| reply to Noah Vail
Re: WikiLeaks and unrestrained freedom Regardless of your opinion about the integrity of our Armed Forces, the fact is Classified information was leaked. This will no doubt have negative consequences for everyone involved in that theatre. I only hope they find this clown, try him for the treasonous act it was, and then draw and quarter him. No mercy for sh*t like this!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| said by S_engineer:I only hope they find this clown, try him for the treasonous act it was, and then draw and quarter him. Is he a US citizen? If he wasn't I don't think it qualifies as treason. It'd be the same as if you did this to the Chinese.
said by S_engineer:Regardless of your opinion about the integrity of our Armed Forces, the fact is Classified information was leaked. This will no doubt have negative consequences for everyone involved in that theater. My opinion of our Armed Forces is high. I'm pretty sure you're right about short-to-medium term negative consequences.
The question is: Will this help bring about positive changes that will help in the long term; the time that has always been most uncertain?
I don't know the answer to that. I'm largely ignorant of specific details of the leaked docs, and wouldn't know how to plug raw intelligence data into the war.
The UK Independent, who initially coordinated the leak, talked him into holding back quite a few documents. Those docs were believed to be much higher risk, than what we have. That supports your negative opinion of the leaker.
Personally, I'm cryptome.org fan. I don't think they hold wikileaks in high regard either.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:This will no doubt have negative consequences for everyone involved in that theatre.
It's going to have consequences for everyone using the internet too. This will be example #1 why the government needs more oversight, more tools, more historic data to unravel crimes after they happen.
Everyone who argued against warrentless wiretaps and NSA data mining just lost a lot of ground. It was just a matter of time until it happened. There's always some clown like Assange who goes too far, ruining it for everyone.
said by S_engineer:I only hope they find this clown, try him for the treasonous act it was, and then draw and quarter him. No mercy for sh*t like this! Given the nature of intelligence, and the stakes involved in wartime intelligence, it wouldn't surprise me if Assange is found floating face down in 2 inches of water, "in what police suspect to be an accidental drowning."
I doubt too many people will care. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:said by S_engineer:I only hope they find this clown, try him for the treasonous act it was, and then draw and quarter him. Is he a US citizen? If he wasn't I don't think it qualifies as treason. quote:
Art. 3, Sect. 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. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Nothing in that language specifically limits the charge to US citizens.
I'm sure there are dozens of other charges that could be applied, such as conspiracy.
But, I doubt the government would want a long drawn out trial. I'm sure they're pleased to have the perfect argument for expanded surveillance abilities, ability to take down sites, etc.
And, as noted in an earlier post, intelligence (and counter-intelligence) activities usually don't go through such legal formalities. Especially during a time of war. He'll just drive off a bridge one day in a Toyota which "apparently had a throttle problem." |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| said by amigo_boy: quote:
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. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Nothing in that language specifically limits the charge to US citizens. That's the Constitutional Limit of Treason, which has the distinction of being the only crime specifically delimited by the constitution. It's intention was to prevent British style penalties such as Corruption of Blood/Attainder.
The qualification for treason are laid out in the the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
said by 18 U.S.C. § 2381 :Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. WikiLeaker doesn't seem to be owing any allegiance to the United States.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Noah Vail:WikiLeaker doesn't seem to be owing any allegiance to the United States. Thanks. But, if the activity would be "treason" when committed by a US citizen, then what is it when committed by a non-citizen? Spying? Sedition? Conspiring to commit seditious libel or uprising?
Those things are treated just as severely as treason. And, if committed by a citizen of an allied country, it seems like that country may have a cause of treason (if harming the ally also harms the country).
Certainly, the country (England?) wouldn't have any problem extraditing Assange on a charge like the following:
quote:
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
-- »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/us···00-.html
There's also an applicable law at Section 2387.
Not being treason, either of those two laws take the death penalty off the table. But, it's still a Assange could be charged with a serious offense resulting in 10-20 years in prison. An offense of the character of Treason, lacking only the element of disloyalty. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:WikiLeaker doesn't seem to be owing any allegiance to the United States. BTW: From this news article, it appears US citizens involved with WikiLeaks could find themselves charged with treasonous activities such as seditious libel or either of the two laws I posted previously.
quote:
Adrian Lamo, the Sacramento, Calif.-based computer hacker who turned in Bradley to military authorities in May, claimed in a telephone interview Saturday he had firsthand knowledge that someone helped Manning set up encryption software to send classified information to WikiLeaks.
Lamo, who's cooperating with investigators, wouldn't name the person but said the man was among a group of people in the Boston area who work with WikiLeaks. He said the man told him "he actually helped Private Manning set up the encryption software he used."
Lamo said the software enabled Manning to send classified data in small bits so that it would seem innocuous.
"It wouldn't look too much different from your average guy doing his banking on line," Lamo said.
-- »news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_afghanistan_wikileaks
|
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Thanks. But, if the activity would be "treason" when committed by a US citizen, then what is it when committed by a non-citizen? Spying? Sedition? Conspiring to commit seditious libel or uprising? It's Crappy.
If you (A US Citizen on US Soil) publish secret Chinese government documents, that detail Chinese human rights abuse;
what should the Chinese government be able to do to you?
That's a pretty flexible question. You can make the documents War related if, it helps you answer it.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:BTW: From this news article, it appears US citizens involved with WikiLeaks could find themselves charged with treasonous activities such as seditious libel or either of the two laws I posted previously.... I thought the Feds pegged Lamo as a criminal scumbag. Now he's a person of case building credibility.
Our government DOES change it's mind when it's convenient.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:If you (A US Citizen on US Soil) publish secret Chinese government documents, that detail Chinese human rights abuse; what should the Chinese government be able to do to you? I understand what you're saying. Terrorism or patriotism is usually defined by who's side your on (or, who won the war).
In this case, we're talking about a citizen of an ally of the US. And, US citizens who work with him (and, per published reports, may have actually facilitated this leak by a US citizen).
Very different than your China example simply based upon the expectations of US citizens, and citizens of allies. In the same way that the crime of "treason" has a different expectation of citizens than non-citizens (whose crimes are punishable under the two laws I already posted).
If you want to engage in a comparison with China or Russia, then you'd have to answer why those two countries aren't military allies.
The better comparison would be to a US citizen who publishes British military secrets concerning a war that the US is in, and which US troops will be harmed by in similar fashion to British troops.
As a military ally, I'd suspect that the US citizen would be charged with a US crime. At a bare minimum, it wouldn't surprise me if the US citizen were extradited on British charges.
That's the difference between allies and countries that have little ties except commerce. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:said by amigo_boy:BTW: From this news article, it appears US citizens involved with WikiLeaks could find themselves charged with treasonous activities such as seditious libel or either of the two laws I posted previously.... I thought the Feds pegged Lamo as a criminal scumbag. Now he's a person of case building credibility. Our government DOES change it's mind when it's convenient. Or, maybe Lamo changed his mind due to convenience?
What has he said that substantially alters what we already and hasn't been disputed by Assange?
With American citizens undoubtedly supporting WikiLeaks, it wouldn't be surprising that one (or a few) facilitated the leak. Particularly if they remain involved in WikiLeaks after this debacle.
To me, that was the more interesting part of the news article. Assange may be able to distance himself from this, playing the "I'm British, and therefore beyond the reach of US law." US citizens will have a much harder time playing that game.
Even if they can't be directly implicated with the leak, their ongoing participation with WikiLeaks could be construed as seditious libel (or either of the two laws I already posted). Just by promoting an organization that has harmed US interests and violated either of the two laws I posted.
Assange really went too far this time. There's really no defense for it.
I could understand revealing a helicopter video of a massacre. But, the handful of documents I read were not revelatory except to the Taliban. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Noah Vail
Earlier I said that it wouldn't surprise me if the US government leaked entirely false information to WikiLeaks just to have the "incident" they need to gain more control over the internet. The following supports that possibility:
quote:
In 2008, Wikileaks released a classified report of the United States Army Counterintelligence Center discussing ways to destroy WikiLeaks's reputation and efficacy.[15] The report said "successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions".[20] Greenwald wrote about this: "exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here [the Manning leak]".[15]
--»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_···eactions
Whether that's what happened or not, WikiLeaks went too far. If it was a setup, WikiLeaks played into it beautifully, showing how irresponsible they could be with real information.
However, the question of whether they were setup is interesting. |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Everyone who argued against warrentless wiretaps and NSA data mining just lost a lot of ground. It was just a matter of time until it happened. There's always some clown like Assange who goes too far, ruining it for everyone. I figured that's where you were going with all of this, since you've always supported the warrantless wiretapping and big government in general.
You say that the wiretapping is needed to protect us from dangerous people who want to do us harm. And then you quote one of those those dangerous people in your first post here as a reliable source to back up your argument.
That's ludicrous.
--
I don't have a problem! |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: quote:
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Stop. The code section ends before "; or". There isn't anything after it.
Below that you've appended different law; 18 U.S.C. § 793. It's descended from the Espionage Act of 1917 and subsidiaries which define Sedition; a different crime.
said by Sedition :Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws. Unlike the WikiLeaks Event; our country has had other seditious acts performed on it's own soil.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Noah Vail:said by amigo_boy: quote:
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Stop. The code section ends before "; or". There isn't anything after it. Below that you've appended different law; 18 U.S.C. § 793. I don't understand what you're saying. What I quoted is quoted exactly from »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/us···00-.html
I didn't append anything from anywhere. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to fatness
said by fatness:said by amigo_boy:Everyone who argued against warrentless wiretaps and NSA data mining just lost a lot of ground. It was just a matter of time until it happened. There's always some clown like Assange who goes too far, ruining it for everyone. I figured that's where you were going with all of this, since you've always supported the warrantless wiretapping and big government in general. You say that the wiretapping is needed to protect us from dangerous people who want to do us harm. And then you quote one of those those dangerous people in your first post here as a reliable source to back up your argument. That's ludicrous. Why is that ludicrous? If you were to support a site which promoted whistle-blowing as a necessary function of a civil, open society, and then used an episode of whistle-blowing (revealing the worst atrocity or corruption) as proof of why you'd held that position, I wouldn't call it ludicrous. I'd say you have a good example of your position.
I've only taken the position that unrestrained whistle-blowing is not virtuous. It becomes libelous or a threat to national security. Eventually, someone like WikiLeaks (he individuals behind it) will go too far, leading to justification of the laws that allowed for warrentless wiretaps. Or, additional laws to to institutionalize NSA data mining.
I've said that I can see the benefit of leaking something like an atrocity or procurement corruption.
But, I believe wikileaks went far beyond that. Publishing documents that don't reveal anything of any value except to the Taliban. The only way it's justified is if you engage in a the nebulous, abstract "bigger picture" argument like "Noah" did.
It's unfortunate. It's going to lead to what opponents of greater regulation and surveillance oppose. All because some people (like AssMange) can't do the right thing without "big government" watching over their shoulder.
It's not that I support that reality. Just saying that is the reality. It's why we had the laws which allowed warrantless wiretaps even before 9/11. It's why we'll see greater public support for such laws.
It just is what it is. |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to amigo_boy
Stand by. I'm getting conflicting information. Trying to figure it out...
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
 milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | reply to amigo_boy
Just one problem. Any countermeasure applied against Wikileaks could potentially backfire on the US. It would mean any information coming from the US government, either firsthand or otherwise, could never be trusted, even between governmental departments.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com (click "Watch Live!") |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by milnoc:Just one problem. Any countermeasure applied against Wikileaks could potentially backfire on the US. It would mean any information coming from the US government, either firsthand or otherwise, could never be trusted, even between governmental departments. How do you form that conclusion? It looks to me like a countermeasure against wikileaks would mean leaked information could never be trusted.
That could be a negative if the government strategically leaks information, which I'm sure it does. But, it has working relationships with news agencies who won't distrust their government sources just because the government undermined a muck-racking web site with which it had no relationship.
Using countermeasures against wikileaks would also serve notice to government personnel that they can't take for granted that the information they have access to isn't constructed in a way to that it would come back to them (i.e., they're the only one with the information intended to undermine the muck-racking web site.). |
|
