The U.S.'s Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:27 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Something's screwing up. One more time:

Further on the WikiLeaks conundrum

Quote:
So now that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been rounded up in Britain on a warrant out of Sweden, where he's wanted for questioning in two sex assault cases, what would it take for the U.S. government to prosecute him for publishing — and disseminating to newspapers around the world — thousands of classified State Department cables? And what would it mean for freedom of speech and the press in America if it tried?

Those questions hovered over Washington this week after several members of Congress and the Obama Administration suggested that Assange should indeed face criminal prosecution for posting and disseminating to the media thousands of secret diplomatic cables containing candid—and often extremely embarrassing—assessments from American diplomats. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell went so far as to label Assange a high-tech terrorist. "He has done enormous damage to our country and I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law," McConnell said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday. Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday vowed to examine every statute possible to bring charges against Assange, including some that have never before been used to prosecute a publisher. And in the Senate, some members are already readying a bill that could lower the current legal threshold for when revealing state secrets is considered a crime.

I'll finish in the next post.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:28 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
But efforts in either direction will likely run into the same obstacle: The First Amendment. Thanks to nearly a century of cases dealing with the clash between national security and the freedom of the press, the Constitution provides enormous protection for publishers of state secrets. Those who leak the secrets in the first place — government officials, even soldiers, for instance — can and are prosecuted, such as Army private, Bradley Manning, now sitting in a military prison after having been charged with illegally downloading secret files amid suspicions that he gave them to WikiLeaks.

Putting someone like Assange in jail for publishing documents he did not himself steal, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of thing that First Amendment makes difficult. "From everything we've seen, [Manning] was merely responding to the notion that Assange might publish the cables," former CIA inspector general Frederick P. Hitz told TIME. "There's nothing to show that Assange played an active role in obtaining the information." He conceded that the leaks had been tremendously damaging, but added "I don't see any easy effort there" in pursuing charges.

Holder has said the government will explore whether Assange could be charged with a form of theft since the records had been stolen, though such a course is fraught will obstacles, given that the files are digital copies of government records. Holder said too the government will consider whether Assange might be guilty of conspiring somehow with Manning, or went beyond the traditional role of publisher by acting as a kind of broker in dissemenating the files to newspapers around the world. What worries famed First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams is that if the government stretches to get around the Constitution to charge Assange, it may end up damaging the press freedoms enjoyed by every publisher

But if WikiLeaks was wrong to publish the cables, what of the newspapers that also published the secret documents? After all, WikiLeaks gave the documents to the New York Times and a number of other papers around the world well in advance, and the newspapers have spent the past week publishing story after story related to their findings — and in some cases, have published the secret cables themselves. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, told Fox News Tuesday that the Times, too, was suspect. "This is very sensitive stuff ... I certainly believe that WikiLeaks has violated the Espionage Act. But then what about news organizations that accepted it and distributed it? I know they say they deleted some of it and I am not here to make a final judgment on that, but to me The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship," he said. "Whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department."

But the law is too broad a brush to try to draw a distinction between WikiLeaks' indiscriminate posting of the cables — which Burns called "nihilistic" — and the more careful vetting evidenced by The New York Times, Abrams said. How do you draft a law that targets WikiLeaks but leaves intact our system of press freedoms? "It's very difficult to do," Abrams said. Besides, he said, "the courts have never required responsibility as a prerequisite to press freedom. That's never been the legal standard." In addition, claims that Assange has simply dumped the documents without reviewing them, much like a traditional editor would, have been disputed. Assange himself told TIME that each diplomatic cable his site has published has been vetted by his own team or by the editors of newspapers with whom he has shared the documents.

Lieberman wants the Senate to draft legislation that will lower the threshold for espionage prosecutions in the future. It wouldn't be the first time Congress has tried. A decade ago, Congress passed a bill that would have done just that, only to have President Clinton veto it just weeks before leaving office. That bill would have put America on footing similar to that of many other countries, including some other democracies. In the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland and many other nations, publication of classified information is a crime simply because the material was secret. But not in this country. "There is no Official Secrets Act" here, Abrams points out.

The only real ammunition America has to protect state secrets, most legal observers agree, is the Espionage Act of 1917, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson amid fears of domestic unrest and possible sabotage as American entered the First World War. It's a broadly worded act, still on the books, that on its face would make stealing or sharing secrets from the government a federal crime — if a jury agreed that doing so harmed America or aided a foreign power. But Abrams said courts soon recognized that such a broadly worded statute could "make illegal many things that American newspapers publish every day. It was over-broad and covered much too much material." As a result, the Supreme Court spent most of the 20th Century steadily narrowing the Espionage Act's reach when it comes to the news media's publication of secrets.

Some of the most famous cases from those years have almost eerie parallels to the current furor. In 1971, the Nixon Administration tried to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from running reports based on a highly classified secret history of the ongoing Vietnam War. The Supreme Court stopped the government in a 6-3 ruling in favor of the press.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2035994,00.html

I hope that got it...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:30 PM

The US government has no case against Wikileaks.
See generally New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U. S. 713 (upholding the press' right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party); Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) 532 U.S. 514 (finding no liability for a media defendant who broadcasted information stolen by a third party but was not involved in the theft).

Manning, the precious little asshole, is the proper target of any criminal charges.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:40 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ah, thank you Mincing for clearing that up. So the government is going after Assange and pressuring private corporations to stymie his efforts, when they have no case, I take it. No surprise, of course, but it leaves the question "Are they right in doing this" open...which will still be a bone of contention between us all, I'm guessing.

I vote "persecution", not "prosecution".

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:44 PM

That there is no legal case against Assange doesn't mean that the US won't proescute him in the court of public opinion.

Assange, though a douche without rival, is not the villain here. Had Wikileaks conspired with Manning to obtain the information we would have heard about it. Wikileaks only did what the media has had the right to do under long settled American law: broadcasted information.

Had, for example, the NY Times obtained the information first, without Wikileaks as middle man, do you think the uproar would be different?

Note that neither example cited above fully implicates espionage, treason, and hatred of 'Merica. I suspect that a clever young federal attorney somewhere, armed with a copy of the Espionage Act, could make a tenable argument against the parties involved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:15 PM

What we have to ask ourselves is, which sort of world do we want...one where criticism of government, whistleblowing, a media free to probe and publish about a government even when it is unfavourable, embarressing, or exposes of lies and corruption is acceptable, or the type of world where the above is illegal and you are jailed or executed for any of the above.

The intention of governments, at least in democracies, is that they speak and act on behalf and with the approval of the people who elected them. They rule on behalf of us, the electorate, not over us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:23 PM

Not sure how it is the the US, but over here, it appears that public opinion across the political spectrum is overwhelming suportive of Julian Assange, and overwhelming underwhelmed at the response of our PM, who couldn't wait to jump into support the US in another example of the shocking obsequiousness that our government shows towards the US government.

Quote:
There has been an astonishing response to the open letter on Drum to Prime Minister Gillard about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. In essence, that letter called on the Prime Minister to do the following:

[T]o confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

The Drum has now posted more than 4,500 comments, more than on any other story in its history. Many people have been unable to respond, because the page collapsed under the sheer quantity of traffic. (A similar petition is being hosted here).

We have also been privately receiving a huge number of endorsements, both from high-profile and ordinary Australians, which we have been unable to add.

For instance, Daniel Ellsberg is perhaps the most important whistleblower of the 20th century. In 1971, he leaked what became known as the Pentagon Papers, a series of documents proving that the US government had systematically lied about the Vietnam.

This morning, Daniel Ellsberg voiced his support for the letter to Gillard.

The WikiLeaks story is moving quickly. Assange is now in custody. He has been refused bail, and is contesting his extradition to Sweden. Rumours circulate of a plan afoot to eventually send him to the US, even though it is far from clear what laws he has broken.

After all, the leaked cables have been published in some of the world’s most prestigious newspapers, often featuring there before appearing on WikiLeaks. As Assange pointed out in The Australian yesterday, there seems no reason why the editors of these publications should escape whatever sanctions are levelled at the WikiLeaks team. John Howard, of all people, has made the same point, noting that Assange has merely behaved as any journalist would by publishing documents that came into his possession.

The implications of charges against Assange are thus profound. The Age, for instance, boasts of its exclusive access to ‘hundreds of US State Department cables relating to Australia’. In other words, it is The Age, not WikiLeaks, that is releasing the material. Is anyone going to suggest that The Age editor should be prosecuted?

Well, perhaps they are. In the US, the powerful Senator Joe Lieberman wants the Justice Department to investigate The New York Times, on precisely that basis.

This is dangerous territory that we are entering, and it is no wonder that so many people are concerned. WikiLeaks continues to publish. It is clear that any attempts to prosecute Assange will not solve the much larger problem facing many governments around the world. What is at stake now is more than just the fate of one person. We are talking about a fundamental threat to the whole notion of investigative journalism.

The Australian Government does seem to be softening its position on WikiLeaks. That is to be welcomed. But we remain concerned about Mr Assange’s well-being, both physically and in terms of his ability to receive anything approaching justice.

Naturally, there will be differences of opinion about WikiLeaks’ activities and philosophies. But it should not be controversial to assert that Mr Assange is entitled to procedural fairness and that the Australian Government should do everything to ensure he receives it. It is inspiring to see that so many everyday people agree with this conclusion. As well as the many who are signing petitions, in recent days, thousands of mirror sites have sprung up to protect the site from attack. The insurance file has been widely downloaded.

This support, both politically and practically, provides robust protection to the rule of law and democratic principles.

Julia Gillard should take note. The whole world is watching.{/quote]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42022.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 9, 2010 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I vote "persecution", not "prosecution".

Persecution is extrajudicial. It is what the persecutors think it should be. If he is going to be persecuted, it should be in a court of law, with representation and all the rights of due process.

I vote neither.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 7:49 AM

Weak or not, the charges are coming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337554/WikiLeaks-founder-Juli
an-Assange-charged-spying-US.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Quote:
America is set to bring spying charges against jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, claims his lawyer.

US prosecutors are said to be finalising their case against the 39-year-old Australian behind the publication of more than 250,000 secret diplomatic messages.

Mr Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson said she understands US charges are ‘imminent’.

He is likely to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to receive national defence information if it is known to have been obtained illegally and could be used ‘to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 7:58 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"It was used in 1984 to prosecute a US naval intelligence analyst who was jailed for leaking photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Britain’s Jane’s Defence Weekly magazine."

Hello,

But not used, presumably, for the prosecution of Jane's Defence Weekly magazine or its owners or editors(who make a profit from publishing such information.)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 8:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS, it was a joke. I meant "If people want to persecute him in their own minds, that's okay; but there's no legal reason to prosecute him".

Magons: Now why does the reaction of your PM not surprise me, nor the response of your citizens?

He's bought. They're not.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 8:16 AM

A weird law, almost, but not quite, on par with anti-sodomy laws and other dusty relics that still litter the books.

Note that under this monster, everyone who subsequently republished the leak could be liable.

Quote:

18 U.S.C. § 793:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or
control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the
national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to
be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment
provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall
forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of
State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign
government, or any faction or party or military or naval force
within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the
United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of
this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory,
or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a
conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the
defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p)
of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall
apply to -
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to
such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts
from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining
after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by
law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Magons: Now why does the reaction of your PM not surprise me, nor the response of your citizens?

He's bought. They're not.

er, it should read she's bought.

Niki, I don't even think it's about money, but about power. Some of the leaks about my country have been very interesting. They demonstrate what a lot of us have suspected for a long time, that our 'special relationship' means that you have to be in bed with the US to remain in power and that forces within our government are entangled with US diplomats to an unhealthy degree.

I think some of the Wikileaks disclosures also indicate how freakin bitchy and judgmental US diplomats are, but that's just the amusing bits.

I'll be furious if Assange is extradited to the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'll be furious if Assange is extradited to the US.

Me too.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 10, 2010 1:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA

But that's all part of the plan, don't you see ?
You've no idea how hardball some folk are willing to play this one - on both sides.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 12, 2010 6:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oops, sorry Magons...I forgot...SHE!

And my goodness, I'm amazed you're surprised to learn

Quote:
I don't even think it's about money, but about power. Some of the leaks about my country have been very interesting. They demonstrate what a lot of us have suspected for a long time, that our 'special relationship' means that you have to be in bed with the US to remain in power and that forces within our government are entangled with US diplomats to an unhealthy degree

I thought everyone knew that...it's how our friggin' government OPERATES!

Now you understand one more reason I think it's a good thing we're a dying empire. Might be hard to name me an empire that HASN'T done those things to its neighbors and allies...and given "neighbors" is a global term these days...

It never occurred to me you didn't already know that--I guess I just assume everyone elsewhere is as aware and disgusted by what our government does internationally as we are...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 12, 2010 2:47 PM

US set to lay espionage charges against Assange.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-lawyers-sa
y-us-preparing-charges-20101213-18uib.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 12, 2010 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oops, sorry Magons...I forgot...SHE!

And my goodness, I'm amazed you're surprised to learn
Quote:
I don't even think it's about money, but about power. Some of the leaks about my country have been very interesting. They demonstrate what a lot of us have suspected for a long time, that our 'special relationship' means that you have to be in bed with the US to remain in power and that forces within our government are entangled with US diplomats to an unhealthy degree
I thought everyone knew that...it's how our friggin' government OPERATES!

Now you understand one more reason I think it's a good thing we're a dying empire. Might be hard to name me an empire that HASN'T done those things to its neighbors and allies...and given "neighbors" is a global term these days...

It never occurred to me you didn't already know that--I guess I just assume everyone elsewhere is as aware and disgusted by what our government does internationally as we are...

i guess i was just being insanely optimistic, believing that our current government might not have been so in bed with the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 12, 2010 4:02 PM

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." -- Ron Paul

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 13, 2010 9:57 PM

CUNKNOWN

Check out this cool Julian Assange as Che t-shirt!

http://www.zazzle.com/cunknown?rf=238369777164981397

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:24 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

Assange is granted bail. Finally.

They finally identified the accusations against him:
1. Having unprotected sex when the woman wanted a condom to be used
2. Having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep, with whom he had sex with the night before.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

Assange is granted bail. Finally.

They finally identified the accusations against him:
1. Having unprotected sex when the woman wanted a condom to be used
2. Having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep, with whom he had sex with the night before.

Per an article in the Washington Post, "In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010
121002571.html

The article also notes than in the U.S. this is not true.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, #2 is totally assinine, in my opinion. I guess unless they had sex the night before and he wore a condom, then had unprotected sex with her without one while she was asleep.

The first one; isn't that rape? I mean if she wanted a condom used and he said "no", did she then say "no" to the sex, or did it continue to be consensual? If the first, surely it's rape, if the latter, it's her responsibility.

That's how I see it anyway. Mostly I see it as a trumped-up bunch of bullshit they're using because they haven't found any other way...yet.

Mostly it sounds like he's an asshole, but I don't think you can prosecute for THAT.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11989216

Assange is granted bail. Finally.

They finally identified the accusations against him:
1. Having unprotected sex when the woman wanted a condom to be used
2. Having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep, with whom he had sex with the night before.

Per an article in the Washington Post, "In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010
121002571.html

The article also notes than in the U.S. this is not true.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well I agree that all those should be criminal, because they are non consensual. I'm surprised that having sex without consent is not a crime in the US???????

My problem is that these charges feel very conveniently timed when there appears to be no other legal recourse to lock Assange up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:48 AM

"In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."

So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape. It defies common sense. Who besides a rapist would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner? "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, #2 is totally assinine, in my opinion....
The first one; isn't that rape?

I don't think we have enough information to judge. We don't know if the accusations are true, we haven't heard his side of the story, we haven't seen any evidence, etc.

These accusations could be anything. It could be he pretended to put on a condom and didn't, and obtained consent under false pretenses. It could be they discussed the condom issue, and he thought he had changed her mind about not wearing a condom after all. It could be he completely took advantage of a woman in deep sleep (though, I wonder how can you NOT wake up during sex?). It could be she was groggy and enjoyed the sex, but couldn't remember afterwards. Who knows, right?

I think it is premature to judge whether he is guilty or not based simply on barebones accusations.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Only to be expected Magons, not only that, but we still have lots of bizarre laws on the books that shouldn't even be there, like anti-sodomy acts which make getting a blowjob technically a felony...

And worse, many sex offenders who prey on members of their own family manage to get their offense classed as simple-incest, which allows them to get probation and a fine, and most of the time, under the pretense of family unity, CPS puts them right back in the home - which sends the message that society condones the abuse to the victim, who is often more severely punished and ostracised than the offender.

That kinda crap is frontline warfare for the aboveboard allies we have, like PROTECT.
http://www.protect.org/campaigns/success/13-california/25-what-the-pas
sage-of-the-circle-of-trust-bill-means-to-children-in-america

Anyhow, the US and it's society is in general, seriously screwed up (pun intended) when it comes to sex anyway, a combination of puritan lunacy offset by peek-a-boo titillation, as a direct result of trying to theologically and socially suppress and/or destroy natural human impulses.

And like I always say, the more you suppress a persons basic humanity, the more warped and twisted the form in which it will finally express itself, and it WILL express itself, in the same fashion a tree root does to a sidewalk - nature ALWAYS wins.

Which also explains how and why the ultra-moral-religious-puritan types are such total freakazoids behind closed doors.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm surprised that having sex without consent is not a crime in the US???????

Yeah, we're backwards.

I applaud Sweden's more rigorous requirements for consentual sex.

Obviously, I'm big about consent and not being forced to do things against our will (sexual or not).

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:17 PM

Ah, but isn't all legislation 'force' even legislation that prevents someone from having non consensual sex with another person

sorry, couldn't resist

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ah, but isn't all legislation 'force' even legislation that prevents someone from having non consensual sex with another person

sorry, couldn't resist

Of course it is.

Didn't I say not all force/violence is wrong? (In fact, I think I said it way too many times.)

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:32 PM

CTS

You think anyone who makes such laws gives a damn about the rights of the people? Sweden is a world pioneer of eugenics abuses, which is where these laws come from. They are designed to keep commoners from reproducing. Our laws come from the same place.

I'm with Magon on this one: it's an extrajudicial abuse of international justice through manipualtions by americans of other govts. to silence free speech of Australians in a blatant act of tyranny and imperialism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm with Magon on this one: it's an extrajudicial abuse of international justice through manipualtions by americans of other govts. to silence free speech of Australians in a blatant act of tyranny and imperialism.

Yeah. I agree! I think that much is clear to most people with brains.

It doesn't mean though, that Assange doesn't happen to be an asshole who did force himself on a couple of Swedish women, as well as be a wronged activist for govt transparency.

I mean to say, I don't know if he is innocent or guilty of the sexual crime accusations. I just think I shouldn't rule anything out, just because people are really out to get him.

And even if he IS a rapist, it doesn't mean what he is doing with Wikileaks is wrong, simply by association.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:37 AM

Cts

It seems equally obvious to me that a law enabling someone to retroactively declare a sex act rape, especially as in this case, long after the couple has broken up, is open to widespread abuse.

The details of the relationship are widely known, as was his ex-gfs name, which was printed in an article I read some time ago. Its also obvious that someone, probably the US DoD paid her to rat him out. Of course, they only knew who she was because some vacuous dork printed it.

Assanges only crime here was stupidity: he agreed to be interviewed by the media, who disclosed in this article any piece of info they could gain, including how his mirror servers worked. I remember thinking that if the reporter had been writing on the atom bomb, he would have printed the blueprint of how to make one, had he had it.

You couldn't force someone to do so much as Vote for a candidate without breaking another law. Laws like this one serve one purpose, and were created by their masters to do so: to criminalize consensual sexuality. The original goal, to stop commoners from breeding. Now, they serve to make everyone a criminal, the same reason drug laws exist.

A year from now someone can put a man in jail for consensual sex they have today? Only men who have no sex are not criminals then.

Isn't such a legal system inordinately dangerous? What is the incentive for the masses to follow any law at all?

Assange appears to be guilty of being male, and in Sweden. A place where it at least was, and perhaps still is, legal to forcibly sterilize someone who had not committed a crime simply on e assertion that they were genetically inferior.

This is just a mechanism for TPTB to declare someone an enemy of the state, as Margaret Atwood said it would be. At least the commies are open about it. (and very random about it, actually, lost some relatives to that one too.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Laws like this one serve one purpose, and were created by their masters to do so: to criminalize consensual sexuality.

Maybe we should clarify exactly which laws we're talking about. Cause the laws I support are against non-consentual sex, not consentual ones. Then of course, we need to be on the same page on what "consent" means.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:07 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

The way I see it, any law (regardless of how well intentioned it may be) has to potential to be severely twisted and abused. How exactly do you prove consent was withdrawn or even given? With rape, there is probably evidence, bruising and the like that can show it wasn't consensual, but changing your mind after you've started? I'm not sure you'd have much more to go on then what each partner said.

Also, I'm not about to invite the government into our bedchambers anymore than they have already forced themselves in. Anti-sodomy laws might very well have been well meaning (or maybe not, I know next to nothing concerning that) attempts to protect folks from rapists, but now they can and are used to make criminals of homosexuals who've harmed no one. When I think about a new law, rule or the like in government, my fraternity, or wherever, I think about how it could be beneficial and how it can be abused before deciding if it's a good idea.

A quick example, I was in a social music fraternity in college. We had trouble getting brothers to go to fundraisers so we voted in a fine to those who didn't show up to help with fund raising, figuring the fine will compensate a mite. Well, the next year, somehow the entire executive board was comprised of non-music majors who worked at the university tech shop and weren't so great at keeping up with the goings on in the Fine Arts building, so we would have fundraisers scheduled when some of us were in rehearsals or performing with the orchestra or something and the gorram treasurer could never be found when you needed him so it lead a lot of us Music Majors to be like "F@$# it! I don't have time or money for this anymore," and... well... you start to get a music fraternity with no real musicians and that just doesn't make sense does it? Also looks kinda bad. I guess what I'm saying is that even well meaning laws meant to protect freedoms, can in practice take more freedoms from us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:58 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
The US government has no case against Wikileaks.

Thats because it has not been filed yet. There is a law against espionage, he broke it. And the fella that gave him the info committed treason.

But you raise a valid defense:

Quote:

See generally New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U. S. 713 (upholding the press' right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party); Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) 532 U.S. 514 (finding no liability for a media defendant who broadcasted information stolen by a third party but was not involved in the theft).

Its an affirmative defense. He admits to the facts and claims press protections. This raises the questions, is he the press or just some fella with a website, and if so, does the press have a blanket protection to publish anything?

I think these are valid questions for the Supreme Court to decide.

Is he press? In today's world anyone can report information, so how can we define the press as 'anyone'?

As for a blanket protection...suppose a reporter gave the size, strength, weapons, and exact location of a patrol and it got ambushed? Is there a blanket right?

My answer is simple...yes they can report anything and everything, but they face criminal liability for the forseeable consequences of their actions. So he is free to publish secret material, but if doing so results in that information going to to our enemies, then he should be prosecuted for espionage. That way his rights are respected and protected and so are the govt's rights to have secrets.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
The US government has no case against Wikileaks.

Thats because it has not been filed yet. There is a law against espionage, he broke it. And the fella that gave him the info committed treason.

But you raise a valid defense:
Quote:

See generally New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U. S. 713 (upholding the press' right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party); Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) 532 U.S. 514 (finding no liability for a media defendant who broadcasted information stolen by a third party but was not involved in the theft).

Its an affirmative defense. He admits to the facts and claims press protections. This raises the questions, is he the press or just some fella with a website, and if so, does the press have a blanket protection to publish anything?

I think these are valid questions for the Supreme Court to decide.

Is he press? In today's world anyone can report information, so how can we define the press as 'anyone'?

As for a blanket protection...suppose a reporter gave the size, strength, weapons, and exact location of a patrol and it got ambushed? Is there a blanket right?

My answer is simple...yes they can report anything and everything, but they face criminal liability for the forseeable consequences of their actions. So he is free to publish secret material, but if doing so results in that information going to to our enemies, then he should be prosecuted for espionage. That way his rights are respected and protected and so are the govt's rights to have secrets.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

Well thought out, reasonable, yet still inherently despicable. You must be a prosecutor.

Perhaps I ought to have amended my hasty declaration that the government has no case. See generally later, shittier posts about the dubious Espionage Act.

I don't question the government's right to have secrets--this is probably necessary to governance--but rather the government's power to punish a media outlet for publishing secrets that it obtained through no wrongdoing of its own.

I'm not decided on the scope of the right. Do you envision something cheesy like the "clear and present danger" language used in incitement cases? For example, posting information that creates an imminent risk of harm (as in your example), as opposed to posting information that is merely embarassing?

I'm really intereted in the evolution of the FA and media protections as the "old media" is replaced by something fuzzier, so I'll follow this case with some interest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:24 AM

Since when has 'embarressing and making US officials look like dicks' constituted clear and present danger.

It appears that there has been little published in wikileaks that hasn't already been known.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:15 PM

STORYMARK

Bob Woodward finds this hilarious...

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I guess what I'm saying is that even well meaning laws meant to protect freedoms, can in practice take more freedoms from us.

And when they do, they no longer serve their purpose and should be removed - but they never are.

That is why Anarchists find the "Rule of Law" to be so reprehensible, because laws that wind up in opposition to the purpose for which laws are made, to protect people, their rights, and their property - or wind up enforced in direct contravention to those things... are allowed to stand unchallenged, till "The Law" becomes more important than the things that law was made to protect.

And THAT, is why Anarchists do not respect the law as a concept.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:17 PM

CTS

I thought you were opposed to all laws.

Specifically, laws like this swedish law are an open door to declare a sex act rape retroactively, as in this case, a year later or so, based on nothing but heresay.

The iPad wants to turn heresay into heresy.

Anyway, first think about the abuse that allows. If roughly half of all break ups are bad, and the average person has 8 childless relationships for every parental one, both of which are statistical, than this practice would be very effective as a eugenics technique,

Anecdotally, I can name four friends off the top of my head who decided to declare something rape after the break up, one was because of a miscarriage and blackout that resulted from drug use, and had nothing to do with the guy who was a pushover, two were from women who later had restraining orders against them to protect said men, and the third was a psycho who later tried to kill the guy, so her credibility is questionable as well.

I think this line of reasoning comes from "the girl is always right" school of thought, but sometimes the girl is insane. People are not rational, and they will allow their emotions to get the better of them, and will abuse a system if it is open to abuse. Rape is pretty clearly an act of violence, and it is safe to say that some sort of violence is required. If theres no standing domestic abuse case, then I think its highly improbable that the claim is valid.

Besides, this is quite frankly a waste of time, its clearly the US manipulating Sweden to manipulate it's legal system to get Julian Assange on something that would generate human revulsion in a way in which their actual hacking charges would not. They are doing exactly what Margaret Atwood had hem do 20 some years ago in the Handmaids Tale which she did to protect us from being this dumb when it actually happened.

Sorry for being grouchy. I have to get back to studying the brain. The outlook is not good if I don't come up with a solution myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I thought you were opposed to all laws.

I am.

But if we're going to have laws, then laws against murder, rape, and robbery would be at the top of the list for laws I like.

Quote:
Specifically, laws like this swedish law are an open door to declare a sex act rape retroactively, ....

Is that what this Swedish law does? That was not my understanding.

I have not researched Assange's sex life, so I could be wrong. But I thought I saw somewhere that the women contacted the cops shortly after the sex, but cops did nothing until Assange became more famous.

Anyway, all I was saying is, I like laws that penalize all non-consentual sex (if we are to have laws). Now how "non-consentual" is defined, we could debate that further.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:50 PM

STORYMARK

Wow DT.... I think maybe you need to stop hanging with crazy women.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:13 PM

I think a lot of rape is difficult to prove. Hevertheless, non consensual sex is rape, regardless of at what stage it becomes non consensual.

These laws are difficult ones, and open to abuse, like a lot of things. However, the indicators show that women actually don't report a lot of rape because of the difficulty of prosecuting and the stigma attached, so it kind of swings both ways. There is still a strong school of thought that still say 'girls ask for it' by their behaviour or dress or being drunk and so on. I do believe Sweden is a little ahead of other places with breaking that kind of mentality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:16 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think a lot of rape is difficult to prove. Hevertheless, non consensual sex is rape, regardless of at what stage it becomes non consensual.

Does that include after the sex? Cause after is just as much a stage in the process as before.

As a Prosecutor my policy is 'regret is not rape.'

Rape is difficult to prove if there is no physical evidence. If the accused claims the act was consensual, then we need some sort of physical evidence to support the victims side of the story. These can include defensive wounds, evidence of a struggle or violence, perhaps the presense of some sort of date rape drug.

I once tried a rape were the fella had sex with a passed out bridesmaid. I could prove she was passed out and in Ohio you can't consent if you are not awake...this is not true everywhere.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:56 AM

No after is not as much a stage as before, and you know it.

As I said, rape is difficult to prove. Having defensive wounds may or may not occur, because you can use threats, drugs and down right terrify your victim so that they don't fight back or struggle.

Having sex with an unconscious person would certainly constitute rape here, and quite rightly. In fact there was a serial rapist who was recently imprisoned. He used to drug his victims with hot chocolate and film them as well. Talk about multiple violations. Many of them didn't even know they had been raped until they were shown the footage. It was still rape and he was still prosecuted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
As a Prosecutor my policy is 'regret is not rape.'

I agree completely.

Quote:
in Ohio you can't consent if you are not awake...this is not true everywhere.

This goes to my point that I appreciate the more rigorous laws against non-consentual sex. I think it SHOULD be true everywhere.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 17, 2010 8:06 PM

CTS

Quote:
Is that what this Swedish law does? That was not my understanding.

Yes, it's a heresay crime, all heresay crimes are open to widespread abuse. The way to make it not a heresay crime would be to have the partner register a discontinuation of consent, sort of like a divorce for relationships. That, as a law, I could support.

Atwood's point was that the powers that be would never use actual treason charges because that would be ineffectual in getting we the people to turn against our own advocates. Labeling them as sex offenders would be much more effective.

Quote:
I have not researched Assange's sex life, so I could be wrong. But I thought I saw somewhere that the women contacted the cops shortly after the sex, but cops did nothing until Assange became more famous.

This is not the case. The two were still together when he had to leave the country. He was being pursued by western spies. She bought him the busfare to the airport and covered for him after he left. The only reason it changed was that her name appeared in an article about him, and someone got to her undoubtedly because of that. Who knows what they may have offered her or threatened her with.

There's a simple logic here: People who are in the business of fighting the powers that be know that they don't have the option of slipping up on stuff like this. Ralph Nader says that he has lived a celibate life for this reason only. Now that's a sacrifice for your cause. But still, it's pretty well known that you don't get any screw-ups when you're on a crusade, so, no, I think a rapist would intentionally opt for a much lower profile, unless he was a moron, like members of congress or former US presidents. But Assange is clearly not a moron.

Quote:

Anyway, all I was saying is, I like laws that penalize all non-consentual sex (if we are to have laws). Now how "non-consentual" is defined, we could debate that further.

We could, but I don't have the time. I hope my above description will suffice.

I have some new rather radical demands on my time now, and there's no room in it for politics. Maybe after this whole ordeal, if we can find a cure that works.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 17, 2010 8:08 PM