Julian Assange arrested (merged)

onelifecrisis · 12-07-10, 09:29 PM

Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables. They're not one and the same; you can't apply the same logic to both (Assange is not in the US military).

Platapus · 12-07-10, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables. They're not one and the same; you can't apply the same logic to both (Assange is not in the US military).

I never claimed they were the same person.

There are two separate issues that were being discussed here. I am sorry if I did not make the segue clearer.

onelifecrisis · 12-07-10, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I never claimed they were the same person.

There are two separate issues that were being discussed here. I am sorry if I did not make the segue clearer.

Maybe I misunderstood your line of reasoning. It's late here. I'll come back tomorrow.

Platapus · 12-07-10, 09:48 PM

Just to be clear: I have never posted that Assange can be convicted of any crime. Only the people with access to the sensitive information who choose to violate the law by transferring the sensitive information to an unauthorized person could be convicted of a crime.

Perhaps we need two threads one on Assange and the other on the scumbags who broke their oaths

12-07-10, 09:58 PM

I believe Platapus and I went off an a tangent of those who released the documents and the side issues of that.

Skybird · 12-08-10, 11:42 AM

PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments

Anonymous Mastercard attack 'hits payments'

Molon Labe · 12-08-10, 01:31 PM

This is the case of precedent in the US for prosecution of a media publisher for the publication of information illegally obtained by a 3rd party. It doesn't end well for the government.

I suppose it's possible that a Wikileaks followup to Bartnicki might have a different outcome if the nature of the information being published is important. The Bartnicki court protected the publication of an intercepted phone call where a union boss conspiring to intimidate; publication of this helped the public interest. I suppose you could argue what Wikileaks is doing is likely to get people killed and harm national policy and that makes it different. Child porn is illegally obtained true information too--you can't publish it the Court wants to eliminate demand for the underlying illegal activity. There's an argument to be made there... just not a very good one.

The Pentagon Papers case isn't especially relevant because it dealt with the government trying to prevent publication. So-called "prior restraints" are dealt with more hostility than prosecution after the fact for some reason (as if threat of prosecution isn't a prior restraint) so it leaves the possibility of prosecution open.

Oberon · 12-07-10, 09:47 PM

That brings up a very interesting and oft debated point, which Privateer and Platapus have together made, and one that I too will close on for the day because it's late here too, and I ramble when it's late.

When does it become right to question the chain of command?

August · 12-07-10, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables

Could you provide an example of this? As far as I can tell Platapus' last few posts have been exclusively about the servicemen that leaked the information to wikileaks. Not wikileaks itself.

Platapus · 12-07-10, 10:11 PM

I think it was just a misunderstanding.

When I post about worthless dishonourable scum of the earth loser criminals, I need to be more specific on what specific one I am writing about.

12-07-10, 09:48 PM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,398 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Just to be clear: I have never posted that Assange can be convicted of any crime. Only the people with access to the sensitive information who choose to violate the law by transferring the sensitive information to an unauthorized person could be convicted of a crime. Perhaps we need two threads one on Assange and the other on the scumbags who broke their oaths __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-08-10, 11:42 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,717 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	PayPal says US advised it to stop Wikileaks payments Anonymous Mastercard attack 'hits payments' __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-08-10, 01:31 PM	#7
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	This is the case of precedent in the US for prosecution of a media publisher for the publication of information illegally obtained by a 3rd party. It doesn't end well for the government. I suppose it's possible that a Wikileaks followup to Bartnicki might have a different outcome if the nature of the information being published is important. The Bartnicki court protected the publication of an intercepted phone call where a union boss conspiring to intimidate; publication of this helped the public interest. I suppose you could argue what Wikileaks is doing is likely to get people killed and harm national policy and that makes it different. Child porn is illegally obtained true information too--you can't publish it the Court wants to eliminate demand for the underlying illegal activity. There's an argument to be made there... just not a very good one. The Pentagon Papers case isn't especially relevant because it dealt with the government trying to prevent publication. So-called "prior restraints" are dealt with more hostility than prosecution after the fact for some reason (as if threat of prosecution isn't a prior restraint) so it leaves the possibility of prosecution open. __________________ Last edited by Molon Labe; 12-08-10 at 01:44 PM.

12-07-10, 10:11 PM	#10
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,398 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I think it was just a misunderstanding. When I post about worthless dishonourable scum of the earth loser criminals, I need to be more specific on what specific one I am writing about. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-07-10, 09:29 PM	#1
onelifecrisis Maverick Modder Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,895 Downloads: 65 Uploads: 3	Platapus, you keep switching between Wikileaks and the person who gave them the cables. They're not one and the same; you can't apply the same logic to both (Assange is not in the US military).

12-07-10, 09:58 PM	#5
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I believe Platapus and I went off an a tangent of those who released the documents and the side issues of that.

12-07-10, 09:47 PM	#8
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	That brings up a very interesting and oft debated point, which Privateer and Platapus have together made, and one that I too will close on for the day because it's late here too, and I ramble when it's late. When does it become right to question the chain of command?