Wikileaks - America the land of free speech no more?

[Marc Vaughan]

In light of 'Press Freedom Day*' being hosted in America I thought I'd start a thread about wikileaks and how the various governments & corporations around the world are reacting to the revelations coming out.

What do people think about them? - should information be 'free', should government officials be allowed to call for assasination of an individual without being called to task .... and will anyone ever explain to American politicians that a non-US national cannot be a 'traitor' to America?

(One of the reasons I'm asking is that one of the other boards I frequent regularly is very European in userbase and its incredibly pro Wikileaks; I'm wondering if the same is true here or if there is more negativity towards the idea of freedom of information ...)

*http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...s-irony/67667/

[JPhillips]

I find it very troubling that government officials are pressuring corporations to damage Wikileaks. The press doesn't seem to understand that if the government does this to Wikileaks, it can just as easily do it to the NYT and/or FoxNews.

Concerning the two big leaks, I'm much more favorably inclined towards the war footage than the diplomatic cables, but regardless it's the government's job to keep the secrets not a publishing organization.

[whomario]

as weird as this may sound, i have no sympathy for either side here. I simply find it highly inapropriate what wikileaks has done in their latest stunt and while i absolutely hate what happens now from governments/corporations i really don´t have much sympathy for those latest publications at all. It simply isn´t anything that the public has any vested interest in, definitely not enough that it warrants the possible ramification it causes (like the opinions of other countries nearby towards Iran as told by american officials)

just imagine the uproar if breakroom-talk or private phone calls bitching about business partners or your boss would be published in the local paper. But if it´s about states and governments it is suddenly ok ?

I found the publications about the iraq war borderline allready, but kind of saw their purpose. But this ?

Also the upcoming publications about corporations and banks. What do we have law enforcement and officials for ? Imagine if everybody went out and printed accusations and documents and gave them out in city centres or print them in papers.

Plus the guy running it being accused of rape and not bothering to turn himself in and no one even finding that a bad thing made me just shake my head. Sure he might be innocent, but to say "swedish law will screw him anyway, that can´t be true cause he´s such a robin hood" makes me cringe. (just for the record, the accusation was not in line with any publications but occured in august/september)

It also is not journalism to simply publish stuff without doing any work with it.

[Tigercat]

Wikileaks is endangearing peoples lives, which if they were consciously doing so in the name of free press or giving out specific free information, I might be inclined to side with them.

But they are spreading bucketloads of a nation's protected information without a care as to what that information is or who could be hurt by the spread of information. (Or considering if there is a legit reason the public might want to see each individual piece of information.) They are just putting it out there to put it out there, without vetting each piece of information to decide if it should be released.

The Government is an extention of the people. This is the equivilent of getting a whole bunch of a person's personal information from a bad friend and posting it online, not carrying if it has social security numbers or sensitive medical histories in it. I can't fathom why anyone would defend the way Wikileaks has done their "leaks." That they haven't acted like the press at all and haven't made editorial decisions on what information to release is the problem.

[RendeR]

I have no problem with Wikileaks in and of itself. I am very concerened that someone is feeding them so much information.

The importance of much of the stuff that has been leaked leaves something to be desired. Other than making our diplomats look like the idiots they are the information isn't all that damaging. Or dangerous for that matter.

Now if the person or persons who are actually sending this information TO wikileaks is found then I hope tht person fries. Its one thing to dislike your government or the people running it, it is entirely different to disregard your job requirements and seurity procedures entirely.

I also tend to think the charges in Sweden are little more than a smoke screen to try and catch the guy, but then I trust any government about as far as I can throw Andre the Giant.

[JPhillips]

During a Fox News interview, Lieberman claimed that WikiLeaks is responsible for the “most serious violation of the Espionage Act in our history” and should be indicted in a U.S. court. But Lieberman then suggested that news organizations that published leaked material — originally obtained by WikiLeaks — may have also violated the Espionage Act.

“I’m not here to make a final judgment on that,” Lieberman said. “But to me the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.”

.

[RendeR]

So a website, not maintained or held within the USA, is now subject to our laws on Espionage?

Can you prove they actually took the data?
Can they prove they even asked for the data?
What right have we as a nation to prosecute a non-national?

As for the Times, how is it espionage-esque to simply re-print what is already freely available?

Leiberman is thumping a bad pulpit here.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I find it very troubling that government officials are pressuring corporations to damage Wikileaks. The press doesn't seem to understand that if the government does this to Wikileaks, it can just as easily do it to the NYT and/or FoxNews.

Concerning the two big leaks, I'm much more favorably inclined towards the war footage than the diplomatic cables, but regardless it's the government's job to keep the secrets not a publishing organization.

I agree on both points. Especially on the point of who's responsibility it is to keep secrets.

I think there is a sentiment growing, though. Maybe its only in the US or maybe its a big corp/military/big government thing...not sure I have my head around it yet...but it seems there is a desire to point out how everything is a secret because it can potentially be leveraged against (figuratively) you.

That isn't to say there isn't real potential to cost lives if the wrong type of information is released. But the real issue to me is that there is a LOT of information publicly/legally/etc. available that can cost lives. It is the job/duty of the military (or government entity) to make sure damaging information is protected & not available to the public.

[cuervo72]

Does WikiLeaks pay for this information, or is it freely given? I mean, how have the leaks thus far occurred? Have disgruntled folks taken information then sought out an outlet, or have they taken information knowing that WikiLeaks was there as an outlet for them?

In a way, this seems like spying with no official state affiliation. Russian spies (like that comely Chapman woman) get caught and get sent back to Russia. It's almost as if it's acknowledged that there will be spying like that and it's a bit of a game.

A difference here though is that whatever the Russians dig up, they keep to themselves. They don't want anyone else having the info and they don't want us knowing they have the info. It's acquired for them specifically to get a leg up on the US. I don't see WikiLeaks doing this for anyone's benefit, really. They may say they are, but I don't really think they are. They're doing it because they are anti-US. They're looking to knock the US down a peg, trying to neuter their effectiveness in world relations.

Of course some Europeans like this.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Wikileaks is endangearing peoples lives, which if they were consciously doing so in the name of free press or giving out specific free information, I might be inclined to side with them.

Just trying to understand this line of thought better. What if Wikileaks had released Iraq's military defense strategy the night before the US invaded? Would that matter? Because it would surely cost lives (Iraqi military lives) but would help save lives (US military lives).

[Marc Vaughan]

Plus the guy running it being accused of rape and not bothering to turn himself in and no one even finding that a bad thing made me just shake my head. Sure he might be innocent, but to say "swedish law will screw him anyway, that can´t be true cause he´s such a robin hood" makes me cringe. (just for the record, the accusation was not in line with any publications but occured in august/september)

I don't really want to comment on those allegations - firstly because the true evidence won't be visible until it comes to court (theres a lot of rumour and innuendo going around at present) but secondly because to be frank I don't think it has anything to do with wikileaks itself.

He's the 'figurehead' - but not the source of the information being leaked or the actual person who is likely doing the day to day work on the site itself.

As such apart from being something which is unpleasant it has little to do with the information being leaked and whether its a good or a bad thing which it is coming out.

Finally in the mood of 'fairness' however he turned himself into an English police station (so your first statement isn't true*) and its been reported that his lawyer asked if he was ok to leave the country before he went to England (and was told it was; this has been reported in a few places but as I haven't seen it on a major news site I'd say that is open to conjecture with regards to truth).

*BBC News - Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail
He was 'arrested by appointment' which basically means he turned up at the police station and turned himself in as arranged with his lawyer.

[PilotMan]

Diane Fienstein, who is about as free speech, civil liberties dem as you can get out there, wrote a nice piece for the WSJ yesterday.

Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com

I find it hard to disagree with her on this.

from the article

Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

A difference here though is that whatever the Russians dig up, they keep to themselves. They don't want anyone else having the info and they don't want us knowing they have the info. It's acquired for them specifically to get a leg up on the US. I don't see WikiLeaks doing this for anyone's benefit, really. They may say they are, but I don't really think they are. They're doing it because they are anti-US. They're looking to knock the US down a peg, trying to neuter their effectiveness in world relations.

I don't want to debate your suggestion of their motives or reasons for releasing information. But if true...would they really be any different than Al Jazeera or any other propaganda outlet?

I submit they at least have made the information publicly available (so that all parties are aware) whereas Al Jazeera would have (IMO) likely given that information to "particular" people that would have an adversarial relationship with the US. And the US would have no knowledge of this (in theory).

That is maybe the difference between what Wikileaks is doing vs. actual espionage.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Does WikiLeaks pay for this information, or is it freely given? I mean, how have the leaks thus far occurred? Have disgruntled folks taken information then sought out an outlet, or have they taken information knowing that WikiLeaks was there as an outlet for them?

Wikileaks basically has a system for allowing anyone to upload information to them - they then try and verify its truth and will publish it.

It's acquired for them specifically to get a leg up on the US. I don't see WikiLeaks doing this for anyone's benefit, really. They may say they are, but I don't really think they are. They're doing it because they are anti-US. They're looking to knock the US down a peg, trying to neuter their effectiveness in world relations.

I realise that the American media present it like this - but please bear in mind that wikileaks leaks information on all governments worldwide, its not specifically targetting America; however obviously because of specific world events (ie. wars and the influence of America) a fair amount of the information released does refer to America and its interests.

If you look on the wikileaks wikipedia page* you'll find references to a wide range of things including:
* Scientology
* Apparent Somali assassination order
* Daniel arap Moi family corruption (Kenja)
* Bank Julius Baer lawsuit (Swiss Bank)
* BNP membership list (UK)
* Climategate emails (UK)
* Internet censorship lists (lots of countries)
* Peru oil scandal
* Nuclear accident in Iran
* Toxic dumping in Africa
... amongst others ....

*WikiLeaks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Peregrine]

With all the talk about the Espionage Act, I guess I have to pose this question - if a high ranking government official leaked this same information to a reporter from the NY Times, and he wrote stories about it, including some of the information, is he guilty of treason also? It seems to me that few would be calling for his head in that situation.

In this case of course, you're dealing with a non-US citizen, living outside the country, receiving the same info and publishing it. You're not dealing with a spy here, you're dealing with an alternative to the mainstream media, which has largely given up on any investigatory function.

[JPhillips]

I can't find the interview, but somewhere I read that Assange believes that democracy and a growing secret government/corporate environment are incompatible. I don't know if what he's doing will alleviate that problem, but I find his diagnosis spot on.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I find the universal response of all our politicians to be further evidence that politicians are in it for the power and are not actually interested in anything having to do with ideals or the US people. Republicrats.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Diane Fienstein, who is about as free speech, civil liberties dem as you can get out there, wrote a nice piece for the WSJ yesterday.

Dianne Feinstein: Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - WSJ.com

I find it hard to disagree with her on this.

from the article

How can you prosecute a non-US citizen who's not under US jurisdiction under the Espionage Act??

The US government may be pissed at him, but they have no jurisdiction over him.

Prosecute the folks who are giving him information (if they can find them) - sure. Absolutely.

[lungs]

If it takes a douche bag to uncover the douchebaggery of the powers that be, so be it.

[Drake]

I'm a big fan of Wikileaks, though I've never visited the site.

That said, I can't believe the dumbasses in our government are really deciding that the best way to deal with it is to call the guy a terrorist and try to prosecute a foreign citizen by U.S. laws. If I wasn't an American, the spread of imperialism this implies would put me firmly into the anti-American camp.

Seriously, why not just have the CIA cook up a couple dozen false fronts, have someone upload bogus docs, then destroy the site's credibility by leaking to the press that the latest "big bombshell" release is completely inaccurate? Do that a half-dozen times and people will lose confidence in Wikileaks as an information source. Then it becomes just another fringe/crackpot New World Order website.

All of this saber rattling is just telling people, "Oh noes! They've got our *real* secretses!"

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How can you prosecute a non-US citizen who's not under US jurisdiction under the Espionage Act??

The US government may be pissed at him, but they have no jurisdiction over him.

Prosecute the folks who are giving him information (if they can find them) - sure. Absolutely.

Spies typically come from other countries. They get prosecuted every time.

If a guy was giving you the finger, while fucking your wife, you couldn't legally do anything about it, but you sure as hell would try.

I think it's hypocritical to think that you would turn the other cheek and have a strong talk with your wife about it, and just let things be.

[jeff061]

Assange is the figurehead, really he exists to generate attention for Wikileaks. Wikileaks itself is more about the idea, which is very simple, than any incredible accomplishment to get it's infrastructure up and running. It's a website with an upload form and some encryption and distributed servers on the back end to obfuscate the source. If they shutdown Wikileaks others will pop up, attacking them is meaningless. This is the way things work now in the information age. There is no controlling it.

That said, it's sickening to me that we are equating Assange as a criminal and terrorist for his actions with Wikileaks(rape allegations aside). He did not steal data, he is not paying for data or even asking for it. There is a website with an upload button that anyone can use. All Assange does is work hard to make sure everyone knows the button exists and that organizations with the proper channels(news organizations) know it's something worthwhile reporting one.

I agree with Australia's Foreign Minister's stance(and was very happy to see it). The fault does not lie with Wikileaks or Assange, it lies with who stole the information, presumably Bradley Manning. The only way to prevent something like this to happen is to control it at the source. Some make the argument if you consider Assange a "terrorist" where do you draw the line between him and the press. I don't think there is a line, Assange/Wikileaks is the press. Which ultimatly is what bothers me most of all.

That said I wish they wouldn't focus solely on the US governemnt as he has lately and would get back to corporations and other entities(there was an exodus from Wikileaks because of this). But it seems he decided that in order for people to understand what Wikileaks is and how it can be used he would need to make a very large splash. Hopefully this opens things up for a broader range of information in the future.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Spies typically come from other countries. They get prosecuted every time.

If caught on the territory involved surely or it can be proved that they have done something illegal (and extradition arranged).

Wikileaks itself is publishing information it is given - surely its the people supplying that information which are those who are able to be prosecuted?

Is there a 'recieving stolen goods' law in America which covers information? - if for instance you told me something which was confidential could I then be prosecuted for knowing it?

Following this theory to the ground - illegal copying of copyrighted items is illegal in America (including for instance games); using that theory the American government should be tracking down and prosecuting people worldwide where these laws are infringed upon regardless of the local laws in the countries where the infringements are taking place?

PS - I find it kinda scary that people are so willing to turn a blind eye to laws being stretched/violated if they can be convinced its in their best interests at that point; to me sensible laws are just that sensible - they're present to prevent injustice and abuse by governments .... this is important to everyone as all of us one day could be on the wrong side of such an instance.

[jeff061]

PS - I find it kinda scary that people are so willing to turn a blind eye to laws being stretched/violated if they can be convinced its in their best interests at that point; to me sensible laws are just that sensible - they're present to prevent injustice and abuse by governments .... this is important to everyone as all of us one day could be on the wrong side of such an instance.

Totally agree.

[Neon_Chaos]

If Assange is prosecuted by the US, it'll be a blow to freedom of information. He is a foreigner, living outside the US, and was not the man who stole the cables. Sure, he posted them to the public, but what obligation does he have to the US to not do so? He is not a citizen, and certainly hasn't been spying on the US. They're just going to the easiest person to lay the blame on.

The US should exhaust all efforts to find whoever leaked these cables and let them fry.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Drake

Seriously, why not just have the CIA cook up a couple dozen false fronts, have someone upload bogus docs, then destroy the site's credibility by leaking to the press that the latest "big bombshell" release is completely inaccurate? Do that a half-dozen times and people will lose confidence in Wikileaks as an information source. Then it becomes just another fringe/crackpot New World Order website.

This is exactly what I was expecting to be honest ....

(puts on paranoid hat)
Although it could be that this is purely 'stage setting' so that they can feed tailored information to them in the future and use them as a puppet propoganda machine without anyone suspecting ....
(takes off paranoid hat)

[Drake]

Well said, Marc.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

The US should exhaust all efforts to find whoever leaked these cables and let them fry.

If America is anything like the UK then that might be impossible - for instance about once every 2-3 years in England there is a 'scandal' about a computer being thrown out when its out of date without a hard-disk being wiped ... then being picked up by someone on ebay/dump site and found to contain top secret information.

I'd be surprised if the same doesn't happen in America considering the size of the country and amount of information duplication these days it'd be incredibly simple for such a thing to occur and then be nearly untracable (plus if this is the case is a person who innocently stumbles across such information prosecutable for spying? - do they have a legal obligation to protect and return the information to a government who have freely given it away?).

[Maple Leafs]

Without getting into whether Wikileaks is good or bad (which is a complicated issue that I don't think I'm personally smart enough to get my head around)...

Holy crap is it ever disturbing how meekly the media is going along with the government's view on all this. Politicians are lining up to go on TV and essentially argue that anyone who tells you something that they don't want you to know is a criminal who can be arrested, charged, or even just hunted down and killed. And the media, with a few exceptions, just nods.

I don't want to go all Greenwald here, but the US media has become completely incapable of processing any controversy that falls outside the "right vs left" mentality -- if both parties agree on something, there is no controversy and nothing to discuss, period. Even if that issue is the freedom to report something the government wants to keep quiet.

Depressing.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is exactly what I was expecting to be honest ....

(puts on paranoid hat)
Although it could be that this is purely 'stage setting' so that they can feed tailored information to them in the future and use them as a puppet propoganda machine without anyone suspecting ....
(takes off paranoid hat)

I'd think that this is exactly the way Information Warfare should be conducted, right? The U.S. is essentially trying to opt out of the game by saber rattling. We don't want to play Information Warfare. Instead we just killz you.

Psst. Government Guys! The Information War is here and has been since long before the interwebz. I'm surprised we need to explain this to you. The war hasn't changed, just the delivery mechanism.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Holy crap is it ever disturbing how meekly the media is going along with the government's view on all this.

Welcome to the new mainstream media - they've been around for the last several years. Blindly repeating whatever the government says, with no questions, etc.

[Marc Vaughan]

Visa and Master card block donations to wikileaks ....

In totally unrelated news:

WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard' | World news | guardian.co.uk

(although to be frank thats about as surprising as a kettle boiling imho ...)

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Visa and Master card block donations to wikileaks ....

In totally unrelated news:

WikiLeaks cables: US 'lobbied Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard' | World news | guardian.co.uk

(although to be frank thats about as surprising as a kettle boiling imho ...)

MasterCard corporate site crashes, won't confirm cyberattack - Dec. 8, 2010 (4Chan taking credit)
Icelandic IT firm to sue Visa & Mastercard over WikiLeaks cut-off | Beehive City

Whole thing is a mess. Interesting times.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I find it very troubling that government officials are pressuring corporations to damage Wikileaks.

That's okay, I find it very troubling that he didn't suffer catastrophic brake failure, a heart attack, or "jump" from a very tall building long before things ever got to this point.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's okay, I find it very troubling that he didn't suffer catastrophic brake failure, a heart attack, or "jump" from a very tall building long before things ever got to this point.

Opinions on his culpability aside. I'm not exactly sure what you think that would accomplish beyond empowering the people you hate. There are millions of Assange's out there. They need to block it before it gets to them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Opinions on his culpability aside. I'm not exactly sure what you think that would accomplish beyond empowering the people you hate. There are millions of Assange's out there.

Which need to be dealt with individually, as the situation warrants.

They need to block it before it gets to them.

On this we seem to have found at least some point of agreement.

[jeff061]

Which need to be dealt with individually, as the situation warrants.

Right, I get that. I just think that's not remotely possible. Millions is not an exaggeration, nothing positive would be accomplished. Well beyond personal gratification for some, but yeah, that's not helping .

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - I find it kinda scary that people are so willing to turn a blind eye to laws being stretched/violated if they can be convinced its in their best interests at that point; to me sensible laws are just that sensible - they're present to prevent injustice and abuse by governments .... this is important to everyone as all of us one day could be on the wrong side of such an instance.

This is human nature. People can't protect themselves from most serious threats in the world. Governments, among other roles, serve to provide that protection. The problem is that government protection and civil freedom are usually inversely related. It's a scale on which the needle is always moving, based on what's going on in the world.

I don't find it scary--I just acknowledge it's the natural way of things, from a macro-social perspective at least. Also, the sensibility of laws is in the eye of the beholder. Many laws are unjust in some way, or serve to protect some at the cost of damaging others, and there are very few laws (relative to the whole body of law) that are universally approved of by the vast public in general.

I'm not making an argument for right or wrong here. I am not even saying you shouldn't be scared, because you're right, anyone can be caught on the wrong side of that needle when it shifts. I'm just saying--this is what it is, and can be backed up with numerous instances throughout human history.

I also would advise that just because American politicians and some publications and corproations are going all vigiliante, that you not accept that as an American public turning a blind eye. There are plenty of people in the US who are not fond of how these entities are handling things (for evidence on a small scale, see this thread).

[jeff061]

Thanks for feeding my misanthropy Chief.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's okay, I find it very troubling that he didn't suffer catastrophic brake failure, a heart attack, or "jump" from a very tall building long before things ever got to this point.

So purely out of interest if the American government decided for whatever reason you were a 'threat' to them you'd find it ok for them to help you in the ways you describe?

(you're a fairly outspoken individual - if you found out something that the government was doing which you thought was entirely against your principles then I could imagine you going public with it .... so its not entirely unfeasible imho)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Thanks for feeding my misanthropy Chief.

Hey, humanity has good characteristics, too!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So purely out of interest if the American government decided for whatever reason you were a 'threat' to them you'd find it ok for them to help you in the ways you describe?

(you're a fairly outspoken individual - if you found out something that the government was doing which you thought was entirely against your principles then I could imagine you going public with it .... so its not entirely unfeasible imho)

You don't even have to go that far. Jon is(was?) a big fan of the Sedition Act. If that were the law of the land he could certainly be seen as a threat given the things he's said about the current government. I'm sure he'd have no problem with his own executive ordered execution.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Following this theory to the ground - illegal copying of copyrighted items is illegal in America (including for instance games); using that theory the American government should be tracking down and prosecuting people worldwide where these laws are infringed upon regardless of the local laws in the countries where the infringements are taking place?

Red herring here. We have an international agreement that makes it so we don't have to do this. And the measure of the crime is entirely different, necessitating a different response. Prior to the Chinese signing onto the TRIPS agreement, we devoted a lot of time and effort in trying to get them to help us shut down their factories devoted to stealing US IP even though it wasn't a crime of significance in China.

We prosecute foreign nationals for crimes committed overseas all the time. But, just like the local constabulary will prosecute (or not) a pot bust differently from a triple homicide, we generally don't pursue lesser crimes committed overseas against Americans or American property. It is expensive and hard to do.

An example we all know -- Manuel Noriega did 17 years in a US prison for a variety of drug-related crimes even though he was not in the US when he committed them. He is now doing 7 years in France for similar crimes -- again, committed outside of France.

From a US government perspective, Assange knowingly acquired hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents that belonged to the US. When he chose to pass along stolen US property, especially given the nature of the property in question, then it may well have risen to the threshold of a serious crime under US law.

I would note that the US hasn't actually done anything yet to Assange. His alleged informant -- a US citizen -- has been in custody for months; but although Assange is under investigation for his role in releasing the documents, no charges have been filed. It is a little premature to rip apart a case that hasn't yet been made.

[molson]

We generally have criminal jurisdiction over foreign citizens through treaties and international law. There's various opt-outs for "political crimes" (which this arguably is), but the issue is more congressional intent than jurisdiction. Of course, this game is always evolving, and countries have their own revolving hang-ups about cooperating with this kind of stuff.

I kind of doubt that the U.S. will actually try to take him on in united states criminal court though.

[stevew]

I dunno about the site, but the PFC that leaked a bunch of information should be dealt with in a very harsh way. As should the people who were supposedly responsible for monitoring this peon and making sure he wasn't borrowing info.

[molson]

Dola-

Here's a little snippet from a federal district court case that analyzed the Congressional intent behind the Espionage Act:

"Following this analysis, the Court finds strong congressional intent to apply the Espionage Act to the extraterritorial acts of noncitizens both from the face of the statute and from the nature of the crime of espionage. First, as noted previously, the Act makes no distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Second, espionage is an offense that is as likely to occur within foreign countries as within this country because of the large number of United States defense installations and military personnel located abroad. Furthermore, the essence of an espionage crime is that it is directed against the national security of a country and so does not logically depend on locality. The Court hence finds it reasonable to infer that Congress intended to assert jurisdiction up to the limits of international law and prosecute noncitizens for espionage against the United States regardless of where the act of obtaining or disclosing defense information in fact occurred."

And that's really all our courts are concerned with. Actually arresting someone, getting them here - those are more complicated diplomatic questions.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's okay, I find it very troubling that he didn't suffer catastrophic brake failure, a heart attack, or "jump" from a very tall building long before things ever got to this point.

He will if he leaks the Russian stuff he has implied he has. The US likes to project its values of supporting evidenced-based prosecutions and the fundamental rule of law. Russia has returned to the old-Soviet era value system.

Am I detecting some secret Soviet sympathies coming from middle GA?

[Izulde]

I haven't watched any of the videos atm, but I was reading some of the cables yesterday. I found the rising power of Brazil/friendship between Sarkozy and Lula storyline an interesting read.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by molson

Dola-

Here's a little snippet from a federal district court case that analyzed the Congressional intent behind the Espionage Act:

"Following this analysis, the Court finds strong congressional intent to apply the Espionage Act to the extraterritorial acts of noncitizens both from the face of the statute and from the nature of the crime of espionage. First, as noted previously, the Act makes no distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Second, espionage is an offense that is as likely to occur within foreign countries as within this country because of the large number of United States defense installations and military personnel located abroad. Furthermore, the essence of an espionage crime is that it is directed against the national security of a country and so does not logically depend on locality. The Court hence finds it reasonable to infer that Congress intended to assert jurisdiction up to the limits of international law and prosecute noncitizens for espionage against the United States regardless of where the act of obtaining or disclosing defense information in fact occurred."

And that's really all our courts are concerned with. Actually arresting someone, getting them here - those are more complicated diplomatic questions.

Good grab. QFT

[JediKooter]

So it's ok for the USA to spy on its citizens (Patriot Act) but, it's not ok for someone to expose cover ups and lies about the same government that is spying on its own citizens? That's some obtuse thinking in my opinion.