Thread: Someone's spilling (a lot of) the beans. (Wikileaks)

Originally Posted by Wooglin

Here is the part of the espionage act cited in the case you mention and also relevant to wikileaks:

section 793 of the espionage act makes criminal:

Well... Robert Novak faced no such charges. He claimed he wasn't threatened with such charges,& claimed he didn't reach a deal with the prosecution. All of which flies in the face that this particular wiki leaks incident didn't happen in the American Jurisdiction. Possibly, not even electronically solicited within the U.S Jurisdiction.

Are you going to impose laws like Germany, summoning foreign citizens, like Rumsfield to show up to court for actions undertaken outside your Jurisdiction?

Originally Posted by Chunder

Are you going to impose laws like Germany, summoning foreign citizens, like Rumsfield to show up to court for actions undertaken outside your Jurisdiction?

Just to interrupt here, Germany only does that for war crimes. So does half the rest of the world.

Well... Robert Novak faced no such charges. He claimed he wasn't threatened with such charges,& claimed he didn't reach a deal with the prosecution.

ok...and?

All of which flies in the face that this particular wiki leaks incident didn't happen in the American Jurisdiction.

How so? According to his wiki page:

Although it is illegal for anyone, government official or otherwise, to knowingly distribute classified information (under US Code, Title 18, Section 793, Paragraph e),[43] Novak was never charged with this crime because there was no evidence that Novak knew that Ms. Plame was a covert agent.

Possibly, not even electronically solicited within the U.S Jurisdiction.

Who was solicited? And why does it matter if it was in the US or not?

Are you going to impose laws like Germany, summoning foreign citizens, like Rumsfield to show up to court for actions undertaken outside your Jurisdiction?

What laws? Is there some extradition request for Rumsfield?

Punishing someone for raping a sleeping woman is a liberal law it seems....

Assange rape case spotlights Sweden's liberal laws
By MALIN RISING, Associated Press Malin Rising, Associated Press 2 hrs 6 mins ago

STOCKHOLM – A starry-eyed admirer was flattered to be invited to dinner with a man she considered a champion of free speech. Another woman supported the cause by lending her apartment to the same man, then returned early from her trip.

Both encounters resulted in sex. Now, after unleashing an unprecedented trove of U.S. government secrets, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is behind bars to answer questions about whether his conduct amounted to rape under Sweden's unusually broad definition.

Sweden prides itself on gender equality and fairness, a tradition underpinning an interpretation of rape that often requires only a low level of coercion. A minor threat or force, such as pulling an arm, can be enough to result in charges. Sex with a person who is unconscious, drunk or asleep can be classed as rape.

Between heavily redacted Swedish police reports and details revealed Tuesday in a British court, a picture is emerging in which flirtation led to sex before the WikiLeaks founder allegedly crossed the line by refusing to use a condom and by having unprotected sex while a woman was asleep. The women's names are redacted in the court documents, and The Associated Press does not normally identify alleged victims of sexual assault.

Assange denies his actions amounted to rape, and his lawyers call the charges politically motivated. Under police questioning in Sweden on Aug. 30 about one of the accusations, the 39-year-old Australian confirmed the general outlines of the woman's story but appeared in the heavily redacted transcript to insist that all of the sexual contact was consensual.

One of the women said in her statement to police that she was obsessed with meeting the tall, wiry man she had come to see as a hero of free speech — "interesting, brave and admirable."

For two weeks after seeing an Assange TV interview, the 27-year-old woman devoured news reports about him. Then one night, she Googled his name and learned he was giving a lecture in Sweden on Aug. 14.

The woman contacted the organizers and offered to do chores if she were allowed to attend. She turned up in a bright pink sweater and sat in the front row — looking out of place amid a sea of journalists in somber suits. The ice was broken when she agreed to buy a cable for Assange's computer.

She was invited to a post-lecture dinner, she said, and seated next to Assange. They flirted, she told police: At one point Assange hand-fed her cheese and bread. The police report says she found it "flattering."

She and Assange went to the movies, where she said they kissed. Two days later she brought him home.

But by then, she told police, "the passion and excitement had disappeared."

On the train ride to her place, she said, Assange logged on to his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter. "He paid more attention to the computer than to her," the report said.

They got to her apartment at midnight — and what happened next "felt very dull and boring," she told police. She later alleged, according to a British lawyer, that Assange pinned her down and refused to wear a condom.

The other woman's tale also emerges as one of casual, uninspired intimacy.

The 31-year-old, a feminist scholar who was working for the organization that hosted Assange's Aug. 14 lecture, let him use her apartment while she was away on a trip. But she returned early, on the eve of his lecture, and the two agreed he could stay.

That night, they went out for dinner, returned to her place for tea, and, she said, became intimate. Later, in the middle of the night, she claimed in the police report, Assange sexually molested her. In a London court Tuesday, a lawyer accused Assange of having unprotected sex with the woman while she was asleep.

Afterward, he stayed in the apartment for nearly a week.

During that time, the first woman tried unsuccessfully to reach Assange and, on Aug. 20, tracked down the apartment where he was staying. The two women got to talking.

After swapping Assange stories, they jointly contacted police — and filed rape complaints.

Complicating the case is a vibrant discussion on the Internet. One of the accusers wrote a blog post in January — months before she filed her complaint with police — offering seven tips on punishing a "cheating lover."

Assange has denied the allegations in both cases and is fighting extradition to Sweden for further questioning. His British lawyer has said the suspicions stem from a "dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex." While unprotected sex cannot in itself be interpreted as rape in Sweden, sexual intercourse with a person who is asleep is considered nonconsensual.

Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, claims the courts are stacked against defendants in sex cases and Assange essentially has to prove he is innocent. "Just entering a courtroom with the crime description rape means you are down 3-0 in the first half," he says.

However, despite having the highest rate of reported sex offenses among 24 European countries — 47 per 100,000 citizens — Sweden sees only 10 percent of those cases lead to convictions, a 2009 European Commission-funded study found.

Eva Diesen, a lawyer and researcher at Stockholm University, said the low conviction rate is in part due to a lack of material evidence, and that's the case with Assange.

Since the complaints were filed in August, three prosecutors overruled one another on whether to open an investigation. Such murky legal waters are the norm for sex-crime investigations in Sweden, Diesen said.

"Some prosecutors are very cautious and prefer not to do anything they are uncertain of, while other prosecutors choose to do something because they feel it is important to pursue a case and trust more details will emerge," she said.

Several high-profile cases in recent years have led to debate within Sweden about the country's unusual laws.

In 2007, Swedes protested after a court acquitted two men known in the Stockholm club scene of raping a 19-year-old woman. Despite her injuries, the court said it couldn't prove rape because she had previously been involved in violent sex games with the men. An appeals court overturned the ruling, saying text messages between the men proved they lied about what happened.

In 2008, Chilean-born tenor Tito Beltran was sentenced to two years in prison for raping an 18-year-old woman during a tour, a case that attracted attention not only because of his celebrity but also because the verdict relied heavily on the woman's account. The court said witnesses who spoke to the woman after the event supported her claim.

Last month, a government-sponsored report on violent crimes against women criticized police for not doing enough to gather physical evidence of rape. Another review urged even stricter rape legislation, suggesting all sexual acts that take place without both parties' express consent should be criminalized, even if there is no violence.

___

Cassandra Vinograd contributed to this report from London.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Originally Posted by Wooglin

]ok...and?

You don't see the parrallell of what the Espionage act wasn't applied to in the Case of Robert Novak / in it's jurisdiction, as opposed to trying to apply it to someone outside your jurisdiction.

How so? According to his wiki page:

You'd want to query Scooter Libby on that - he's currently in Prison. Bush wouldn't pardon him. If it's not in your jurisdiction let alone not a citizen of yours, for a crime against stateside, committed outside stateside, then it goes without saying wanting to prosecute a guy has so many open ends people so eager for his prosecution, might have to reconsider to what extent they are willing to apply the same standards across the board.

Who was solicited? And why does it matter if it was in the US or not?

We don't know whether Assange solicited it or not, even if he did, he doesn't necessarily need to solicit it from U.S territory if he did not commit a crime outside U.S jurisdiction, then what right have you got to get access to that individual. It's further compounded if the guy has caved in an sought consular support.Because, then it's likely unless some sort of agreement exists, that their own constitution will not allow it!

What laws? Is there some extradition request for Rumsfield?

Google is your friend.

Consider that:
Yahoo made an election promise that if elected, he would bring about Pollards Freedom.
That Israel has refused to extradite Sella (Pollards contact) when indicted, by a U.S court to this very day.

Consider further that Assange, does not want to go to any country which may allow extradition on indictment.
Consider whether extradition orders in one country will allow a person to be transferred from one country to another, which in turn may also allow indictment extradition in another.
Consider whether consular support of that National wouldn't cause a fuss if that were to be the case.

There is quite a bit of precedent to say things arn't as simple as grabbing the guy and bringing him back Stateside for prosecution. This simple fact is cause enough to question more extreme reactions, such as the guy should be shot. Australia for example, will not extradite anyone facing the death penalty in another country. Treason is a death penalty, and these are Low end state dept docs as guys in the know have already said.

You don't see the parrallell of what the Espionage act wasn't applied to in the Case of Robert Novak / in it's jurisdiction, as opposed to trying to apply it to someone outside your jurisdiction.

No. I don't see the relevance. Did the Espionage Act apply to Novak? Apparently so. Does it apply to Assange? Apparently so.
Circumstances are different from case to case. Whether or not they chose to apply it doesn't change the fact that it's applicable.

You'd want to query Scooter Libby on that - he's currently in Prison. Bush wouldn't pardon him. If it's not in your jurisdiction let alone not a citizen of yours, for a crime against stateside, committed outside stateside, then it goes without saying wanting to prosecute a guy has so many open ends people so eager for his prosecution, might have to reconsider to what extent they are willing to apply the same standards across the board.

It doesn't matter if he is a citizen or not. Again, unless you can show me how the Espionage Act is not legally applicable I don't see how any of this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to want to compare different people and circumstances and make some overall judgement on it's applicability, but you have not shown that it does not apply to Assange.

We don't know whether Assange solicited it or not, even if he did, he doesn't necessarily need to solicit it from U.S territory if he did not commit a crime outside U.S jurisdiction, then what right have you got to get access to that individual. It's further compounded if the guy has caved in an sought consular support.Because, then it's likely unless some sort of agreement exists, that their own constitution will not allow it!

We indict him. We get him extradited. Obviously he does not want to be extradited and obviously it will take someone willing to. Right now, Assange doesn't have much choice where he goes, does he? If the administration wants him bad enough, they'll probably get him. That's the only hurdle I see here...how bad do they want him? But again, none of this shows that the US cannot legally apply the Espionage Act.

I'm not sure why people think anyone can do whatever they'd like with stolen, classified US documents and no laws apply to them as long as they are outside the US. Nobody has shown me a law or legal precedent that allows this. Give me the legal specifics as to why the espionage act is not applicable.

Google is your friend.

Making your point, whatever it is, is not my responsibility. It's yours.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Consider that:
Yahoo made an election promise that if elected, he would bring about Pollards Freedom.
That Israel has refused to extradite Sella (Pollards contact) when indicted, by a U.S court to this very day.

Consider further that Assange, does not want to go to any country which may allow extradition on indictment.
Consider whether extradition orders in one country will allow a person to be transferred from one country to another, which in turn may also allow indictment extradition in another.
Consider whether consular support of that National wouldn't cause a fuss if that were to be the case.

There is quite a bit of precedent to say things arn't as simple as grabbing the guy and bringing him back Stateside for prosecution. This simple fact is cause enough to question more extreme reactions, such as the guy should be shot. Australia for example, will not extradite anyone facing the death penalty in another country. Treason is a death penalty, and these are Low end state dept docs as guys in the know have already said.

Consider that this still doesn't show how the Espionage Act is not applicable to Assange, which was the discussion you decided to comment on. Obviously it's not necessarily simple. Who said it was?

edit: And we can't try him for treason. He's not a US citizen. We would try him for espionage.

Originally Posted by Wooglin

Consider that this still doesn't show how the Espionage Act is not applicable to Assange, which was the discussion you decided to comment on. Obviously it's not necessarily simple. Who said it was?

edit: And we can't try him for treason. He's not a US citizen. We would try him for espionage.

his life isn't worth a slug nickel, he will be looking behind him everywhere he goes, and he probably will never see it coming, the bullet, pellet, dart, poison or knife that gets him. Nothing like having dozens of secret services with a death warrent for you... I'd say the Russians, Israeli's and CIA have the biggest chance of getting him, and the order of operations is pretty grim. For his sake I hope the CIA gets him first, they probably won't kill his innocent friends and family... I wonder if Obama signed the papers on him...

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

his life isn't worth a slug nickel, he will be looking behind him everywhere he goes, and he probably will never see it coming, the bullet, pellet, dart, poison or knife that gets him. Nothing like having dozens of secret services with a death warrent for you... I'd say the Russians, Israeli's and CIA have the biggest chance of getting him, and the order of operations is pretty grim. For his sake I hope the CIA gets him first, they probably won't kill his innocent friends and family... I wonder if Obama signed the papers on him...

I think he's too high profile now to be taken out by the US. However, for the same reason I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did, since the US would surely get the blame anyway. So for that reason, perhaps we want to make sure he stays alive, for now.

Protests, cyber-skirmishes rage over WikiLeaks
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press 33 mins ago

LONDON – Skirmishes raged across in cyberspace Thursday between WikiLeaks supporters and the companies they accuse of trying to stifle the group, with websites on both sides of the battle line choked off by attacks.

Offline, some efforts by the U.S. government and its allies to punish the website dedicated to publishing secret documents landed in court or headed to one. Judicial authorities in France foiled the French government's effort to boot WikiLeaks from its French computer servers, while supporters in Switzerland and Germany threatened lawsuits against U.S. financial companies who have cut their ties to WikiLeaks.

A protest in Australia — the first of a series planned there and in Britain — sent about 250 demonstrators into the streets of Brisbane.

"Over the last few weeks, we've seen a worldwide campaign against WikiLeaks and its project to create more transparency within government," rally organizer Jessica Payne said. "We're here today to defend WikiLeaks and defend our right to freedom of information."

WikiLeaks has been under intense pressure since it began publishing some 250,000 U.S. State Department cables, with attacks on its websites and threats against its founder, Julian Assange, who is now in a British jail fighting extradition to Sweden on sex crime allegations.

U.S. officials say WikiLeaks' actions have thrown diplomacy worldwide into disarray, caused countries to curtail their dealings with America and, in the case of an earlier release of classified military documents, put the lives of informants at risk.

The Obama administration has put intense pressure on U.S.-based Internet companies to cut any ties to WikiLeaks, and many have done so, including MasterCard Inc., Visa Inc., Amazon.com, PayPal Inc. and EveryDNS. Those moves have hurt WikiLeaks' ability to accept donations and support publishing efforts — and raised concerns at the United Nations.

Top U.N. human rights official Navi Pillay told reporters in Geneva that she was concerned that moves against WikiLeaks "could be interpreted as an attempt to censor the publication of information" in a way that violates WikiLeaks' right to free expression.

Online attacks on WikiLeaks' perceived foes continued Thursday, rendering PayPal's blog unreachable and targeting the popular online payment service's infrastructure. The loose-knit online collective Anonymous — which has claimed responsibility for the cyber-assaults in defense of WikiLeaks — said it was fighting "against those who seek to misuse the Internet," according to an unsigned pamphlet that circulated Thursday on Twitter.

Anonymous has also suffered online setbacks. Its main website was unreachable Thursday, while a Twitter account held in Anonymous's name was also pulled. Neither development seemed to stop supporters from distributing software used to overwhelm target websites with requests for data.

WikiLeaks has said it has no connection and no contact with Anonymous.

"We neither condemn nor applaud these attacks," spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said, referring to the moves against MasterCard and other sites. "We believe they are a reflection of public opinion on the actions of the targets."

WikiLeaks has reported repeated attacks on its computer systems over the last few weeks by unknown assailants. Earlier the group attributed the cyber attacks to the intelligence agencies of the United States and its allies — although Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said he had "no information to suggest the Defense Department has knowledge" of the attacks on WikiLeaks.

Anonymous and its sympathizers are using a modified version of software generally used to conduct "stress testing" on websites, according to Paul Mutton, an analyst with London-based internet research and security company Netcraft, which is tracking the attacks.

The technique allows even unsophisticated supporters to participate in attacks because all they have to do is download the file, which is then remotely operated to send a stream of bogus page requests to target websites.

Mutton said the number of computers spewing out spam had jumped from 400 to 2,000 machines on Wednesday — relatively small numbers, he said, but still apparently enough to overwhelm MasterCard's main page for several hours.

"I've been surprised at how effective its been," he said. "You don't need huge numbers of people to carry out an attack like that."

Meanwhile WikiLeaks' financial facilitators said they were sharpening their legal knives.

The Germany-based Wau Holland Foundation, which has previously described itself as WikiLeaks' main backer, on Thursday protested PayPal's decision to cut ties with WikiLeaks and said about euro10,000 ($13,000) in donations for WikiLeaks had been frozen in the company's account.

The foundation rejected PayPal's allegation it was supporting illegal activity and said its lawyer had demanded that PayPal restore access to the account.

WikiLeaks' payment processor, DataCell ehf, said it was preparing to sue Visa and MasterCard over their refusal to process donations to WikiLeaks. DataCell CEO Andreas Fink said he would seek damages from the U.S. credit card companies over their decision to block WikiLeaks funds, saying "it is simply ridiculous to think WikiLeaks has done anything criminal."

He said he had been told that credit card donations to WikiLeaks would be frozen at least until next week.

MasterCard has declined repeated requests for comment on why they suspended WikiLeaks.

Visa Europe Ltd. spokesman Simon Kleine said organizations could receive funds through Visa so long as they were legal and didn't breach the company's operating rules. But he said when issues arose "we need to ensure that they're in compliance with our operating rules and in compliance with local laws."

He declined to say what those issues were in WikiLeaks' case. "We investigate on a commercially confidential basis," he said, denying allegations the company had folded under U.S. pressure.

PayPal's Vice President Osama Bedie acknowledged that his company cut ties after seeing a U.S. government letter that said WikiLeaks' activities in the U.S. were illegal.

Another pro-WikiLeaks rally was planned in Brisbane on Friday, and similar protest was being held Monday in London outside the Swedish Embassy.

In the central Pakistani city of Multan, dozens of people took to the streets to burn U.S. and British flags to protest Assange's detention. Organizer Tariq Naeemullah called for the Australian's immediate release.

"The brave man was arrested because he was exposing the real face of the big powers," he said.

___

Associated Press Writer Juergen Baetz in Berlin, Frank Jordans in Geneva and Khalid Tanveer in Multan, Pakistan contributed to this report
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved

Wikileaks' connection to Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The silence is deafening

* December 8th, 2010 3:51 pm ET
* By Jim Kouri, Public Safety Examiner
Wikileaks' connection to Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The silence is deafening - National public safety | Examiner.com
While the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange continues to hold center stage as a result of publishing classified documents stolen from the Pentagon and the U.S. State Department, the suspected leaker -- or primary suspect in the case -- remains a mystery to most Americans thanks to the adherence to a politically-correct orthodoxy within the news media.

The suspect in the leaking of classified military files, SPC Bradley Manning, voiced his disgust with U.S. Army commanders and U.S. "society at large" on his Facebook page just prior to his alleged downloading of thousands of secret documents, according to the British news media.


According to one story appearing in Britain's The Telegraph, Manning, who served as a US Army intelligence analyst, became depressed after a break-up with his homosexual campanion. He also wrote: "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," and quoted a joke about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron.

Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: "Bradley Manning didn't want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast."

The 22-year old Manning is awaiting court martial as the primary suspect in the leaking of more than 90,000 secret documents to Wikileak.org creator Julian Assang, who in turn posted the documents on his web site. The secret documents subsequently appeared in major U.S. newspapers in a security breach which Pentagon officials say has endangered the lives of serving soldiers and Afghan civilians.

Pentagon investigators plan to delve into Manning's background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the U.S. Army. According to The Telegraph, in May 2010, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: "Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn't have anything left."

Five days later, according to the Telegraph story, he said he was "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend," then later the same day said he was "not a piece of equipment" and was "beyond frustrated with people and society at large."

Manning was arrested at the end of May after allegedly leaking a controversial video of a U.S. helicopter attack, and he became the chief suspect when the Afghan war documents were leaked to Wikileak.org and appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Manning, who is reportedly on suicide watch, was transferred from a military jail in Kuwait to a prison in Washington DC, as the Pentagon called in the FBI to assist in the hunt for the source of the leak.

According to Accuracy in Media, a media watchdog group, Manning's Facebook page shows that he enjoyed the MSNBC program hosted by Rachel Maddow, the lesbian activist, and that he listed the left-wing Media Matters and the National Center for Transgender Equality as being among his "likes and interests."

"Manning's affinity on his Facebook page for 'Repeal the Ban' is also significant. It is a project of a group called Servicemembers United, which describes itself as the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, their allies and supporters. The group receives financial support from the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros," wrote AIM's editor Cliff Kincaid.

While the President Barack Obama and his administration are calling for an end to the Bill Clinton-initiated "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays and lesbians in the U.S. military, most Americans are being told only half the story.

==============

Wikileaks whistle-blower: Where's the money, Julian?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12...leaks_no_help/

Bradley Manning fund hasn't got a penny

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 9th December 2010 15:03 GMT

Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization

"There has been an unconscionable failure [in conventional journalism] to protect sources. It is those sources who take all the risks... journalists don't take their job seriously" - Julian Assange.

In the rush to beatify St Julian d'Assange, one figure in the Wikileaks saga has been overlooked.

US Army Private Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia since July, suspected of leaking material, including the diplomatic cables, to Wikileaks. Manning was turned in by former hacker Adrian Lamo, who passed his details onto WiReD.

Manning's defense fund has raised over $90,000 - but not a penny has been received from Wikileaks, as was promised, the legal team has confirmed in a statement.

"Immediately following Bradley’s arrest in late June 2010, the whistle-blower website Wikileaks publicly solicited donations specifically for Bradley’s legal defense expenses," notes the BMSN.

"In July 2010, Wikileaks pledged to contribute a 'substantial amount' towards Bradley’s legal defense costs. Since Bradley’s selection of David Coombs as his civilian defense attorney in August 2010, the Bradley Manning Support Network has unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate the pledged Wikileaks contribution.

"We’re forced to clarify that Wikileaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from Wikileaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming and that their continued contributions and support are crucial."

Earlier this week, Cryptome site operator John Young described Wikileaks as a commercial operation from the outset. This view is bolstered by this curious story via a Reg reader:

Three years ago, a friend of mine saw someone from Wikileaks speak, and they mentioned that they were looking for mirrors. Afterwards, he emailed them, saying that he'd be prepared to do it if they'd give him an rsync end point. They replied saying that if he wanted to help, he could donate money. His reaction was the same as John Young's, that this was an organisation out to make money.

Money comes into Wikileaks - but it doesn't come out. Readers outraged by the "persecution" of the narcissistic Assange may wish to consider where their sympathies really should lie. Without Manning, there would be no Wikileaks sensation. ®

Originally Posted by Wooglin

No. I don't see the relevance. Did the Espionage Act apply to Novak? Apparently so. Does it apply to Assange? Apparently so.
Circumstances are different from case to case. Whether or not they chose to apply it doesn't change the fact that it's applicable.

I see, so where's your degree in constitutional Law? I'll let you in on a secret, I don't have one. but what there is, is a lot of precedent to say that what your saying doesn't agree with what has happened. Novak wasn't charged, Novak claimed he never was threatened with such charge (let alone any at all)

It doesn't matter if he is a citizen or not. Again, unless you can show me how the Espionage Act is not legally applicable I don't see how any of this is relevant to the discussion. You seem to want to compare different people and circumstances and make some overall judgement on it's applicability, but you have not shown that it does not apply to Assange.

Yes it DOES matter whether he is a citizen or not. The U.S is not the only country in the world with laws, and the U.S constitution does not rule the roost nor does it over ride other laws. Infact, foreign nationals that you DO detain, you have significant problems in prosecuting. If Gitmo doesn't stare you in the face as testament to this fact, nothing will. Australia will NOT extradite anyone facing a death penalty whether you like it or not. To be perfectly blunt, DEFAT will politely tell you where to go, and we'll shove the damn cake in your face and tell you where to stick the damn fingers as well. Whatever red herrings you'd like to pull across the case to substantiate your opinion that he can be prosecuted under a very old act, the bottom of the line is that you do not have control of Assange, and even if you did, The first thing his lawyers would do would be to examine precedent. Whatever the outcome is - if it ever eventuated is for a Jury to decide.

We indict him. We get him extradited. Obviously he does not want to be extradited and obviously it will take someone willing to. Right now, Assange doesn't have much choice where he goes, does he? If the administration wants him bad enough, they'll probably get him. That's the only hurdle I see here...how bad do they want him? But again, none of this shows that the US cannot legally apply the Espionage Act.

The Administration won't get Assange to trial with the full range of trial punishments available to it, if Australian Consular assistance is on it's toes. He's in a commonwealth country, with binding agreements that are available to commonwealth citizens. Sweden isn't a Commonwealth Country. If you guys do get hold of him, it will likely be with conditions. You guys do not even get to prosecute YOUR OWN citizens, for capital crimes they commit in AUSTRALIA for laws you guys have made for your people overseas, without reaching prosecution agreements, with us, that they won't be prosecuted against binding agreements we sign elsewhere, when we do EXTRADITE them back to you - and they are YOUR OWN citizens. Why do we know this is likely to happen if it does? Because of Precedent. You can't apply any of your Espionage act until the countries concearned (At present there are at least 4, maybe even more) agree. This is not Afghanistan 2001 - You couldn't even hold foreign nationals in your own prisons, notably the UK, where Assange now is.... Or otherwise.

I'm not sure why people think anyone can do whatever they'd like with stolen, classified US documents and no laws apply to them as long as they are outside the US. Nobody has shown me a law or legal precedent that allows this. Give me the legal specifics as to why the espionage act is not applicable.

Since J.J Pollard did his crimes, as a U.S citizen, on behalf of Israel, Israel has made him a citizen, whilst in U.S Prison, it's Political head has repeatedly asked for his release. He has a Fund set up to raise awareness for him, set up in Toronto, and has refused to Extradite Sella to the U.S.A.
Your own Prosecution of foreign detainees held at Gitmo, is an absolute farce. The biggest leak of Bush era resulted in the leaker and not the publisher being Jailed, and the Abu Ghraib case demonstrated a pretty good ability of responsible persons to melt away into the background.

That a big enough precedent for ya?

Making your point, whatever it is, is not my responsibility. It's yours.

This is getting tiring. Rumsfield hasn't been extradited to Germany because of some claim against Rumsfield. Because the State has ultimate authority over it's subjects - State V. State. All you've said is that you think you can prosecute him under the Espionage act. I'm less inclined to think this is based on fact, rather than a viewpoint that what he did was fundamentally wrong. In short, I think you opinion is guided by your feeling, not on what is.

I can understand why you don't like Assange. My personal opinion about the guy is not really relevant - I'm sort of glad that the U.S Ambassador isn't holding back when he thinks our P.M is a Pratt. It makes me like you guys more. So in some sense I'm glad of the leaks. In reality I just couldn't really care and am looking for a convincing argument. But let me make it perfectly clear, that extra-ordinary rendition, or whatever it is, may have existed in countries that have little regard for human rights issues - but if you think U.S officials are going to enter into any western country to seize a person, those officials would be treated no more than a common criminal kidnapping an individual.

That is reality.

This is getting tired. I understand your sentiment, but the understanding that other countries don't need to do SFA to appease this sentiment by handing over a particular person, is void. And then there's the question of whether you can even prosecute the guy successfully, other than the sentiment of a few bush lawyers.Lawyers are a condom on the brick of progress, and as often wrong as they are right & ALWAYS seeking publicity.

Originally Posted by Wooglin

I think he's too high profile now to be taken out by the US. However, for the same reason I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did, since the US would surely get the blame anyway. So for that reason, perhaps we want to make sure he stays alive, for now.

I think you are correct, no respectable government wants the responsibility for killing him. Legitimate prosecution seems to be unlikely at this point. But I still believe his life will be a paranoid nightmare, with constant fear and few willing to associate with him for fear of being collaterally involved in something happening to him. Some of the less respectable entities involved may not be so careful in exacting revenge and sending a message.