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

**Wooglin** · 10 Dec 10,, 16:08

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)

I see. So your argument is that because Novak wasn't charged, nobody can be charged. Don't need a degree in Constitutional Law to see the problem with that logic. If there were no charges and no court case then how could there be legal precedent?

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

^precedent

Yes it DOES matter whether he is a citizen or not.

Ok, show me then. This administration is currently discussing charging him with espionage. There are many arguments being made. I have yet to see one argument about the act's non-applicability because he's not a US citizen. I wonder why that is. Don't say it, show me.

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.

Ok. Then show me the one that says it's perfectly legal to steal and publish classified documents from anyone whey want.

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

Not relevant to the applicability of the Espionage Act.

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.

That's fine, but two things. 1) Assange is not in Australia 2) It's not relevant to the applicability of the Espionage Act

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.

Please point out the red herring. A red herring is rambling on about gitmo, and Australia, and Pollard, and degrees, etc. when the discussion is about the Espionage Act and Assange. Nothing you've said thus far shows how the Espionage Act does not legally apply to Assange.

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

Getting him is another topic. As I already said, we would need someone willing to extradite. This, however, doesn't mean the Espionage Act doesn't apply to Assange. (Are you seeing a pattern here yet?)

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.

Of course we can apply it. Getting him and prosecuting him are a different matter. Btw, last part = red herring.

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?

No, because they are all irrelevant and I'm not sure you know what legal precedent is (see above) Was there some court decision in any of the above that is relevant to the Espionage Act? The closest you came to anything of relevance was the leak in the Bush era. Ok, so what legal precedent was set there that suggests the Espionage is not legally applicable to Assange?

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.

My opinion is based on these:

United States Code: Title 18,793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | LII / Legal Information Institute

United States Code: Title 18,798. Disclosure of classified information | LII / Legal Information Institute

Nowhere in there can I find anything that says it only applies to US citizens. As I already said, I have yet to see anyone cite a law or legal precedent that suggests what Assange is doing is totally legal.

**USSWisconsin** · 10 Dec 10,, 16:33

If overt prosecution fails, at some point someone will plug the "leak" by any means necessary. Publishing classified documents is something that has been dealt with harshly and finally in the past, I don't imagine that is going to change.

**Double Edge** · 10 Dec 10,, 17:31

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

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.

Umm, if he pulls through this then WL will have passed its biggest test. They'll be made. They will become the premier destination to make leaks to worldwide.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Some of the less respectable entities involved may not be so careful in exacting revenge and sending a message.

Who are these entities exactly ?

Get the impression from posts here that 'somebody' might want to take him out. Are these entities acting out of their own interest or somebody else's. It all seems dark shadows talk to me.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

If overt prosecution fails, at some point someone will plug the "leak" by any means necessary. Publishing classified documents is something that has been dealt with harshly and finally in the past, I don't imagine that is going to change

Shooting the messenger ?

**Ne0** · 10 Dec 10,, 19:37

Pakistani media publish fake WikiLeaks cables attacking India
Comments alleged to be from WikiLeaks US embassy cables say Indian generals are genocidal and New Delhi backs militants

They read like the most extraordinary revelations. Citing the WikiLeaks cables, major Pakistani newspapers this morning carried stories that purported to detail eye-popping American assessments of India's military and civilian leaders.

According to the reports, US diplomats described senior Indian generals as vain, egotistical and genocidal; they said India's government is secretly allied with Hindu fundamentalists; and they claimed Indian spies are covertly supporting Islamist militants in Pakistan's tribal belt and Balochistan.

"Enough evidence of Indian involvement in Waziristan, Balochistan," read the front-page story in the News; an almost identical story appeared in the Urdu-language Jang, Pakistan's bestselling daily.

If accurate, the disclosures would confirm the worst fears of Pakistani nationalist hawks and threaten relations between Washington and New Delhi. But they are not accurate.

An extensive search of the WikiLeaks database by the Guardian by date, name and keyword failed to locate any of the incendiary allegations. It suggests this is the first case of WikiLeaks being exploited for propaganda purposes.

The controversial claims, published in four Pakistani national papers, were credited to the Online Agency, an Islamabad-based news service that has frequently run pro-army stories in the past. No journalist is bylined.

Shaheen Sehbai, group editor at the News, described the story as "agencies' copy" and said he would investigate its origins.

The incident fits in with the wider Pakistani reaction to WikiLeaks since the first cables emerged.

In the west, reports have focused on US worries for the safety of Pakistan's nuclear stockpile, or the army's support for Islamist militants such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group blamed for the Mumbai attack.

But Pakistan's media has given a wide berth to stories casting the military in a negative light, focusing instead on the foibles of the country's notoriously weak politicians.

Editors have pushed stories that focus on president Asif Ali Zardari's preoccupation with his death, prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's secret support for CIA drone strikes and tales of a bearded religious firebrand cosying up to the US ambassador.

Among ordinary citizens, the coverage has hardened perceptions that Pakistani leaders are in thrall to American power.

Pakistan has become "the world's biggest banana republic", wrote retired diplomat Asif Ezdi last week.

Military and political leaders, portrayed as dangerously divided in the cables, have banded together to downplay the assessment.

"Don't trust WikiLeaks," Gilani told reporters in Kabul last weekend. Beside him president Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, also tarred in the dispatches, nodded solemnly.

On Saturday the army, having stayed silent all week, denied claims that army chief General Ashfaq Kayani "distrusted" the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. Kayani "holds all political leaders in esteem", a spokesman said.

Meanwhile conspiracy theorists, including some journalists, insist Washington secretly leaked the cables in an effort to discredit the Muslim world; the Saudi ambassador described them as propaganda.

But senior judges favour their publication. Dismissing an attempt to block WikiLeaks last week, justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said the cables "may cause trouble for some personalities" but would be "good for the progress of the nation in the long run".

The lopsided media coverage highlights the strong influence of Pakistan's army over an otherwise vigorous free press.

This morning's stories disparaging Indian generals – one is said to be "rather a geek", another to be responsible for "genocide" and compared to Slobodan Milosevic – is counterbalanced by accounts of gushing American praise for Pakistan's top generals.

The actual WikiLeaks cables carry a more nuanced portraits of a close, if often uneasy, relationship between the US and Pakistan's military.

But the real cables do contain allegations of Indian support for Baloch separatists, largely sourced to British intelligence assessments.

Pakistan's press is generally cautious in reporting about its own army. But some internet commentators said the latest WikiLeaks story was a bridge too far.

Noting that the story was bylined to "agencies" – a term that in Pakistan means both a news agency and a spy outfit – the blogger Cafe Pyala asked: "How stupid do the 'Agencies' really think Pakistanis are?"

**USSWisconsin** · 10 Dec 10,, 19:59

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Umm, if he pulls through this then WL will have passed its biggest test. They'll be made. They will become the premier destination to make leaks to worldwide.

Who are these entities exactly ?

Get the impression from posts here that 'somebody' might want to take him out. Are these entities acting out of their own interest or somebody else's. It all seems dark shadows talk to me.

Shooting the messenger ?

What I mean is countries with poor records of acting responsibly, the list is long. Many of the leaks involved such countries. Few if any countries are above reproach in their international dealings.

They shoot the messenger all the time, its called limiting the damage, eliminating the problem, and many nastier things. I don't believe freedom of speech protects people disclosing state secrets, if the messenger is delivering state secrets to the enemy, it is espionage, that is my opinion.

This whole thing is pathetic in my opinion and so is this Assange character. In the case of the US involvement, the guy who was allowed to continue his espionage after sending numerous signals he was a loose cannon was a failure on the part of his superiors.

Disclosing crimes is one thing, dumping secret diplomatic and security related memos on the net is another thing, it is a reckless and immoral activity, just like what I would expect from the Assange character.

**Double Edge** · 10 Dec 10,, 20:21

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

What I mean is countries with poor records of acting responsibly, the list is long. Many of the leaks involved such countries. Few if any countries are above reproach in their international dealings.

They shoot the messenger all the time, its called limiting the damage, eliminating the problem, and many nastier things. I don't believe freedom of speech protects people disclosing state secrets, if the messenger is delivering state secrets to the enemy, it is espionage, that is my opinion.

I've not yet come across any cables painting less free countries in a bad light. Maybe cpl of guys getting drunk and having wild parties. And the point is its an american saying this not Assange.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

This whole thing is pathetic in my opinion and so is this Assange character. In the case of the US involvement, the guy who was allowed to continue his espionage after sending numerous signals he was a loose cannon was a failure on the part of his superiors.

Agree

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Disclosing crimes is one thing, dumping secret diplomatic and security related memos on the net is another thing, it is a reckless and immoral activity, just like what I would expect from the Assange character.

This has been repeated many time maybe not enough but your media is giving you the impression that the whole thing was just dumped out there in its entirety, unmodifed, nothing blanked out etc. That is not an accurate picture, there are cables that have been redacted and have loads of XXXXX where names would appear. Less than 1% of the stash is out there todate, they do like less than a hundred a day, I have no idea how long it will take for everything to come out. But rest assured nobody has access to it, they only have a file thats encrypted to the hilt. Unless WL for some reason realeases that key nothing more will be known until WL and the other agencies get around to releasing it.

Eveything you're feeling right now is by design, they deflected public attention off them for this cockup onto Assange. Have you seen any articles or reports asking the question, how do we ensure this never happens again ?

**USSWisconsin** · 10 Dec 10,, 20:28

Double Edge, It sounds like you understand this better than I do, having studied it more than I have, thanks for your insights, I agree with you, there appears to be much deception in the US Media about the whole thing.

**Wooglin** · 10 Dec 10,, 20:46

Originally Posted by Double Edge

What to make of this tweet ?

If Assange was in China doing the same thing, the West would have called him a dissident and given him a Nobel prize

Oh no....

Russia: Julian Assange Should Get Nobel Prize

The most important news and commentary to read right now. - The Slatest - Slate Magazine

lolololol

:cheers:

**Double Edge** · 10 Dec 10,, 20:59

TIME man of the year, maybe.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Double Edge, It sounds like you understand this better than I do, having studied it more than I have, thanks for your insights, I agree with you, there appears to be much deception in the US Media about the whole thing.

Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more

One, for Wooglin

Assange prosecution would be "extremely dangerous"

**kato** · 11 Dec 10,, 02:55

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Less than 1% of the stash is out there todate, they do like less than a hundred a day, I have no idea how long it will take for everything to come out. But rest assured nobody has access to it, they only have a file thats encrypted to the hilt.

The four selected media outlets - Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde to cover English, German, Spanish, French audiences - did get access to the full stash at their own discretion for analysis; Spiegel for example used 50 staff for analysis (number published). The Guardian leaked the database to the New York Times; see below. El Pais and Le Monde gained access after this happened, while Guardian and Spiegel were already media partners concerning the Iraq War Logs (along with NYT and Al Jazeera). Anything released in outlets other than the above five is second-hand copied info at best.

There is an agreed timetable between the above four outlets and wikileaks regarding the publication of articles, with wikileaks releasing the supporting cables the same day an article is being published. This has been confirmed by Assange as well as the editors of the various outlets. According to El Pais chief editor Javier Moreno the outlets "suggest" necessary censorship of names and wikileaks implements these suggestions before release of the relevant cable. By my estimate 40-50% of all released cables on wikileaks are directly connected to articles in the above outlets.

Whether NYT cooperates with wikileaks regarding the stuff above to the same capacity is unknown - NYT's executive editor Keller has stated they are not a "media partner" and did not receive the cables directly, but that they are "in a working relationship" with wikileaks. As US officials (the US ambassador in London) have refused working in direct cooperation with wikileaks/Assange, the NYT now seems to be functioning as a mutual connection, with the US government suggesting things to NYT, and NYT getting confirmation of issues raised in the cables - both for itself and the four other outlets. This is according to Keller.

**Chunder** · 11 Dec 10,, 04:04

Originally Posted by Wooglin

...

Wooglin, you can shout from the hilltops that the U.S Espionage act applies to everyone, but the cold hard fact is that it's about asuseless as the paper it's written on outside the U.S,. Assange may not be in Australia, he's in Britain. They are both Commonwealth countries, they have binding agreements with one another that the U.K must exercise in honor of those agreements, if it thinks that Assange will fall subject to a law befowl of it's own (and to extend Australias). The U.K has demonstrated it's adherence to the repatriation of it's own nationals held in U.S Custody, Australia, less so, but still to effect.

Two former Australian PM's, one of which is presently foreign minister,the other the second longest serving & the U.S's most ardent supporter in living memory, agrees. From BOTH sides of parliament's political spectrum, both agree that the Assange is not personally responsible. http://www.news.com.au/features/wiki...-1225969341437

Your talking about steps that will have no effect on the distribution of information... at all. And it will have just as much effect as IRAN trying to block facebook or otherwise....

Example:

WikiLeaks rival site 'underway' by Julian Assange's former co-worker

Read more: WikiLeaks rival site 'underway' by Julian Assange's former co-worker | News.com.au

Wikileaks is just a Napster of it's time.

**Wooglin** · 11 Dec 10,, 04:50

Wooglin, you can shout from the hilltops that the U.S Espionage act applies to everyone, but the cold hard fact is that it's about asuseless as the paper it's written on outside the U.S,.

Yes, you've voiced that opinion repeatedly yet have not been able to reference anything that actually supports your assertion it doesn't apply outside the US.

Julian Assange's lawyers 'preparing for possible US charges' | Media | The Guardian

Julian Assange's lawyers 'preparing for possible US charges'

Legal team for WikiLeaks founder says Washington may be planning to invoke Espionage Act to indict their client

Interesting. Nobody argues it's not applicable because he's not a US citizen. I wonder why. :hmmm:

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

Yet another one where nobody argues it's not applicable because he's not a US citizen.
:hmmm:

**nvishal** · 12 Dec 10,, 11:49

Originally Posted by Double Edge

That is not an accurate picture, there are cables that have been redacted and have loads of XXXXX where names would appear.

Maybe spies are kept undisclosed in diplomatic exchanges or maybe mannings logins didn't have the necessary privileges.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Less than 1% of the stash is out there todate, they do like less than a hundred a day, I have no idea how long it will take for everything to come out. But rest assured nobody has access to it

There are some cables released by a few websites which i couldn't track back to the wikileak site. So some papers definitely have access to pre-releases. Even the media is taking its time to release just few cables at a time. Must be because WL team members regularly email a few dozen cables to the media.

**kato** · 12 Dec 10,, 12:48

See what i posted above in #190. Wikileaks has an agreed timetable on releases with four (five) media outlets who already have the full database.

**rj1** · 13 Dec 10,, 17:32

Turns out the "Anonymous" group aren't so anonymous.

BBC News - Anonymous Wikileaks attackers 'easy' to find says study

Anonymous Wikileaks attackers 'easy' to find says study

Working out who carried out web attacks in support of Wikileaks would be easy, suggests a study.

The tool used in the attacks leaks the net addresses of everyone who used it, reveal Dutch computer scientists.

In early December thousands of people downloaded the tool to aid attacks on Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and Amazon.

The study found that the tool makes no attempt to hide a user's net address which would lead any investigator almost straight to an attacker.

No spoofing

"What I do expect is that some people will be caught," said Dr Aiko Pras of the Design and Analysis of Communication Systems department at the University of Twente who lead the study.

Dr Pras said some countries will want to make an example of those that took part in the web attacks in early December. Two people have already been arrested in Holland for co-ordinating the attacks.

The Anonymous group behind the attacks recommended supporters download and install LOIC to punish companies it regarded as being anti-Wikileaks.

Advice on the site from which LOIC can be downloaded re-assured people by saying there was "next to zero" chance that anyone who used it would be caught.

However, said Dr Pras, analysis of the data traffic LOIC generates suggests that it would be easy to find attackers.

"The current attack technique can be compared to overwhelming someone with letters, but putting your real home address at the back of the envelope," they wrote in a report on LOIC.

To investigate how LOIC works the University of Twente team set up a small network and bombarded one machine with packets of data generated by LOIC.

The target machine was set up to record information about the packets of data being sent to it. This is known as a denial of service attack and aims to overwhelm a host or server with request for data.

A look at the packets of data generated by LOIC showed the net address of an attacker in every one and revealed that "the tool does not take any precautions to obfuscate the origin of the attack" wrote the researchers.

This was a surprise, they said, because techniques to spoof net addresses are well known and trivial to use.

"The tool was written to do a stress test on your own servers and there was no intention for it to used to do denial of service, said Dr Pras, "because of that they did not do any anonymization."

LOIC tries to create thousands of connections to a target, said Dr Pras, which would mean that there was plenty of evidence police forces could use to trace attackers.

"Most people have no clue about the traces they leave on the internet," he said.