News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis

[Monique]

Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION.

I was talking about treason: "the crime of betraying one's country".

As well what you said earlier about not being charged with treason if you're not American is bs too. Two Germans were charged with treason I believe back in WWII.

Do you have a reference? According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason" , the person was a German-born naturalized U.S. citizen.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION.

So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it beyond words that people are suggesting Assange should be killed for releasing the documents, especially when the word "just" is used. It matters what laws apply to him: U.S. laws about treason don't apply to him. Laws against the release of classified information are aimed at those who initially release the information, which wasn't Assange. He spread the documents, but so did countless other media.

I was just making an observation. You don't screw with the US [nevermind the other countries involved!]. If he has done real damage, there will be severe consequences. End of story.

They guy responsible for the leaks could be executed by a firing squad. [At least, I am all but certain this is true]

 

[NobodySpecial]

I was just making an observation. You don't screw with the US

Although the current score seems to be Castro 638 : USA 0
So he probably doesn't have too much to worry about so long as he doesn't upset Mr Putin or the Isrealis.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.

There are way too many incorrect interpretations of the word Treason floating in this thread... Here is the correct definition:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. ... A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Treason is an act of betrayal by a person against his/her sovereign nation. Foreign nationals are not tried for treason (because the country is not their sovereign nation), and foreign nations definitely do not try each other for treason! Conveniently, in the context of the United States, "treason" is defined in the constitution itself:

Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Although the current score seems to be Castro 638 : USA 0
So he probably doesn't have too much to worry about so long as he doesn't upset Mr Putin or the Isrealis.

Really, and have you seen what Cuba looks like lately? Many thousands have risked life and limb [many died] to make the 90 [70?] miles voyage to the US on everything one can reasonably imagine, including a raft made of inner-tubes. Cuba was all about the Soviet Union, not Castro. If Assange has China protecting him, then I will concede the point.

Saddam tried to have Bush I assasinated. And as GWB said, ~ "well, he did try to kill my dad"

 

[NobodySpecial]

Really, and have you seen what Cuba looks like lately? Cuba was all about the Soviet Union, not Castro.

I'm just saying that if you were listing enemy countries where you had to fear them sending highly efficient hit squads to kill an individual target then the USA isn't top of the list.

From historical form the most likely secret three-letter agency response to Assange would be for them to bomb Austria by mistake

 

[mheslep]

CNN refused to accept because of the terms Wikileaks wanted to impose. IIRC, the issue from the Pentagon Papers is that the news media is protected.

Not that I want to defend them (him), but why isn't Wikileaks considered news media under the same law?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm just saying that if you were listing enemy countries where you had to fear them sending highly efficient hit squads to kill an individual target then the USA isn't top of the list.

Attacking Cuba [to kill Castro or for any other reason] would have almost certainly been the start of WWIII. There was also the risk of destabilizing the country. The two situations are completely different.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Attacking Cuba [to kill Castro or for any other reason] would have almost certainly been the start of WWIII.

The CIA has admitted to and published details of it's many attempts to assassinate Castro.
Although the execution of many of them make you suspect that they are using roadrunner cartoons as a training manual.
Should Mr Assange receive a gift of a box of exploding cigars or a wetsuit coated with fungus then he can guess who is after him.

The 638 is the estimate of total attempts to kill castro - by the US, Cubans plus a few ex-girlfriends and a few husbands.

 

[fss]

The Secretary of State works directly for the President, so it is up to him to decide to fire her. We don't have that power, only the power to not re-elect the President she works for.

Are you contending that popular opinion has no bearing on a public official's will to act on a situation? Regardless of anyone's opinion on Obama, but if the public was showing no confidence in Hilary Clinton to represent the US abroad, he would replace her.

 

[Evo]

The proper term is espionage, not treason.

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act


Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Does anyone know why we can't find the guy? Is he in a bunker somewhere?

 

[BobG]

No actually the opinion of the average American is only tangentially relevant. The Secretary of State works directly for the President, so it is up to him to decide to fire her. We don't have that power, only the power to not re-elect the President she works for.

The SecState's job is all about international relations, so the most important "feeling" here is in how members of foreign governments view the US and SecState. If their respect is compromised, then her ability to do her job is compromised and she should be fired. But that is apparently not what is happening.

The public opinion on wether she should be fired will probably follow the sentiments of foreign governments: a black eye for her is a black eye for America and Americans wouldn't like that and would pressure Obama to fire her. But again, utlimately that is a reaction to the problem and not the problem itself.

Are you contending that popular opinion has no bearing on a public official's will to act on a situation? Regardless of anyone's opinion on Obama, but if the public was showing no confidence in Hilary Clinton to represent the US abroad, he would replace her.

I think you skipped the most important parts of Russ's post.

And I think a few people miss the important part of this story. It's not about Assange, nor is it about the actual details that were revealed. It's an attack on the diplomatic process itself.

Watch what happens to some of the foreign government officials that had their comments leaked. Enough of them lose their jobs and Clinton will lose hers, too. As Russ mentioned, that doesn't seem to be happening yet (aside from Canada's ambassador offering to resign), but I'll be surprised if it doesn't start happening soon.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone know why we can't find the guy? Is he in a bunker somewhere?

They say he changes locations every fews days, he's on the run.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Not that I want to defend them (him), but why isn't Wikileaks considered news media under the same law?

There is no law protecting 'news media' - there are first amendment considerations which mean that politicians (which in the US also means prosecutors) are generally unwilling to stand up in court and demand that a jury prosecute some one for printing the truth.

The 'official news media' term is a rather clever political trick to try and differentiate between major news networks, which you definitely don't want to upset, and individuals on the internet that you do want to prosecute.
It's the same way that you can arrest somebody for photographing the police by claiming it's wiretapping while leaving the major TV news crew next to them alone.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, it most certainly would not be an act of terrorism. What definition of terrorism are you using?

according to wikipedia, the definition is pretty broad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

but i think it's pretty clear that what is being discussed here is a political assassination. using violent means as a clear signal to others who might be thinking of doing the same. if you're a journalist, this would be a lot to think about.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think he may not be concerned because:

1. He isn't talking like he's concerned.
2. He isn't taking action that implies he's concerned.
3. In the past, he's not just avoided looking concerned, but has actually not taken appropriate action so I don't have default trust in him like you apparently do. See: the Xmas bombing and Ft Hood incidents.
I'm not looking for fretting. The problem is itself largely an image problem so the overt response is a large part of what is important.

Why would he stand before a camera as POTUS, and tell our enemies that the information they have just obtained because of illegal acts, is indeed highly sensitive? Would that be smart, or useful to anyone but our enemies? And we have no way to know what is going on behind the scenes. [Perhaps wikileaks knows!]. Did you know Clinton had asked for DNA samples from world leaders? In spite of the rhetoric from the right, these people aren't stupid.

With Bob Gates as his Sec of Defense, [and Biden at his side for that matter] do you really think Obama doesn't understand any significant concerns about US security and the security of our allies?

I trust him because I know he is smart, dedicated, talented, he has good counsel, and I don't believe the nonsense generated by the right-wing media. No, as POTUS, he isn't going to be passive about US security interests.

 

[zomgwtf]

The proper term is espionage, not treason.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.

 

[zomgwtf]

So Germany could reasonably prosecute America for publishing the top-secret and stolen Zimmerman telegram which definitely did do some harm to their nation.

Prosecute America.

Prosecuting a nation vs. prosecuting a man... great comparisson.

Anyways if you gave a specific American who was guilty under some German espionage act or whatever they have over there in Germany they certainly COULD try to get that person. Key word is try. I don't even know why you are asking this question the answer is so obvious it seems rhetorical.

 

[mheslep]

There is no law protecting 'news media' - there are first amendment considerations which mean that politicians (which in the US also means prosecutors) are generally unwilling to stand up in court and demand that a jury prosecute some one for printing the truth.

The 'official news media' term is a rather clever political trick to try and differentiate between major news networks, which you definitely don't want to upset, and individuals on the internet that you do want to prosecute.
It's the same way that you can arrest somebody for photographing the police by claiming it's wiretapping while leaving the major TV news crew next to them alone.

There's more than a 'political trick' at work here. There are legal reasons, stemming from freedom of the press, that must define who is and who is not a press actor. The NYT published this stolen material. Wikileaks published the stolen material. The definition of published is not changed by the size and scope of the publisher.

 

[zomgwtf]

Why would he stand before a camera as POTUS, and tell our enemies that the information they have just obtained because of illegal acts, is indeed highly sensitive? Would that be smart, or useful to anyone but our enemies? And we have no way to know what is going on behind the scenes. [Perhaps wikileaks knows!]. Did you know Clinton had asked for DNA samples from world leaders? In spite of the rhetoric from the right, these people aren't stupid.

With Bob Gates as his Sec of Defense, [and Biden at his side for that matter] do you really think Obama doesn't understand any significant concerns about US security and the security of our allies?

I trust him because I know he is smart, dedicated, and talented, and I don't believe the nonsense generated by the right-wing media. No, as POTUS, he isn't going to be passive about US security interests.

As far as I know the Obama administration has done basically everything short of sending the military after Assange to first stop him from releasing the files second to return the files and now to dampen the possible effects.

It's been mentioned in the news many times perhaps russ will only be satisfied if Obama makes a huge public speech about everything and then threaten Assange?

 

[zomgwtf]

There's more than a 'political trick' at work here. There are legal reasons, stemming from freedom of the press, that must define who is and who is not a press actor. The NYT published this stolen material. Wikileaks published the stolen material. The definition of published is not changed by the size and scope of the publisher.

NYT co-operated with the US govn't and was not intending to cause any harm to America. Can you say the same about wikileaks?

This has already been addressed in this thread. The NYT is not guilty under the Espionage Act, wikileaks probably is but it's a case of showing intent to harm the nation. This precedent has already been set.

Another hurdle is whether the Espionage act is even constiuitional...

 

[Evo]

I don't even know why Monique brought up treason in the first place to be honest. I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about the Espionage Act.

She speaks English so well that you wouldn't know that it's not her first language, it could just be not knowing the right term.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge I'm fine with getting back on-topic with the espionage act now...

 

[edward]

I have a feeling that the wikileaks situation is going to be bumped up a notch after Assange claimed he had giga bytes on BOA


http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtourya...merica-shares-recover-from-wikileaks-assault/

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Forbes technology reporter Andy Greenberg he plans to release thousands of documents related to a major U.S. bank that could bring the institution down for good. I argued earlier this week the unlikeliness of that happening but speculation that Bank of America was likely the firm Assange was alluding to was enough to drive shares down.

 

[zomgwtf]

NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge I'm fine with getting back on-topic with the espionage act now...

Not to defend what he was saying because I think it was a horrible analogy but he's not talking about treason. He's just talking about one nation prosecuting a person from another nation who isn't in the nation doing the prosecuting.

 

[NobodySpecial]

NobodySpecial saying that Germany could prosecute the USA for treason is what put me over the edge

It was in response to the claim by various people that an australian national publishing US secrets in another country was somehow treason.

 

[zomgwtf]

It was in response to the claim by various people that an australian national publishing US secrets in another country was somehow treason.

No, it was a response to my post which said:

Monique if you had read my earlier post you would learn that what's required in this case is neither citizenship OR the actual stealing of ddocuments but INTENT TO HARM THE NATION. This man fully was attempting to do this he said things along those lines many times and it makes what he did fall fully under the Espionage Act.

Bolding mine.

Clearly, not talkin about treason here.

 

[Hepth]

Is that THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act Act? Again, how does that apply to people outside the US? Its not an international law. Its a US federal law, made for citizens, right?

Which international Espionage Act are you talking about violating? If he had committed these acts on US soil, then I could see its application. Otherwise I don't see any problem.