• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the USA prosecuting Assange.

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Now I don't care for the guy but my reasons for that are mostly personal.

But when it comes to charging him with things like espionage....I'm not so sure I'm okay with that. It seems to me that the best way to deal with this issue is continue to find and prosecute those that leak the information and not those that merely disseminate it.


On the other hand it would seem he is in possession of information pertaining to bank fraud which, if true, he should be turning over to the relevant authorities.
 
how about you appreciate the fact that he's exposed the contempt the american government has for it's allies and focus your dislike on those in government who think they are archie.
 
It's ridiculously counterproductive. The US (government and commentariat) should have maintained stoic silence, while strengthening their internal security and prosecuting those who leaked the documents. The reaction from the US has given Wikileaks a major boost.
 
If the US want to charge him with espionage, they will have to redefine what this means.

They cannot charge him with treason because he's not a US citizen.
 
armageddonman said:
If the US want to charge him with espionage, they will have to redefine what this means.

They cannot charge him with treason because he's not a US citizen.
Click to expand...

That's right. I've yet to see a credible case for Assagne breaking any law at all. The Australian Prime Minister claimed he did a couple of days ago, only to backtrack at rapid speed.
 
lionking said:
That's right. I've yet to see a credible case for Assagne breaking any law at all. The Australian Prime Minister claimed he did a couple of days ago, only to backtrack at rapid speed.
Click to expand...

Right. If the US thought they could make a legal case against him, they'd have done so months ago.

Pathetic. :)
 
They might be able to get him on blackmail and withholding evidence but that would be it. And I'm not really sure why they would want to. It's not like it's going to help at this point.
 
BenBurch said:
I am fairly sure that when he is charged it will be a violation of income tax and financial regulations.
Click to expand...

Hard to make a jurisdiction argument stick. The idea that the US can tell an Australian citizen to pay tax on money donated to him by a Swede is, um, legally novel.
 
Travis said:
They might be able to get him on blackmail and withholding evidence but that would be it. And I'm not really sure why they would want to. It's not like it's going to help at this point.
Click to expand...

"Witholding evidence" would be a hoot. On the one hand, the US is outraged that he published a number of the cables (around 2,000 at the moment), and then charge him that he withholds the other 248,000? (or didn't you mean that, Travis?).

The definition of blackmail includes that you demand money from the party you blackmail, so that's an epic fail too.
 
Travis said:
On the other hand it would seem he is in possession of information pertaining to bank fraud which, if true, he should be turning over to the relevant authorities.
Click to expand...

Private citizens have no duty to report felonies in most of the USA. From a moral perspective, you are of course right. From a legal perspective,.... I don't believe there's any "should" involved.
 
drkitten said:
Hard to make a jurisdiction argument stick. The idea that the US can tell an Australian citizen to pay tax on money donated to him by a Swede is, um, legally novel.
Click to expand...

They have or had a Washington DC phone number and are doing business in the USA. Money donated here was for a long time routed through a US agent, PayPal. That is really all you need to establish jurisdiction as I understand it. Now, you look at their filings. Where there any filings? If there were, are they proper and correct? Who signed them?
 
drkitten said:
"They"? Sounds like they should charge Wikileaks, which is a separate and distinct legal entity.
Click to expand...

If Assange signed the documents, or if it can be shown that he in some other way authorized an improper filing, he is the one who would be charged.

Remember that Al Capone ordered the murders of dozens, but he was never charged with murder. He served time in federal prison for income tax violations.
 
I have a huge dislike for Assange,who I don't think is an "honest broker" ( I think his Anti American attitudes are painfully clear) but agree that criminal prosecutioin is a bit much.
Besides, given the arrogant attitude he is pretty much displaying, he will probably self destruct as far as creditbility goes.
 
dudalb said:
I have a huge dislike for Assange,who I don't think is an "honest broker" ( I think his Anti American attitudes are painfully clear) but agree that criminal prosecutioin is a bit much.
Besides, given the arrogant attitude he is pretty much displaying, he will probably self destruct as far as creditbility goes.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree. I think that we should have a crime of douchebaggery. If found guilty one must introduce themselves at all times as "Hi, I'm Julian Assange, I'm a douche bag." Maybe they could wear a scarlet DB as well. It would save time, because sometimes you're not really sure if someone is a douche bag or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom