Comments on: Do you think Julian Assange violated the 1917 Espionage act?

By: Iain

Iain — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:39:28 +0000

It is up to the UN Tribunal to decide, If a nation (United Kingdom and Sweden, where he actually started Stealing information) is involved in anyway in international incident with another country (The United States). In Legal term it would have to go to the UN Tribunal to decide if you had violated any international law or a nation to nation agreements. If the US wins, then after Assange spends years in jail in Sweden raping a little girl he must be sent to the US just like they did before involving the surviving terrorist of 9/11 who was nationality of Afghanistan. If this happens he could get charged with multiple accounts of Laws and Acts broken. Check this out. The leader of Wikileaks is in violation of the US privacy act of 1974, Classified Information Procedures Act, and Espionage Act of 1917. Under United States’, United Kingdom’s, and Sweden’s Constitution he is not protected under Freedom of the Press, or speech. Because Since it was the United states Governement who made files of classified Secret and the fact the leader of Wikileaks got it published and supported by Sunshine Press of sweden it is an act of Plagiarism and that is the reason he has no protection of the freedom of the press of either country. Since NATO is joint-operation of 28 Countries, this is International crime, not just on UK, US, and Sweden, it is them plus 25 differents countries. Those this may have to go to the UN Tribunal.

By: Monado

Monado — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 01:44:36 +0000

The law, even if it did apply, concerns false reports; and these are true reports.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:47:32 +0000

Let’s look at a specific case: http://tinyurl.com/23ds5vy

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:03:25 +0000

Also, Assange went out of his way to give the US government time to respond to the leaks ahead of time, and even offered to let the US go through them and redact names of people who might be harmed and maybe even other stuff too. The US refused. The US can’t now claim damage that they were unwilling to act to prevent when given the opportunity.

It seems to me that goes pretty far in establishing that the intent was not to harm, and the US by its actions has stated that the harm wasn’t that great.

By: Doug Alder

Doug Alder — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:58:19 +0000

@madscientist – Obama got a pickmeup today for Start3

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/boost-obama-belarus-nuke-material

Belarus to shed nuclear material, giving boost to Obama anti-terror goal

In a sudden turnaround, the former Soviet republic of Belarus announced Wednesday that it will give up all its weapons-grade uranium â?? fresh momentum for anti-proliferation efforts even as the U.S. welcomed Iran’s decision to resume talks on its controversial nuclear program.

By: anandine

anandine — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:17:27 +0000

We arrested Manual Noriega, a Panamanian citizen, in Panama, for acts committed in Panama that violated American laws and put him in an American jail for them.

I forget the cite, but the Supreme Court has ruled in one case that American law extends to the entire world, though, in another case, constitutional protections do not.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:33:40 +0000

MacTurk, I’m not sure what you are getting at, but it is worth pointing out that that even if Assange is charged as a spy, he is not an official spy working for some country that we, in turn, spy on. I’m pretty sure that whatever spy wrangling you see among the usual countries is based in large part on those sorts of long established relationships. Assange would have no embassy or intelligence network or HQ somewhere making deals for him. Does that at least partly address your comment?

By: MacTurk

MacTurk — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:22:14 +0000

“Or just conking the guy on the head while he’s on vacation?”. So kidnap/falsely arrest someone who points out that the emperor has no clothes, ignore due process, violate another state’s territory? That will really cement the idea that Aamerica is a state of law…

Is attempting to extradite(and I am aware it would probably not work out) so anti-American?

If memory serves correctly, during the recent uproar about the Russian spies in the US, the only charge being talked was “Failure to register as a foriegn agent”. If Mr Assange registers as such, where is the charge?

By: MacTurk

MacTurk — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:16:21 +0000

Is attempting to extradite(and I am aware it would probably not work out) so anti-American?

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:08:06 +0000

With Secretary of state Clinton saying:

“I have certainly raised the issue of the leaks in order to assure our colleagues that it will not in any way interfere with American diplomacy or our commitment to continuing important work that is ongoing,” Clinton said. “I have not any had any concerns expressed about whether any nation will not continue to work with and discuss matters of importance to us both going forward.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_re_as/as_clinton

It is going to be pretty hard to say in court that these leaks caused grave damage to the US when the secretary of state is saying otherwise.