Assange's lawyer outraged about leaked rape information

[NeoDevin]

I'd like to know how you perform a google search.

http://www.google.com/search?source...ge+complains+about+information+leak+about+him

Sorry, I was following the links in the original article, rather than googling, and was in a rush.

 

[russ_watters]

No they are releasing all the information they are sent.

[tap, tap, tap] Yes - information that they know is secret and is illegal to release. How they got the information does not change that!
[edit] And you do accept that wikileaks is releasing the information for the purpose of damaging the US government, right?

There is a difference between a news organisation reporting things they are told and a government deliberately leaking police information to damage someone.

[tap, tap, tap] 1. Again, substantiate the claim that wikileaks is a news organization.
2. Substantiate your claim that if it is a news organization, releasing classified information is not illegal.
3. wikileaks did "deliberately leak...information to damage someone", right??

C'mon guys - Is there anything to your posts or not? You need to do a lot better. This [from Assange's lawyer and you] just seems to me like whining when the shoe gets put on the other foot. At least (as pointed out earlier), Assange's lawyer is getting paid to do that.

Would it be more acceptable if wikileaks was a paper newspaper with shareholders?

I don't think it matters, but either way, you are claiming that they are and that that makes it ok, so you must prove both.

Next time a WSJ journalist asks an awkward question at a white house briefing the government leaks their police record - that's fair isn't it?
After all they are all for press freedom?

That bears no resemblance to the situtation here and no one said it was OK to release the court documents. All we're saying is that it is essentially the same. You think wikileaks was right, so you also seem to think we must think the government is right - even when I explicitly said above that I didn't!

 

[Evo]

There is a difference between a news organisation reporting things they are told and a government deliberately leaking police information to damage someone.

This happens to be a case of a news organization reporting things they are told.

Do you have any proof of anything else? Do you know who gave the information to the news? Please share, because no one else knows.

 

[nismaratwork]

This happens to be a case of a news organization reporting things they are told.

Do you have any proof of anything else? Do you know who gave the information to the news? Please share, because no one else knows.

AFAIK the allegation that this is a leak of some kind, and not the result of normal journalism is one entirely of Assange's (or his lawyer's) creation. Even if it was a leak, that doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy... maybe he just rubbed Sweden the wrong way...

 

[rootX]

They look pretty similar to me - same act by different entities. So what exactly is the difference you see?

Only difference I see is that one entity is responsible for maintaining order while other is not. I expect Govt. to stay in legal limits and enlarge its legal limits if required rather than putting itself in illegal activities.

 

[jreelawg]

There is kind of a difference, in that, Assange will go on trial for what was leaked, where as Scientology, or the DOD for example won't. I think there should be some kind of protection for whistleblowers. If an organization is secretly breaking the law, should that same organization have the power to make reporting the violation illegal. Wiki leaks in theory is set up to combat injustice, whereas the leak pertaining to Assange's case, is itself a form of injustice.

Where my argument falls apart, is the fact that governments do have the authority to break the law in secret, it's called clandestine operations. The fact is there is a level in which there is no such thing as justice, and there are laws protecting this system.

 

[humanino]

Until now the US government has not been able to come with any better charge than what the OP has dismissed based on the leaks we are supposed to discuss here. Maybe the mentors should not support the discussion changing to a topic which does not belong here, and has been discussed somewhere else. Or maybe this discussion is simply not worth pursuing.

 

[Evo]

Only difference I see is that one entity is responsible for maintaining order while other is not. I expect Govt. to stay in legal limits and enlarge its legal limits if required rather than putting itself in illegal activities.

No one says the government leaked anything. Correct? Someone gave the information to the press. I seriously doubt that it was the *government* since they would not want to jeopardize their case, correct?

 

[Zryn]

I'm too slow to respond to all this while working

WikiLeaks is an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources and news leaks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks"

Assanges dirty laundry is aired everywhere when he merely represents Wikileaks. Bidens dirty laundry is not aired everywhere when he represents the Government.

This is one sided, though neither's dirty laundry should be relevant.

There appears to be no legal standing to charge Assange on doing anything wrong to date, but there is a lot of dirty laundry, heresay, misinformation, subjective idea's, speculation and preconceived notions. Is it too much to ask for innocence until proven guilty?

I hope that the amazing world captivating case of not wearing a condom (how many people are murdered, raped etc per minute in America? How many people die of hunger, disease, malnutrition in the world?) comes to an end soon, either way.

And I hope that you all have a Merry Christmas

 

[Evo]

Until now the US government has not been able to come with any better charge than what the OP has dismissed based on the leaks we are supposed to discuss here. Maybe the mentors should not support the discussion changing to a topic which does not belong here, and has been discussed somewhere else. Or maybe this discussion is simply not worth pursuing.

What? You mean Sweden? You said US in error. The OP is about Sweden.

The US has conspiracy charges against Assange as described in another thread.

 

[NeoDevin]

[tap, tap, tap] Yes - information that they know is secret and is illegal to release. How they got the information does not change that!

As was discussed ad nauseum in other threads, whether it was against local law for him to release it is very debatable. (It was against US law, but whether US law can/should apply is also debatable.)

Does anyone here know whether it was against Swedish/EU law for the information about Assange and the case against him to be released? I don't know if it is or not, but if it is, then whoever leaked it should be prosecuted. (Just like whoever gave the documents to Wikileaks from the US should be prosecuted, as they clearly broke US law while in the US jurisdiction)

[tap, tap, tap] 1. Again, substantiate the claim that wikileaks is a news organization.

This depends on how you define "news organization". They are publishing "news" (certainly must be news, if it was old, no one would take note of it). Your claim seems to be that because they don't have stockholders and give their news away for free, depending on donations for support that it's not a news organization.

It's an organization, and they publish news (some of it, like the gun cam, they even make extensive commentary on). Ergo, a news organization. If you are using some other definition of "news" or "news organization", let me know.

2. Substantiate your claim that if it is a news organization, releasing classified information is not illegal.

I am not a lawyer, nor a US citizen, but I believe in the US that precedent has been established that a news organization (NYT in the relevant case, if memory serves) is within their rights to publish classified information.

3. wikileaks did "deliberately leak...information to damage someone", right??

Wikileaks' claimed intent is not to "damage someone" but rather to force transparency on supposedly democratic governments, in particular the most influential democratic government. Their reasoning goes something like: "You can't have true democracy without openness." Whether you agree with their reasoning or methods doesn't mean you can assign whatever motive you like to them.

All we're saying is that it is essentially the same. You think wikileaks was right, so you also seem to think we must think the government is right - even when I explicitly said above that I didn't!

I personally have never said that Wikileaks was "right". Simply that they had the right. Assuming there are applicable laws prohibiting the release of the court documents, the Swedish government did not have that right.

Having said that, no one here has presented any reference to any relevant law prohibiting the release of the court documents. I expect there is one, as many countries prohibit the release of information regarding an ongoing investigation, but no one has yet cited it. Was the leak even illegal, or is everyone whining about something that was intended to be public knowledge anyways?

Edit: Upon further consideration, it may also be against local laws for a news outlet to publish information about an ongoing investigation (much like in Canada and the US, it is against the law for news outlets to publish information about minors involved in a crime). Is anyone here from Sweden and able to comment on the legality of the leak and subsequent publication?

 

[Evo]

I'm too slow to respond to all this while working

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks"]Wikileaks @ Wikipedia[/URL]

Why looky there, someone is trying to alter the wikileaks page. Why I wonder who that might be?, Eh?

 

[Gokul43201]

So you're claiming wikileaks is a press outlet? Based on what criteria?

Perhaps based on the standard definition, accepted in US courts, namely: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" - Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin.

 

[Newai]

As was discussed ad nauseum in other threads, whether it was against local law for him to release it is very debatable. (It was against US law, but whether US law can/should apply is also debatable.)

Countries can and do claim extraterritorial jurisdiction among allies for their mutual benefit as outlined in their treaties, which we have with some European countries. Those treaties are legally binding to you and I as much as any local law.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps based on the standard definition, accepted in US courts, namely: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" - Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin.

That makes me a journalist.

 

[NeoDevin]

Countries can and do claim extraterritorial jurisdiction among allies for their mutual benefit as outlined in their treaties, which we have with some European countries. Those treaties are legally binding to you and I as much as any local law.

This discussion belongs in the other thread, not here. I was merely mentioning that it was debatable (as evidence by the whole other thread debating it).

 

[NeoDevin]

That makes me a journalist.

And me. What's wrong with that?

 

[Gokul43201]

That makes me a journalist.

Don't complain to me. Take it to the US Supreme Court.

 

[Newai]

This discussion belongs in the other thread, not here. I was merely mentioning that it was debatable (as evidence by the whole other thread debating it).

Looking over the discussion, I don't see how it doesn't belong here and I don't see how it's debatable.

 

[humanino]

What? You mean Sweden? You said US in error.

No, no error, I said and meant US government.

 

[Evo]

No, no error, I said and meant US government.

No idea what you are talking about then since the US is pursuing conspiracy charges (see other thread).

 

[Newai]

Perhaps based on the standard definition, accepted in US courts, namely: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" - Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin.

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/444/case.html

Your quote refers to what the press uses, not to what it is.

 

[humanino]

No idea what you are talking about then since the US is pursuing conspiracy charges (see other thread).

I am talking about the fact that he is still under international warrant for Swedish charges, which this thread is supposed to be about, not those putative US conspiracy charges which take so long to come up with. If the US charges were "better" (whatever the meaning one attach to "good"), it seems that the US would have a warrant as well, and it seems from your original post that you would agree they should have priority over a petty Swedish construction.

 

[f95toli]

Does anyone here know whether it was against Swedish/EU law for the information about Assange and the case against him to be released? I don't know if it is or not, but if it is, then whoever leaked it should be prosecuted. (Just like whoever gave the documents to Wikileaks from the US should be prosecuted, as they clearly broke US law while in the US jurisdiction)

As far as I remember it is not against the law to handle the information once it is leaked nor is it a criminal act as such, but leaking information (most likely someone from the police of the prosecutors office) would get you fired if found out.

Btw, leaks from the police are very common in Sweden (and the laws protecting "whistle blowers" are quite strong, so leaking to the press is not much of a risk) so it would have been very surprising if this information had NOT been leaked; it almost always happens in high-profile cases,

 

[russ_watters]

Only difference I see is that one entity is responsible for maintaining order while other is not. I expect Govt. to stay in legal limits and enlarge its legal limits if required rather than putting itself in illegal activities.

Are individuals not also required to follow the law? It sounds like you are saying that it is wrong for an agent of the government to break the law, but not wrong for a private individual to break the law.

 

[russ_watters]

Wiki leaks in theory is set up to combat injustice, whereas the leak pertaining to Assange's case, is itself a form of injustice.

I think that claim by wikileaks went out the window when they stopped releasing information on individual wrongs and started just wholesale releases of classified information.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm too slow to respond to all this while working [quote from wikipedia follows]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks"

I assume that's meant to be your answer to the question of wikileaks being a media outlet? That's not sufficient, as the article goes on to point out that there are questions as to whether it really is. So I want you to explain what you think it is about wikileaks that makes it a news outlet/Assange a journalist. I want you to show that you are actually thinking and not just reacting.

Assanges dirty laundry is aired everywhere when he merely represents Wikileaks. Bidens dirty laundry is not aired everywhere when he represents the Government.

Ok...so what is your point?

There appears to be no legal standing to charge Assange on doing anything wrong to date, but there is a lot of dirty laundry, heresay, misinformation, subjective idea's, speculation and preconceived notions. Is it too much to ask for innocence until proven guilty?

That's a train wreck of thoughtlessness:

1. Have you not been paying attention to the news or to the other threads here? There has been a ton of discussion of that legal standing, both for the rape charge and for the [potential] espionage charge. Dismissing it with a handwave implies you've either read nothing or put no thought into the issue or both. Either way, ignorance is not an argument.
2. The courts get to decide if there is legal standing. For the rape charge, they have decided there is.
3. The last sentence doesn't follow from the first: being innocent until proven guilty still requires a charge.
4. Whether a person here personally believes he's guilty of rape is not relevant to whether he is or will be found guilty - and for the record, I believe in holding a fair trial.
5. What he did with wikileaks is public knowledge, so we all know what he is "guilty" of. Whether you can successfully attach a legal case to that (or even get him into a court room to hear it) is still an open question.
6. None of this has anything to do with your claim that it is ok for Assange to leak classified information while wrong for the government to.

 

[f95toli]

?

I hope that the amazing world captivating case of not wearing a condom (how many people are murdered, raped etc per minute in America? How many people die of hunger, disease, malnutrition in the world?) comes to an end soon, either way.

That is not what he is charged with. Also, it is worth repeating that his is NOT charged with rape as it is usually understood in the US and the UK; he is charged with what I guess one could call coercion: basically forcing/making a woman do something when she did not agree to do it. It is a milder charge (in terms of possible sentence etc) than rape; it is sort of like the difference between manslaughter and murder.
I don't know what the sentence would be if he was found guilty; but my guess would be 6-12 months or so in prison ("normal" rape would -if I am not mistaken- result in a sentence of between 2 to 6 years)

 

[WhoWee]

Assange has achieved "celebrity status" - now he's fair game.
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-price-of-celebrity-status-a302912

 

[Gokul43201]

http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/444/case.html

Your quote refers to what the press uses, not to what it is.

Thanks for the clarification and elaboration.