It is not suprising that you are part of it.

My interest in it mainly involves the war fighting aspect of it. When our enemy is mainly gunning for a public affair/media fight (because they suck when it comes to battles), there are lots of ramifications to releasing military related information.

WTF: No using my argument...you would not blame others for your actions. If you got caught cheating on your wife because the newspaper published your name in a prostitution sting , you would take responsibility for your actions and not blame it in the publisher. Gawd, this ain't rocket science.

Your argument excuses a wrong doing, because of another wrongdoing. For instance, "it's not his fault that the government can't control..." This is a far cry from the example that you give here, and it's the wrong answer. You're trying to excuse the Useful Idiot, because "we can't control our information," is like saying that women were "asking" to be raped, because of what they were wearing. In both instances, you're excusing a wrong because something else happened.

Nobody forced the Useful Idiot to release sensitive information given to him. He had a choice, once he got sensitive information. He chose to make the wrong one. He, and he alone, is responsible for his Useful Idiot acts.

I agree, this isn't rocket science, but you're simply not getting it.

WTF: That is what your job is, it is what you signed up for.... not who you are. I doubt that people are signing up to fight a war so our government can be more secretive.

Again, you're missing the point. Go back and read every post that I've made here, and do so with the intentions of understanding what you're reading, before moving on.

This isn't a simple matter of signing up for a job and doing it. I, and thousands of others, joined for more complex reasons than what I'm able to put here. I've argued, on other message boards, why I signed up to do what I'm doing now.

Considering that I've done combat deployments, I'm seeing the ramifications invoved with the leaks in a way that's going over your head. Reading your posts, it'd probably take a paradigm shift for you to see the ramifications of releasing secret military related videos out in the open, where our enemies could grab themselves more material to take out of context, and to turn into massive propaganda films.

Considering that people that I have met in the past are still fighting and dying downrange, I'm obviously seeing the gravity of the wiki releases than what you're seeing. This is more than just a news article, or a debate topic.

[herfacechair]

discrreetgent: That is not necessarily a good thing; not being able to accept a reasonable argument (which I may or may not be making here) is not a positive. I think in this discussion we are going to "agree to disagree."

Neither you, nor the other posters on this thread, nor the others that I've debated with over the past few years, have presented a reasonable argument. I see one common trend from you guys... an argument fueled mainly by emotion.

I've been debating online about various war related topics since I came back from the initial Operation Iraqi Freedom. In each of the debates I've been involved with, I've always came out of the debate with the same argument I had going into the debate. I don't debate to change other people's mind, and I definitely have never changed my mind based on what one of my debate opponents have said.

I'm presenting a reasoned argument here, based on my research and experiences. Neither you, nor the others debating with me here, seem to be willing to accept a reasoned argument.

discrreetgent: Fallacy on your part as well making an assumption that we have no way of verifying.

It's inductive fallacy on your part, as your assuming that lack of action means a "weak" case. What I stated in response is valid. That's why we have investigations, followed by grand juries and trials. You build a case before you push with an arrest warrant.

This is the same concept that we use in the military, when it comes to troop leading procedures and carrying out a combat mission. Using your argument, our not moving to conduct a ground assault is equal to our having a "weak" confidence on the intelligence that we have, vice the fact that we carry out troop leading procedures prior to crossing the wire.

discrreetgent: Our research has left us with different conclusions. It will be fascinating to see what happens if a case against a website located outside the US and its only operations within the US is it can be viewed ever gets filed in the US.

Research, motivated by bias, will come to a different conclusion than the one that I'm arguing. Point blank, the founder of a website, accessible within the US and other parts of the world, broke a US law designed to fight those that work against our war efforts. He received information from a dumb**s private working for the United States government. He obtained these in the process of his carrying out his government duties, in violation of both Army and Federal regulations governing the handling of classified information. The Useful Idiot proceeded to take actions to release sensitive information on military, and other operations. If you read the Espionage Act, you'll see lots of sections that covers what he did.

This is Asymmetrical Warfare. My argument, with regards to holding a website founder accountable for his actions, is valid.

discrreetgent: First, the Wikileaks guy is not a US citizen.

We have laws that allows us to put spies through trial, render judgment, and carry out judgment against them. Spies is obviously meant for foreign nationals who commit Espionage acts against the United States. The law doesn't put a limit as to who can be prosecuted, nor does it exempt a foreign national from being prosecuted.

discrreetgent: Second, the argument becomes a stretch considering that the US did not prosecute the NYT for the Pentagon papers where a similar argument could be made AND the information was directly handed to them by a US citizen.

Anybody studying case law would also notice that not every judgment, for the same cases, results in the same thing happening to the accused. In NYT's case, there was no real need for the government to prosecute the NYTs... they took a beating from the free market. Attempting to prosecute them would've benefited the NYTs, delaying their hemorrhage of customers. This was one case where you just step back and let the miscreant destroy itself.

discrreetgent: In this case Wikileaks is a 3rd party that was give information and at least in the past that has made a difference in terms of case law.

Unlike the NYTs, Wikileaks is releasing salvo after salvo of information that's intended to remain a secret. Many of this information deals with military operations that should remain secret. Wikileaks is clearly working against the international efforts against the radical Islamists bent on converting all of us to their brand of Islam. If these guys were in charge, the Useful Idiot would face stonning or beheading.

discrreetgent: The US courts have historically been very very wary of impeding anything that may seem like political speech.

But this isn't political speech. We have someone that failed to do the right thing, choosing to work against our efforts in the War on Terrorism. These are efforts that range from diplomacy to military operations.

[herfacechair]

charlestudor2005: Your analysis is flawed in several respects:

WRONG. My analysis is spot on. Do realize that before I bring something up for discussion, or debate, I put my information through a vetting process. If I'm rejecting something here, there's a very good chance that I rejected it in the vetting process. There's an excellent chance that I have previously argued against it on another message board.

Now watch me demonstrate how flawed your argument is...

charlestudor2005: It is hornbook law that you have to prosecute a criminal case in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred.

First, a hornbook law covers laws that are basic and commonly known. These laws are commonly accepted, they're like the Accountant's "GAAP," or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles."

Second, your description here, restricts your explanations to the obvious. For instance, if you broke into a jewelry store in New York City, you'd be tried in New York City, not in Los Angeles. That, is it's most basic form.

But anybody dealing with the law would notice that you don't only have law in its most basic form.

Let's bring this up a few notches.

You can bring someone up for trial, even if they weren't in your jurisdiction when they committed the crime. This is referred to as the long arm statute. If you, or any of your operations, are within a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction can bring you up on charges.

I'll use your next comment to elaborate:

charlestudor2005: Since there is no evidence that Wikileaks did anything inside the US or its territories, no crime, including treason or espionage can be pursued.
Even if you could pursue a crime, there is no jurisdiction in the US.

WRONG.

You can access Wikileaks from within US Jurisdiction. Wikileaks releases classified information, information that the US government intended to remain secret. Wikileaks, available on the Internet in the United States, gets accessed, from within the United States and its territories, and the citizenry see things they were not intended to see.

The mere fact that they're "present" on the Internet, in the United States, puts them under our jurisdiction should our government decide to pursue Espionage charges against him.

This is part of the long arm statute, something I'll expand with my reply to your next statement:

charlestudor2005: There is no evidence that Wikileaks did anything illegal in gaining the information. If they just received the information unsolicited, it is really hard to pursue a criminal case since each crime prosecuted must show criminal intent.

WRONG. If you take what Wikileaks did, it'd fit perfectly with this section of 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it,

Now, had he turned around and returned the information to the United States Government, along with any resources containing said information, then you'd be able to use the "unsolicited" argument.

However, he turned around and released the information. In this case, it's not going to matter whether or not he got the information unsolicited.

Classified information is a need to know basis only. So if you get access to it, and you know you're not entitled to it, yet you disseminate it, that's criminal intent right there.

charlestudor2005: As far as extradition is concerned, it's a fairly complicated process, and not a slam dunk as you might think.

I never claimed, or indicated, that this was an easy process. Please read what I write with the intentions of understanding what I said. I know for a fact that this is possible, as people with nothing but a high school education could easily understand what I type.

charlestudor2005: First of all, there must be a US indictment, yet to have happened. Second, there must be some reasonable expectation of a guilty verdict. Third (and I think this is true for England), the US must, in advance, waive the death penalty. Fourth, the US must pay all the costs of extradition.

Again, nowhere in my argument did I say something that contradicted this. As I've previously stated, the government has to build its case. Obviously, once it has a case, it'd go through the process of extraditing him and putting him on trial. I'm aware of what the US has to do to try to get someone extradited.

This amounts to a red herring argument to the real argument.

charlestudor2005: Fifth, it is not certain by any stretch of the imagination that a court would agree to extradite. It would clearly be a blow to ask for extradition and be turned down. After Roman Polanski, it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Again, this has nothing to do with the argument dealing with whether the United States can bring the Useful Idiot up on charges or not.

charlestudor2005: Your knowledge of the law and your research leaves quite a bit to be desired,

Oh really?

Your posts painfully show that you don't understand how the law really works, and it painfully shows that you're not good at researching the law... outside of what you could Google. You attempted to use the dumb**s private version of the hornbook law in your argument, and your attempt to dismiss the long arm statute, and what's needed to qualify someone as falling under said statute for trial purposes.

Piece of advice. Know what you're talking about before telling someone that their research "leaves much to be desired."

charlestudor2005: as does you realistic POV of what the US can accomplish in another country. Contrary to your experience in Afghanistan, or wherever it was you served, the US does not control every country in the world. As a matter of fact, most countries find ways to thumb their noses at us.

What I actually said:

"Hint, got back from a combat deployment to Iraq," - herfacechair

WHERE, in THAT statement, does it say Afghanistan? This is typical of your reading comprehension weakness when you come across to read things. Your reading comprehension weakness also painfully shows when you present your argument on this thread.

Second, I know what the United States can accomplish overseas. Obviously, I witnessed that in Iraq recently, where I could say, with the strongest of convictions, that we won that war with a straight cut victory, and that we've accomplished the objectives there that we set out to accomplish.

And we did that despite those who didn't believe that we could do it.

I've also gone overseas every decade of my life, and I've seen the results of US efforts overseas.

Nowhere, in my post, do I argue that the United States controls every country. When it comes to who we could prosecute? I'm on point. We HAVE gone after people in other countries, and brought them back to the US to stand trial.

As for other country's "thumbing their noses" at us. Every time I've gone overseas, I've seen evidence of people wanting to "become like us." We get more cooperation from the countries we work with than the "nose thumbing."

[WTF]

WTF: Have you seen "Fair Game"?

I don't base my arguments on movies.

WTF: Fair enough. I should have been more clear. Our government outted a CIA agent, my guess is you have no problem with that.


WTF: The reason we have this huge military industrial complex is because they can control the flow of information.
Wrong. A reason to why we have this huge military industrial complex is that the Department of Defense has demands for military industrial services, and the related industrial complex is there to meet the demand. This would happen regardless of how well, or how poorly, information flow is controlled.

WTF:Bullshit. Wasting money on trumped up wars is not something the public is in favor of. That is why you folks have to trump them up , to scare the public for funds. What , you can't handle the truth?

WTF: It is not suprising that you are part of it.
My interest in it mainly involves the war fighting aspect of it. When our enemy is mainly gunning for a public affair/media fight (because they suck when it comes to battles), there are lots of ramifications to releasing military related information.

WTF:Great, you signed up to kill folks, it explains why you believe what you do.


WTF: No using my argument...you would not blame others for your actions. If you got caught cheating on your wife because the newspaper published your name in a prostitution sting , you would take responsibility for your actions and not blame it in the publisher. Gawd, this ain't rocket science.
Your argument excuses a wrong doing, because of another wrongdoing. For instance, "it's not his fault that the government can't control..." This is a far cry from the example that you give here, and it's the wrong answer. You're trying to excuse the Useful Idiot, because "we can't control our information," is like saying that women were "asking" to be raped, because of what they were wearing. In both instances, you're excusing a wrong because something else happened.

Nobody forced the Useful Idiot to release sensitive information given to him. He had a choice, once he got sensitive information. He chose to make the wrong one. He, and he alone, is responsible for his Useful Idiot acts.

I agree, this isn't rocket science, but you're simply not getting it.

WTF:Oh I get it...I just do not agree with you. I could say you don't get it but then whatb would be the point. We have reached different conclusions. No big deal.

WTF: That is what your job is, it is what you signed up for.... not who you are. I doubt that people are signing up to fight a war so our government can be more secretive. Again, you're missing the point. Go back and read every post that I've made here, and do so with the intentions of understanding what you're reading, before moving on.


Considering that I've done combat deployments, I'm seeing the ramifications invoved with the leaks in a way that's going over your head. Reading your posts, it'd probably take a paradigm shift for you to see the ramifications of releasing secret military related videos out in the open, where our enemies could grab themselves more material to take out of context, and to turn into massive propaganda films.

WTF:You are missing my point. I do not think we should be in ever country sticking our nose in other peoples business. If it were up to me there would be no ramifications, you would not be over where you are at. Can you at least think a couple of steps ahead?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Is it the constituion you believe in TTH or just the rule of law? Two completely different standards.

No difference between the two. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Otherwise, Al Gore would have been President.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Quit trying to shift the blame. Wiki should've done the right thing, but they failed to do so. If you've got a website that has users all over the world, you're subject to the laws of those areas of the world. Wiki was in the wrong for what it did. Governments are going after the right person.

Surely you don't believe what you just wrote? Let's say that the UK passes a law (or Iran) that says it's illegal to promote prostitution by writing reviews of your visits with prostitutes. And that they can prove that this website is used in their jurisdiction. Do you really think it's OK to prosecute you for writing reviews on ECCIE in the UK, or Iran? Even if you've never set foot in those countries?

What is a UK prostitute visits Dallas and you review her here in the UK section on ECCIE? Is it OK then?

Or you write that Islamic countries are as morally backwards as Christian countries and advocate legalization in both areas? Could you then be prosecuted for apostasy in Iran? Or Afghanistan? Give me a fuckin' break.

Surely you don't believe that just because Assange has as presence on the web and extends into the US that alone justifies him being haled into court here. If so, ask why you shouldn't be haled into court in the UK or Iran under the scenarios I posit.