Julian Assange arrested (merged) - Page 10

Takeda Shingen · 12-07-10, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

It's not just the US government that's being exposed by this. I know you guys feel targeted, but these leaks actually expose many governments of illegal activities and lies (including mine).

Also, as has been stated many times by various lawyers, it is certainly not clear whether Assange's actions amount to espionage. The only people saying they do are politicians, not lawyers.

You're right; it does include a number of other governments. As an American, I was speaking a bit too Amero-Centrically, for lack of a better term.

Regarding espionage, it is defined as the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company according to Merriam-Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/espionage

With that definition, I think it is a textbook case of espionage, but you are right that this may or may not be the case under the law.

Skybird · 12-07-10, 07:15 PM

No matter what you think about him, Assange is no thief or spy, Takeda. He neither ordered nor organised the theft of data (cablegate or any other, American or non-American), nor has he or his subordinates conducted theft, he also did not commit any act of espionage, nor did Wikileaks. He has been approached by people who had according interesting file-sets, no matter how they obtained them. Wikileaks is no news magazine, but they behaved like any jpournaolist: they took the material, checked it as best as they can, even in case of Iraqgate and Cablegate gave the other site the oppportunity to show which names indeed would be in riak of getting killed if they would be released, which compares to a journalist giving the major figure of his research the opportunity to comment by his own views on the issue in question. And again, Wikileaks has cooparated with several newspapers with qualified journalists to scan the material, and Wikileaks has increasded this cooperation both regarding time, and numbers of papers.

If you want to talk abiout the violation of laws, you need to limit it to the people who obtained the original data, this Pr. Manning, for example. But for the reasons you already mentioned in faviour of Wikileaks, I am glad that Manning did what he did, no matter what his motives are.

The US still has not raised any charges against Assange, which makes it somewhat obscure that they demand his extradition, or plan to file in such a request. It is in dohbt that Assange can be held legally responsible for anytyhing regarding Wikileaks. If that would happen, then all newspapers and magazines and journalists would need to fear for their safety and freedom, for their insider reports and occasional revealing articles, or things like Watergate, base on material they get much the same way like Assange got his.

---

Wikileaks is now mirrored on around 800 sites, so that it is virtually impossible to silence them via technological means, access-denial-attacks or something like that.

Financially, over the past 12 months Wikileaks has collected four times the money it needs as a minimum to run for one year, and one must assume that the current events and the arrest will make sympoathsiers invest even more in Wikileaks. I think it is illusional that Wikileaks could be financially dried out.

The organisation is operational, and has obviously enough personnel to run it's business. One must assume that the bigger share of their personell is not even known. So: you cannot silence or intimidate them.

The arrest of Assange has already brought him and Wikileaks additonal sympathies and moral support. The longer the legal battle lasts, the more Wikileaks benefits from that. If it is given enough time, they sooner or later will be compoared to the way Putin tries to silence the former head of Yukos oil - bet!?

I have the impression that the political establishement has absolutely zero idea of how to deal with the situation. The rethoric amok runs of some people in the US tells it all. As Jefferson put it so nicely: "When the people fear the government, it's tyranny. When the government fears the people - it's freedom."

Oberon · 12-07-10, 07:17 PM

Indeed so, but then again, so is Sir John Sawers, Leon Panetta, Meir Dagan, Alexsandr Bortnikov, Geng Huichang, and every other head of national intelligence agencies. The primary difference is, they don't tell the population of the countries they're working for what they find.

onelifecrisis · 12-07-10, 07:17 PM

I agree with everything Skybird just wrote.

Wait... what did I just say!?

Takeda Shingen · 12-07-10, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

No matter what you think about him, Assange is no thief or spy, Takeda. He neither ordered nor organised the theft of data (cablegate or any other, American or non-American), nor has he or his subordinates conducted theft, he also did not commit any act of espionage, nor did Wikileaks. He has been approached by people who had according interesting file-sets, no matter how they obtained them. Wikileaks is no news magazine, but they behaved like any jpournaolist: they took the material, checked it as best as they can, even in case of Iraqgate and Cablegate gave the other site the oppportunity to show which names indeed would be in riak of getting killed if they would be released, which compares to a journalist giving the major figure of his research the opportunity to comment by his own views on the issue in question. And again, Wikileaks has cooparated with several newspapers with qualified journalists to scan the material, and Wikileaks has increasded this cooperation both regarding time, and numbers of papers.

If you want to talk abiout the violation of laws, you need to limit it to the people who obtained the original data, this Pr. Manning, for example. But for the reasons you already mentioned in faviour of Wikileaks, I am glad that Manning did what he did, no matter what his motives are.

The US still has not raised any charges against Assange, which makes it somewhat obscure that they demand his extradition, or plan to file in such a request. It is in dohbt that Assange can be held legally responsible for anytyhing regarding Wikileaks. If that would happen, then all newspapers and magazines and journalists would need to fear for their safety and freedom, for their insider reports and occasional revealing articles, or things like Watergate, base on material they get much the same way like Assange got his.

---

Wikileaks is now mirrored on around 800 sites, so that it is virtually impossible to silence them via technological means, access-denial-attacks or something like that.

Financially, over the past 12 months Wikileaks has collected four times the money it needs as a minimum to run for one year, and one must assume that the current events and the arrest will make sympoathsiers invest even more in Wikileaks. I think it is illusional that Wikileaks could be financially dried out.

The organisation is operational, and has obviously enough personnel to run it's business. One must assume that the bigger share of their personell is not even known. So: you cannot silence or intimidate them.

The arrest of Assange has already brought him and Wikileaks additonal sympathies and moral support. The longer the legal battle lasts, the more Wikileaks benefits from that. If it is given enough time, they sooner or later will be compoared to the way Putin tries to silence the former head of Yukos oil - bet!?

I have the impression that the political establishement has absolutely zero idea of how to deal with the situation. The rethoric amok runs of some people in the US tells it all. As Jefferson put it so nicely: "When the people fear the government, it's tyranny. When the government fears the people - it's freedom."

I suppose that I had not considered this in the stark terms that you laid out. As a citizen of the US, I am often influenced by a sort of American hypernationalism that you see from time to time on this forum. While I read and agree with your quote from Jefferson, the heart ultimately bucks at this sort of blow to the establishment due to an inherent belief that the US government couldn't possibly be too deceptive in it's aims. This is where I believe that you [Europeans] may hold the advantage. You have learned through experience about the finer points of government corruption, whereas I and many of my fellow countrymen, tend to have an attitude that 'it couldn't possibly happen here'. That, of course, is hogwash [meaning nonsense], as it can, and has, clearly happened here. Still, I just can't seem to shake irritation at having my 'team', if you will, shaken, regarless of how justified. I know that it may or may not serve to strengthen the nation in the long run, but it becomes a hard pill to swallow.

The virtriol from many Americans stems from the same sentiments, even if they are not willing to admit it.

12-07-10, 08:06 PM

I'm not going to go back through all the post in this thread.
Just say a few things that you can take or leave as you wish.

I was in the U.S. Army in the early '80's
I was what was called a 'Strack Trooper' with the 82nd AirBorne.
I would have done ANYTHING I was asked to do in those days.
And in some cases?
I did.
One thing I would never have done is to betray my fellow Troopers,
no matter the cost to me.
The Mission was the goal.
Those that served in an AirBorne Unit understand this concept.
I became frustrated with the Military after several things happened.
I was to be awarded the Medal of Achivement for something in the Middle East.
On Award Day?
I was told it was being withheld because a Sargent needed it to get him to re-enlist and only so many were alloted to any given Unit.
OK. I could live with that.
Shortly after I saw and experienced harasment from other people with Rank over me and others for thier own advancement.
I left the Service totally discuraged over the fate of future Soldiers.
And what they would face one day.
And this is the SHORT story!

By all means, expose this kind of stuff!
The betrayal is not those that have leaked documents.
The betrayal is those that try to hide things that should not be hidden.

Lincoln said......
that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

When did we forego that concept?

Platapus · 12-07-10, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

I was in the U.S. Army in the early '80's

I honour your service to our country. I am sorry to hear you had such an experience.

However, I can't agree with your conclusion. There is a right way to bring issues to light and the wrong way. Wikeleaks has chosen the wrong way.

Little good will come of this.

I too have served and I too have observed many things that were not right and things our nation should not have done. But I would never have betrayed an oath of honour by leaking sensitive information to unauthorized people. It is simply the wrong thing to do.

The criminals leaking this information to wikileaks and other sites had multiple paths they could have used to bring issues to light. Both intra, inter, and extra service venues are available. There are venues outside the Executive Branch entirely as both the Legislative and Judicial Branches have cleared IG like offices.

These criminals choose to betray their oaths of honour. Their choice. They chose unwisely and dishonorably. And for that, I can't forgive them.

Just an old guy's opinion.

But thank you for your service to our country. It is appreciated and honoured.

12-07-10, 09:04 PM

Remember the Oath.....

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Note that it states "foreign and domestic".
If the U.S. Government themselves are ignoreing or abuseing Laws?
They are infact the Domestic Enemy!
I still live by that Oath!
But I will NOT blindly accept what I'm told when it is proven time and time again that We are being lied to and misguided.
I respect all who have served at anytime.
I also respect those who did not or could not for whatever reason.

Platapus · 12-07-10, 09:24 PM

Good point. Except that I, as an individual in the military, do not have the right to unilaterally determine whether there is or is not a domestic enemy, nor do I, as an individual in the military, have the right to take unauthorized action with respect to my perception.

Think about it. What state would the military be if any individual, at their whim could decide that someone/some office is a domestic enemy and start taking unilateral action?

I believe the term is anarchy and is generally thought to be a bad thing in the military.

The appropriate action is that if an individual suspects that there is a "domestic enemy" is to report it up the chain of command, or if the individual suspects the chain of command, up through another chain of command, or refer it to another agency, or another branch of the government.

This is my point. There are multiple authorized venues for reporting "domestic issues" . Leaking the information to unauthorized people aint one of them.

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).

12-07-10, 09:35 PM

I agree with you to a point.
One must follow all protocal as stated certainly.
But there may be reasons one CAN NOT do so.
I am not in a position to know if the accussed followed protocal.
Or if he had a reason to do what he did.
Those in power above him will ALWAYS say he was wrong AND have the power to prove it.
Remember, they can alter documents as they wish!
I don't agree that mass dumping of documents is right,
nor do I agree that releaseing them to the whole world is right all the time.

But even you must realise that We,
as U.S. citizens,
are being lied to and used in a way that breaks many Laws!!
So we punish those that object?
That demands extraordinary actions by someone.

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.

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?

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, 07:15 PM	#137
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	No matter what you think about him, Assange is no thief or spy, Takeda. He neither ordered nor organised the theft of data (cablegate or any other, American or non-American), nor has he or his subordinates conducted theft, he also did not commit any act of espionage, nor did Wikileaks. He has been approached by people who had according interesting file-sets, no matter how they obtained them. Wikileaks is no news magazine, but they behaved like any jpournaolist: they took the material, checked it as best as they can, even in case of Iraqgate and Cablegate gave the other site the oppportunity to show which names indeed would be in riak of getting killed if they would be released, which compares to a journalist giving the major figure of his research the opportunity to comment by his own views on the issue in question. And again, Wikileaks has cooparated with several newspapers with qualified journalists to scan the material, and Wikileaks has increasded this cooperation both regarding time, and numbers of papers. If you want to talk abiout the violation of laws, you need to limit it to the people who obtained the original data, this Pr. Manning, for example. But for the reasons you already mentioned in faviour of Wikileaks, I am glad that Manning did what he did, no matter what his motives are. The US still has not raised any charges against Assange, which makes it somewhat obscure that they demand his extradition, or plan to file in such a request. It is in dohbt that Assange can be held legally responsible for anytyhing regarding Wikileaks. If that would happen, then all newspapers and magazines and journalists would need to fear for their safety and freedom, for their insider reports and occasional revealing articles, or things like Watergate, base on material they get much the same way like Assange got his. --- Wikileaks is now mirrored on around 800 sites, so that it is virtually impossible to silence them via technological means, access-denial-attacks or something like that. Financially, over the past 12 months Wikileaks has collected four times the money it needs as a minimum to run for one year, and one must assume that the current events and the arrest will make sympoathsiers invest even more in Wikileaks. I think it is illusional that Wikileaks could be financially dried out. The organisation is operational, and has obviously enough personnel to run it's business. One must assume that the bigger share of their personell is not even known. So: you cannot silence or intimidate them. The arrest of Assange has already brought him and Wikileaks additonal sympathies and moral support. The longer the legal battle lasts, the more Wikileaks benefits from that. If it is given enough time, they sooner or later will be compoared to the way Putin tries to silence the former head of Yukos oil - bet!? I have the impression that the political establishement has absolutely zero idea of how to deal with the situation. The rethoric amok runs of some people in the US tells it all. As Jefferson put it so nicely: "When the people fear the government, it's tyranny. When the government fears the people - it's freedom." __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-07-10, 09:24 PM	#144
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,395 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Good point. Except that I, as an individual in the military, do not have the right to unilaterally determine whether there is or is not a domestic enemy, nor do I, as an individual in the military, have the right to take unauthorized action with respect to my perception. Think about it. What state would the military be if any individual, at their whim could decide that someone/some office is a domestic enemy and start taking unilateral action? I believe the term is anarchy and is generally thought to be a bad thing in the military. The appropriate action is that if an individual suspects that there is a "domestic enemy" is to report it up the chain of command, or if the individual suspects the chain of command, up through another chain of command, or refer it to another agency, or another branch of the government. This is my point. There are multiple authorized venues for reporting "domestic issues" . Leaking the information to unauthorized people aint one of them. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-07-10, 09:48 PM	#150
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,395 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.

12-07-10, 07:17 PM	#138
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Indeed so, but then again, so is Sir John Sawers, Leon Panetta, Meir Dagan, Alexsandr Bortnikov, Geng Huichang, and every other head of national intelligence agencies. The primary difference is, they don't tell the population of the countries they're working for what they find.

12-07-10, 07:17 PM	#139
onelifecrisis Maverick Modder Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,895 Downloads: 65 Uploads: 3	I agree with everything Skybird just wrote. Wait... what did I just say!?

12-07-10, 08:06 PM	#141
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I'm not going to go back through all the post in this thread. Just say a few things that you can take or leave as you wish. I was in the U.S. Army in the early '80's I was what was called a 'Strack Trooper' with the 82nd AirBorne. I would have done ANYTHING I was asked to do in those days. And in some cases? I did. One thing I would never have done is to betray my fellow Troopers, no matter the cost to me. The Mission was the goal. Those that served in an AirBorne Unit understand this concept. I became frustrated with the Military after several things happened. I was to be awarded the Medal of Achivement for something in the Middle East. On Award Day? I was told it was being withheld because a Sargent needed it to get him to re-enlist and only so many were alloted to any given Unit. OK. I could live with that. Shortly after I saw and experienced harasment from other people with Rank over me and others for thier own advancement. I left the Service totally discuraged over the fate of future Soldiers. And what they would face one day. And this is the SHORT story! By all means, expose this kind of stuff! The betrayal is not those that have leaked documents. The betrayal is those that try to hide things that should not be hidden. Lincoln said...... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. When did we forego that concept?

12-07-10, 09:04 PM	#143
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Remember the Oath..... I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. Note that it states "foreign and domestic". If the U.S. Government themselves are ignoreing or abuseing Laws? They are infact the Domestic Enemy! I still live by that Oath! But I will NOT blindly accept what I'm told when it is proven time and time again that We are being lied to and misguided. I respect all who have served at anytime. I also respect those who did not or could not for whatever reason.

12-07-10, 09:29 PM	#145
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, 09:35 PM	#146
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I agree with you to a point. One must follow all protocal as stated certainly. But there may be reasons one CAN NOT do so. I am not in a position to know if the accussed followed protocal. Or if he had a reason to do what he did. Those in power above him will ALWAYS say he was wrong AND have the power to prove it. Remember, they can alter documents as they wish! I don't agree that mass dumping of documents is right, nor do I agree that releaseing them to the whole world is right all the time. But even you must realise that We, as U.S. citizens, are being lied to and used in a way that breaks many Laws!! So we punish those that object? That demands extraordinary actions by someone.

12-07-10, 09:47 PM	#149
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?