PDA

View Full Version : State Department warning to WikiLeaks



Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 10:12 PM
State Department warning to WikiLeaks

By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: November 28 2010 12:23 | Last updated: November 28 2010 12:23

The Obama administration has told WikiLeaks that its plans to publish a quarter of a million US government documents could risk the lives of “countless individuals”, endanger current military operations and damage international co-operation on issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to counter-terrorism.

In a letter to Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, Harold Koh, the US State Department’s senior legal adviser, made a last-ditch plea for the group not to release its latest “document dump”, which WikiLeaks calls the “Embassy cables”.




The documents, which were expected to be released on Sunday, were said to include classified low and mid level State Department assessments of other governments and their leaders. US officials fear the leak could damage international relations.

WikiLeaks posted a Twitter message on Sunday that its website was under a “mass distributed denial of service attack”, in which thousands of computers contact a website simultaneously and overwhelm it.

Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, has contacted leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France and Afghanistan in an attempt to minimise the fallout from the leak.

Washington’s diplomatic efforts included an article in Bild, Germany’s most popular newspaper, on Sunday by Philip Murphy, Washington’s ambassador to Berlin.
Mo>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a5fae60-faac-11df-b576-00144feab49a.html#axzz16dYsEBJC

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2010, 10:33 PM
We need the CIA to go in and fuck up these little leakers.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 10:39 PM
We need the CIA to go in and fuck up these little leakers.

I would expect some sort of accident to befall them soon!

Kay
11-28-2010, 10:43 PM
It's a little late now that the horse is out of the barn.
He should have met with a timely accident back when
he first threatened to publish the first set.

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 10:44 PM
They need to be put on trial of espionage. Of course - that will not happen unless they publish something that really makes Barry look bad. Otherwise - I wouldn't be surprised to know Holder is complicit in this.

m00
11-28-2010, 10:45 PM
We need the CIA to go in and fuck up these little leakers.

I kinda draw the line at my government assassinating journalists.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 10:48 PM
It's a little late now that the horse is out of the barn.
He should have met with a timely accident back when
he first threatened to publish the first set.

I think the Obama admin thought most of this stuff would only be damaging to the Bush admin but now the tide has turned!

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 10:49 PM
I kinda draw the line at my government assassinating journalists.

Yeah just send them to their rooms without supper, that ought to work!

m00
11-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Yeah just send them to their rooms without supper, that ought to work!

I think there's a bit of middle ground between "government assassination of journalists" and "sending to rooms without supper." :p

Kay
11-28-2010, 10:53 PM
I kinda draw the line at my government assassinating journalists.

Dejavu moment. Didn't we already have this same discussion.
He crossed the line from journalist into espionage when he
received stolen government documents and used them against
us during wartime.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 10:57 PM
Dejavu moment. Didn't we already have this same discussion.
He crossed the line from journalist into espionage when he
received stolen government documents and used them against
us during wartime.

I think m00 would withhold his dessert also!

m00
11-28-2010, 10:59 PM
Dejavu moment. Didn't we already have this same discussion.
He crossed the line from journalist into espionage when he
received stolen government documents and used them against
us during wartime.

I'm sorry I don't buy this. First, it's always wartime. When are we not at war with something? Secondly, government can classify anything it wants to. Imagine if Obama killed a hooker, and then had the report "classified." The report got leaked to a journalist, but according to your above statement it would be okay for the CIA to assassinate this journalist. In fact, you are arguing that the CIA should assassinate a journalist in such a situation.

By the conditions you outlined in your post, this would be perfectly fine.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 11:03 PM
I'm sorry I don't buy this. First, it's always wartime. When are we not at war with something? Secondly, government can classify anything it wants to. Imagine if Obama killed a hooker, and then had the report "classified." The report got leaked to a journalist, but according to your above statement it would be okay for the CIA to assassinate this journalist. In fact, you are arguing that the CIA should assassinate a journalist in such a situation.

By the conditions you outlined in your post, this would be perfectly fine.

Okay, I see your withhold supper and dessert and raise you after dinner drinks!

Kay
11-28-2010, 11:08 PM
In fact, you are arguing that the CIA should assassinate a journalist in such a situation.

By the conditions you outlined in your post, this would be perfectly fine.

Why yes mOO.
You are correct in this assessment of what I said in regards to the Wiki guy.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 11:12 PM
Why yes mOO.
You are correct in this assessment of what I said in regards to the Wiki guy.

I would use "enhanced interrogation" methods first to find out the details of how he got the documents and then I would let the depleted uranium do it's job!

m00
11-28-2010, 11:12 PM
Why yes mOO.
You are correct in this assessment of what I said.

Even if you don't realize it, it's exactly the logical outcome of the conditions you outlined in your post.

I don't understand why some conservatives have no trust for government on any matter, except for the ability to write and enforce secret laws, and assassinate citizens in order protect secret documents. Because that power would never get abused!

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 11:15 PM
Even if you don't realize it, it's exactly the logical outcome of the conditions you outlined in your post.

I don't understand why some conservatives have no trust for government on any matter, except for the ability to write and enforce secret laws, and assassinate citizens in order protect secret documents.

When it comes to protecting our sons and daughters in arms we are very serious about punishing traitors.

m00
11-28-2010, 11:17 PM
When it comes to protecting our sons and daughters in arms we are very serious about punishing traitors.

Don't you think by giving the government the authority to assassinate people it doesn't like (as opposed to say, having a trial) that you are violating the very freedoms they are fighting for?

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 11:22 PM
Don't you think by giving the government the authority to assassinate people it doesn't like (as opposed to say, having a trial) that you are violating the very freedoms they are fighting for?

yes and no. If the person in question is Kim Jong Il - no. If the person was Sarah Palin - yes.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 11:24 PM
Don't you think by giving the government the authority to assassinate people it doesn't like (as opposed to say, having a trial) that you are violating the very freedoms they are fighting for?

He is not a citizen, he is the enemy trying to get our soldiers killed, you are being ridiculous.

m00
11-28-2010, 11:32 PM
He is not a citizen, he is the enemy trying to get our soldiers killed, you are being ridiculous.

If the bar for assassination in your book is "the enemy" and "trying to get our soldiers killed," then that's a pretty low bar. Because neither of these are technical definitions, and both of them could be twisted up by government lawyering to apply to anyone & anywhere.

m00
11-28-2010, 11:34 PM
yes and no. If the person in question is Kim Jong Il - no. If the person was Sarah Palin - yes.

Well, I agree with you - I just don't trust government to consistently make that right decision. So I'd rather just not give them anything remotely resembling that power.

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 11:40 PM
Well, I agree with you - I just don't trust government to consistently make that right decision. So I'd rather just not give them anything remotely resembling that power.

welp . . . . To be frank - you have a point. However, I'd rather that the rules with regards to this kind of thing be unwritten so that when it was necessary - it could be done.

Rockntractor
11-28-2010, 11:43 PM
If the bar for assassination in your book is "the enemy" and "trying to get our soldiers killed," then that's a pretty low bar. Because neither of these are technical definitions, and both of them could be twisted up by government lawyering to apply to anyone & anywhere.

http://www.bubblemaniaandcompanyla.com/BubbleBoy_web1.jpg

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-29-2010, 12:12 AM
Why do these leakers get away?
Ellsberg, for example, should be in prison. Instead he's out and respected by many people. He did the same thing--Leaked documents and hurt the country's morale even more in a time of war. And his acts lead directly to Watergate because him leaking so much created an atmosphere of tension and suspicion.
He's out.

Let's not make the same mistake twice with this little Leaker.

SarasotaRepub
11-29-2010, 07:00 AM
I kinda draw the line at my government assassinating journalists.


Goddammit m00, you're no fun. :mad::D

Molon Labe
11-29-2010, 11:28 AM
Don't you think by giving the government the authority to assassinate people it doesn't like (as opposed to say, having a trial) that you are violating the very freedoms they are fighting for?


this ^

Not what this country is about at all.

Odysseus
11-29-2010, 12:01 PM
Don't you think by giving the government the authority to assassinate people it doesn't like (as opposed to say, having a trial) that you are violating the very freedoms they are fighting for?


If the bar for assassination in your book is "the enemy" and "trying to get our soldiers killed," then that's a pretty low bar. Because neither of these are technical definitions, and both of them could be twisted up by government lawyering to apply to anyone & anywhere.


Well, I agree with you - I just don't trust government to consistently make that right decision. So I'd rather just not give them anything remotely resembling that power.

As we've discussed before, the laws of the United States and the Geneva and Hague Conventions go to great lengths to define who is and is not a combatant, and who is protected under the laws of land warfare. Julian Assange has taken classified documents that pertain to ongoing operations during combat and published them, with the stated intent of hampering our operations and defeating the United States. A person who does this has committed espionage, as defined in the US code, and declared himself an adversary of the United States and thus, he has made himself a party to the conflict. He is not a neutral, and we have every right to detain him as a combatant or to take any other action against him that is authorized by the laws of land warfare, including assassination, if he cannot be reached any other way. There is ample precedent for such actions.

Sonnabend
11-30-2010, 06:47 AM
He is not a neutral, and we have every right to detain him as a combatant or to take any other action against him that is authorized by the laws of land warfare, including assassination, if he cannot be reached any other way.

No, you do NOT have that right.

That is a line the US will not and should never cross. Assange is not a soldier, and like it or not he IS An Australian citizen. As such, if any harm were to befall him and the US identified, the repercussions would be massive.

Rendition the same..do it on OUR territory and there will be hell to pay. Arrest and trial?

Fine. Anything other than that is unacceptable. You are dealing with a citizen of a major US ally. Use the law to deal with him, arrest and deportation / extradition.

Nothing else.

CueSi
11-30-2010, 11:56 AM
No, you do NOT have that right.

That is a line the US will not and should never cross. Assange is not a soldier, and like it or not he IS An Australian citizen. As such, if any harm were to befall him and the US identified, the repercussions would be massive.

Rendition the same..do it on OUR territory and there will be hell to pay. Arrest and trial?

Fine. Anything other than that is unacceptable. You are dealing with a citizen of a major US ally. Use the law to deal with him, arrest and deportation / extradition.

Nothing else.


Well, can AUSTRALIA handle him, please? He's attacked your interests too.

~QC

Odysseus
11-30-2010, 03:32 PM
No, you do NOT have that right.

That is a line the US will not and should never cross. Assange is not a soldier, and like it or not he IS An Australian citizen. As such, if any harm were to befall him and the US identified, the repercussions would be massive.

Rendition the same..do it on OUR territory and there will be hell to pay. Arrest and trial?

Fine. Anything other than that is unacceptable. You are dealing with a citizen of a major US ally. Use the law to deal with him, arrest and deportation / extradition.

Nothing else.
By publishing US classified documents, he has relinquished any protections offered by citizenship in a neutral or allied nation. Australia cannot protect him without violating a dozen treaties with the US. Assange can be indicted in the US and a request made for extradition by Sweden, which, as a neutral state, cannot legally harbor an ongoing intelligence operation that seeks to undermine one side in a conflict. His presence in, and publication from, Sweden violates their neutrality and they have an obligation to expel him. If Sweden refuses to do that, then they are no longer neutral and they forfeit the protections of neutrality, in which case any action taken against Assange by the US is legal, to include sanction.

Sonnabend
11-30-2010, 03:45 PM
Major, sir, turn the tables on this. If this was a US citizen, and a foreign country did this, where would you stand?

I am not defending Assange, in my mind the man is a traitor. But what is proposed is not an option. Haul him back and put him on trial, charge him with treason.


Well, can AUSTRALIA handle him, please? He's attacked your interests too.

Cue, if he has broken our laws, yes. But we are obligated to look after all our citizens...if he was a US citizen, would you not do the same?

hampshirebrit
11-30-2010, 03:47 PM
By publishing US classified documents, he has relinquished any protections offered by citizenship in a neutral or allied nation. Australia cannot protect him without violating a dozen treaties with the US. Assange can be indicted in the US and a request made for extradition by Sweden, which, as a neutral state, cannot legally harbor an ongoing intelligence operation that seeks to undermine one side in a conflict. His presence in, and publication from, Sweden violates their neutrality and they have an obligation to expel him. If Sweden refuses to do that, then they are no longer neutral and they forfeit the protections of neutrality, in which case any action taken against Assange by the US is legal, to include sanction.

Practically, while all this MAY (and I do stress may) be true, one has to recognise that the people of Australia would not take at all kindly to a US hit squad assassinating Assange on US or AU or any other nation's territory.

I think Sonna is right in that it is very unlikely that this sort of action would be legal in any way, and certainly not practical.

Put yourselves in the reverse position. How would Americans feel if the Aussies sent a hit-squad to the US to take out a US citizen facing allegations of espionage against Australia.

hampshirebrit
11-30-2010, 03:48 PM
Major, sir, turn the tables on this. If this was a US citizen, and a foreign country did this, where would you stand?

I am not defending Assange, in my mind the man is a traitor. But what is proposed is not an option. Haul him back and put him on trial, charge him with treason.



Cue, if he has broken our laws, yes. But we are obligated to look after all our citizens...if he was a US citizen, would you not do the same?

Exactly right, on all counts.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-30-2010, 03:50 PM
Its a sad, depressing sign of the state of our country that 250,000 documents that detail aspects of our foriegn policy that have remained mysteries are not the center of everyone's focus, but instead all the hooting and hollering is about the conditions they were released. These are the times when the White House breathes a sigh of relief that they dont really have to worry about what information is out there because as a whole people are way too fucking lazy to bother understanding it.

Sonnabend
11-30-2010, 03:51 PM
By publishing US classified documents, he has relinquished any protections offered by citizenship in a neutral or allied nation

Sir, I am sorry, this is not the case. We actually have very few options, and as far as I know, no one has ever had their citizenship revoked.


Australia cannot protect him without violating a dozen treaties with the US.

Major, sanction of an Australian citizen on foreign soil, or rendition from Australian territory by a foreign government is not legal.


Assange can be indicted in the US and a request made for extradition by Sweden, which, as a neutral state, cannot legally harbor an ongoing intelligence operation that seeks to undermine one side in a conflict. His presence in, and publication from, Sweden violates their neutrality and they have an obligation to expel him. If Sweden refuses to do that, then they are no longer neutral and they forfeit the protections of neutrality, in which case any action taken against Assange by the US is legal, to include sanction.

Major, can I have the law on this? Especially the part about sanctions by US operatives overseas? What if Assange comes back here. Are you actually telling me that the US would consider assassination of an Australian citizen in Australian territory?

hampshirebrit
11-30-2010, 03:53 PM
Its a sad, depressing sign of the state of our country that 250,000 documents that detail aspects of our foriegn policy that have remained mysteries are not the center of everyone's focus, but instead all the hooting and hollering is about the conditions they were released. These are the times when the White House breathes a sigh of relief that they dont really have to worry about what information is out there because as a whole people are way too fucking lazy to bother understanding it.

The vast majority is yet to come. I think there will be painful reading in the days ahead.

I don't see why you should write people off as being "too fucking lazy" to bother understanding this. It kind of implies that you think you are somehow better than most of the rest of the world.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-30-2010, 04:10 PM
The vast majority is yet to come. I think there will be painful reading in the days ahead.

I don't see why you should write people off as being "too fucking lazy" to bother understanding this. It kind of implies that you think you are somehow better than most of the rest of the world.

Its frustrating to see such a wealth of information opened up, but people taking the easy debate that requires very little thought. Notice how I didnt say "stupid".

Odysseus
11-30-2010, 05:01 PM
Major, sir, turn the tables on this. If this was a US citizen, and a foreign country did this, where would you stand?
In a covered stand, about 300-500 meters upwind of him, with a rifle and a scope, just in case they missed him on their first try.


Practically, while all this MAY (and I do stress may) be true, one has to recognise that the people of Australia would not take at all kindly to a US hit squad assassinating Assange on US or AU or any other nation's territory.

I think Sonna is right in that it is very unlikely that this sort of action would be legal in any way, and certainly not practical.

Put yourselves in the reverse position. How would Americans feel if the Aussies sent a hit-squad to the US to take out a US citizen facing allegations of espionage against Australia.
I would expect us to do the right thing by our ally. If a US citizen were publishing Australian secrets that undermined their ability to wage war, especially a war in which we were allies, I'd expect us to extradict him to Australia, in accordance with the relevant treaties.

Its a sad, depressing sign of the state of our country that 250,000 documents that detail aspects of our foriegn policy that have remained mysteries are not the center of everyone's focus, but instead all the hooting and hollering is about the conditions they were released. These are the times when the White House breathes a sigh of relief that they dont really have to worry about what information is out there because as a whole people are way too fucking lazy to bother understanding it.
Sorry that we're not focusing on the juicy tidbits that you will not doubt enjoy picking through in order to embarass the US, but my focus is on winning wars, not entertaining people who would just as soon see us lose them. I'm concerned about dealing with the people involved so that this doesn't happen again.

Sir, I am sorry, this is not the case. We actually have very few options, and as far as I know, no one has ever had their citizenship revoked.
Nobody is talking about revoking his citizenship. Australia should try him for treason and request his extradition. If Australia doesn't do that, then the US ought to try him for espionage. Once he is under indictment by either nation, Sweden has an obligation to turn him over. If they don't, then they are allowing him to violate their neutrality.

Major, sanction of an Australian citizen on foreign soil, or rendition from Australian territory by a foreign government is not legal.

Major, can I have the law on this? Especially the part about sanctions by US operatives overseas? What if Assange comes back here. Are you actually telling me that the US would consider assassination of an Australian citizen in Australian territory?
The laws on espionage are in the US Code, and cover personnel who are not US citizens. It can be found at http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793, and the relevent passages are:

(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
(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
>snip<
(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.
Note that the provisions do not specify that the person must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
As to the protections of neutrality, Assange cannot claim to be a neutral party under the protections of the Hague Conventions:

Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

CHAPTER I

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus forthe purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.

CHAPTER III

NEUTRAL PERSONS

Art. 16. The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.

Art. 17 A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality
(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;
(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties. In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severly treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

The vast majority is yet to come. I think there will be painful reading in the days ahead.

I don't see why you should write people off as being "too fucking lazy" to bother understanding this. It kind of implies that you think you are somehow better than most of the rest of the world.
KS is upset that we are focused on preventing recurrences of this act, rather than on undermining the US military.

Its frustrating to see such a wealth of information opened up, but people taking the easy debate that requires very little thought. Notice how I didnt say "stupid".
That's not frustrating. Frustration is having spent years in the armed forces of the United States and seeing a "wealth of information" exposed by one of our own Soldiers, apparently with very little thought, which will undermine our efforts over the last decade. Imagine losing friends, defeating enemies, and spending years of your life in pursuit of a goal that you believe in, and having that undermined by some punk with a grudge and a preening dolt of a fantasist who sees himself as a crusading hero for attacking the nations that protected him. That's frustration.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 05:39 PM
Major, sir, turn the tables on this. If this was a US citizen, and a foreign country did this, where would you stand?

I am not defending Assange, in my mind the man is a traitor. But what is proposed is not an option. Haul him back and put him on trial, charge him with treason.



Cue, if he has broken our laws, yes. But we are obligated to look after all our citizens...if he was a US citizen, would you not do the same?

If he was guilty of espionage against one of our true allies - and Australia is a truly our best ally - I'd gladly hand the bastard over.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 05:43 PM
Sir, I am sorry, this is not the case. We actually have very few options, and as far as I know, no one has ever had their citizenship revoked.



Major, sanction of an Australian citizen on foreign soil, or rendition from Australian territory by a foreign government is not legal.



Major, can I have the law on this? Especially the part about sanctions by US operatives overseas? What if Assange comes back here. Are you actually telling me that the US would consider assassination of an Australian citizen in Australian territory?

Point of order - US law prohibits the government from acting to or being complicit in the assassination of anyone. The major may be right that in times of war it may be allowable under the USCMJ I'm not versed enough to answer that without doing the research. But, as a general rule - assassination is illegal under US law.

Sonnabend
11-30-2010, 05:51 PM
It isnt going to happen, so the whole thing is moot anyway.

BadCat
11-30-2010, 05:55 PM
Note that the first two releases involved our military. Names of Afghan informants were released, military tactics and strategies were discussed...

OBUMBLE DID NOTHING

This batch makes Hillary Klinton look like Kim Jung Il, makes the Obumble administration look like the incompetent boobs they are...

NOW OBUMBLE AND HOLDER ARE MAD!!!!!

Madisonian
11-30-2010, 06:01 PM
Point of order - US law prohibits the government from acting to or being complicit in the assassination of anyone. The major may be right that in times of war it may be allowable under the USCMJ I'm not versed enough to answer that without doing the research. But, as a general rule - assassination is illegal under US law.

And seeing as we are not officially or legally in a declared war as provided for by our Constitution with any nation right now, how would the USCMJ apply?


We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

I guess we always have to be at war with someone.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 06:04 PM
And seeing as we are not officially or legally in a declared war as provided for by our Constitution with any nation right now, how would the USCMJ apply?



I guess we always have to be at war with someone.

Don't be a dumbass. :rolleyes: Are you going to sit there and claim that unless there is a formal declaration of war the war is not legal? :rolleyes: Cause if you are - you're accusing the Founding Fathers - who wrote the document - of acting in violation to what they themselves actually wrote. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 06:05 PM
Note that the first two releases involved our military. Names of Afghan informants were released, military tactics and strategies were discussed...

OBUMBLE DID NOTHING

This batch makes Hillary Klinton look like Kim Jung Il, makes the Obumble administration look like the incompetent boobs they are...

NOW OBUMBLE AND HOLDER ARE MAD!!!!!
are you surprised?

BadCat
11-30-2010, 06:13 PM
are you surprised?

Not the least bit.

Calypso Jones
11-30-2010, 06:40 PM
Assange should have mysteriously disappeared off the face of the earth this past summer.

enslaved1
11-30-2010, 09:51 PM
Note that the first two releases involved our military. Names of Afghan informants were released, military tactics and strategies were discussed...

OBUMBLE DID NOTHING

This batch makes Hillary Klinton look like Kim Jung Il, makes the Obumble administration look like the incompetent boobs they are...

NOW OBUMBLE AND HOLDER ARE MAD!!!!!

+1 My thoughts exactly. The first leak stirred up some (Off The Hook during the time and The Next HOPE conference both have a lot of fascinating audio on the topic) but I don't recall much mainstream reaction. Now that we find that diplomats talk smack behind each others backs, it's a big deal.

djones520
11-30-2010, 09:59 PM
No, you do NOT have that right.

That is a line the US will not and should never cross. Assange is not a soldier, and like it or not he IS An Australian citizen. As such, if any harm were to befall him and the US identified, the repercussions would be massive.

Rendition the same..do it on OUR territory and there will be hell to pay. Arrest and trial?

Fine. Anything other than that is unacceptable. You are dealing with a citizen of a major US ally. Use the law to deal with him, arrest and deportation / extradition.

Nothing else.

So your fine with us detaining Afghani, Saudi, Pakistani, etc... combatants but not Australian?

Kay
11-30-2010, 10:05 PM
Assange should have mysteriously disappeared off the face of the earth this past summer.

That's what I say. This is one of those cases where you don't go through a big splash of arguments over what laws apply to what agency in which country. The guy just quietly has an untraceable accident and is no longer an issue.

Anyway, Interpol is after him now over rape charges filed in Sweden.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/30/interpol-issues-arrest-warrant-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/

Odysseus
12-01-2010, 09:17 AM
If he was guilty of espionage against one of our true allies - and Australia is a truly our best ally - I'd gladly hand the bastard over.
Agreed.


Point of order - US law prohibits the government from acting to or being complicit in the assassination of anyone. The major may be right that in times of war it may be allowable under the USCMJ I'm not versed enough to answer that without doing the research. But, as a general rule - assassination is illegal under US law.
Although we use the term assassination, it's not. In warfare, you are allowed to use force against combatants, including spies. Assange is committing an ongoing act of espionage and because of that, he is a legal target.

And seeing as we are not officially or legally in a declared war as provided for by our Constitution with any nation right now, how would the USCMJ apply?

I guess we always have to be at war with someone.
The Constitution states that congress shall have the power to declare war, but does not require that the words "declaration" or "war" be used. Throughout our history, we have engaged in combat without formal declarations. Congress authorized the Barbary Pirates War without declaring war on Tunisia, and Jefferson was one of the original founders. Madison and Monroe were in office during wars against Indian tribes which were never declared. The congressional authorization of the use of force constitutes congressional approval. This war is as legal as it gets.

That's what I say. This is one of those cases where you don't go through a big splash of arguments over what laws apply to what agency in which country. The guy just quietly has an untraceable accident and is no longer an issue.

Anyway, Interpol is after him now over rape charges filed in Sweden.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/30/interpol-issues-arrest-warrant-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/
We should only do that when we have exhausted the legal options, and we haven't even tried to use them. Assange has committed espionage. He is attacking US forces by releasing classified information, and is doing so from a neutral state. We should have indicted him after the first dump, and requested extradition from Sweden. At the very least, they would have been on notice that further dumps would violate their neutrality, and they may have expelled him or shut down his operation. Instead, we have done nothing.

m00
12-02-2010, 10:38 PM
Its frustrating to see such a wealth of information opened up, but people taking the easy debate that requires very little thought. Notice how I didnt say "stupid".

Actually, I looked through it and most of it seemed pretty mundane/obvious.

Rockntractor
12-02-2010, 10:42 PM
Actually, I looked through it and most of it seemed pretty mundane/obvious.

Yeah but you're replying to a guy that contemplates his navel.

m00
12-02-2010, 11:03 PM
Yeah but you're replying to a guy that contemplates his navel.

Supposedly Wikileaks is going to do a release about a US bank soon. I'm looking forward to that one. I just hope it's not BoA! :eek:

Sonnabend
12-03-2010, 08:15 AM
So your fine with us detaining Afghani, Saudi, Pakistani, etc... combatants but not Australian?

DJones..we can have this discussion another day. Detain? Yes. Extradite? Yes.

Assassinate? NO.

Kay
12-03-2010, 08:31 AM
Supposedly Wikileaks is going to do a release about a US bank soon. I'm looking forward to that one. I just hope it's not BoA! :eek:

I'm pretty sure it is in fact BofA.

Odysseus
12-03-2010, 09:58 AM
DJones..we can have this discussion another day. Detain? Yes. Extradite? Yes.

Assassinate? NO.

It's not assassination if he's a combatant, and spies are combatants.

Look, if he were a loyal Aussie, I'd lay my life down for him, but he's not. He's a tool who wants to stand on a soapbox and make a statement about how evil America is, and doesn't care that what he is doing is getting people killed. He's crossed the line between free speech and combat operations, making himself a legitimate target. He needs to go away. If, as I suspect, he's operating out of Switzerland now (Wikileaks is now operating out of a Swiss domain instead of a .com), we need to indict him and ask for extradition. Not rendition, extradition, a perfectly legal and above-board recourse. If the Swiss value their neutrality, they'll do it. If they harbor him, then we have other means of pressuring them to comply (financial sanctions are a wonderful tool when dealing with a nation of bankers). My point is, we have options before we move to lethal sanction, but if all else fails, Assange has made himself a legitmate target.