WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LUVMBDiesels · #1 12-07-2010, 06:13 AM

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested on Swedish warrant

PHOTOS
Previous Next

FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2010 file photo, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaks during a news conference at the Geneva press club, in Geneva, Switzerland. Assange is a former computer hacker who has embarrassed the U.S. government and foreign leaders with his online release of a huge trove of secret American diplomatic cables. (AP Photo/Keystone, Martial Trezzini, File) (Martial Trezzini - AP)

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2010; 5:59 AM

LONDON -- Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks Web site whose release of sensitive U.S. documents on the Internet has generated outrage and embarrassment in officials circles, was arrested by British police Tuesday morning on a Swedish warrant, and was set to appear before a magistrate for a bail hearing later today.
Assange turned himself in at a London police station at 9:30 a.m. local time, and was immediately taken into custody, police officials said. Later today, his lawyers were set to request that he be freed on bail pending the result of the extradition proceedings, which could take weeks. Assange is set to fight extradition to Sweden, where he is being sought for questioning related to allegations of sexual assault against two women.

Got him... I wonder who he will flip on to save his own skin...

strelnik · #2 12-07-2010, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested on Swedish warrant

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2010; 5:59 AM

Got him... I wonder who he will flip on to save his own skin...

But if WikiLeaks leaks more things while he is in custody, can he be arraigned on those charges?

The real issue here is that he made people look bad. That's something these guys can't stand worse than murder.

That's why people get fired for seemingly unimportant things in corporate cultures, but get defended when they murder someone to "take one for the firm." Sad but true.

SwampYankee · #3 12-07-2010, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

But if WikiLeaks leaks more things while he is in custody

Word is many of his supporters have all his information on their computers in encrypted form and if he was taken into custody or disapeared a "key" would go out to unlock all of it. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Will there be a flood of information or will it continue to come out in smaller, timed chunks or was that b.s.?

TX76513 · #4 12-07-2010, 09:01 AM

It will be a few weeks and the news will report that he took his life while in custody and hung himself with towels.

tonkovich · #5 12-07-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TX76513

It will be a few weeks and the news will report that he took his life while in custody and hung himself with towels.

possibly. in the old days it was "shot while trying to escape"

but wikileaks will go on. and i do look forward to the next release.

#6 12-07-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

But if WikiLeaks leaks more things while he is in custody, can he be arraigned on those charges?

The real issue here is that he made people look bad. That's something these guys can't stand worse than murder.

That's why people get fired for seemingly unimportant things in corporate cultures, but get defended when they murder someone to "take one for the firm." Sad but true.

This arrest was related to him "being sought for questioning related to allegations of sexual assault against two women."

Unless he holds a security clearance, he won't be subject to arrest for publishing this info. If the US wants to arrest someone, they need to go after the person(s) who released the classified info.

dynalow · #7 12-07-2010, 09:51 AM

^^^
No less a right wing bomb thrower than Diane Feinstein wants this guy tried for espionage!

Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act
Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security..

By DIANNE FEINSTEIN

When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove—more than 250,000 secret State Department cables—he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.

The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "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."

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

No doubt aware of this law, and despite firm warnings, Mr. Assange went ahead and released the cables on Nov. 28.

In a letter sent to Mr. Assange and his lawyer on Nov. 27, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh warned in strong terms that the documents had been obtained "in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action."

Mr. Koh's letter said that publication of the documents in Mr. Assange's possession would, at minimum:

• "Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals—from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

• "Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

• "Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries—partners, allies and common stakeholders—to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability."

That WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is breaking the law is clear.
None of this stopped Mr. Assange. That he is breaking the law and must be stopped from doing more harm is clear. I also believe a prosecution would be successful.

In an October analysis of earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, the Congressional Research Service reported that "it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated."

Both elements exist in this case. The "damage to national security" is beyond question. As for intent, Mr. Assange's own words paint a damning picture.

In June, the New Yorker reported that Mr. Assange has asserted that a "social movement" set on revealing secrets could "bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the U.S. administration." The same piece revealed Mr. Assange's stunning disregard for the grave harm his actions could bring to innocent people, which he dismisses as "collateral damage."

Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions. But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt.

As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.

This latest WikiLeaks release demonstrates Mr. Assange's willingness to disseminate plans, comments, discussions and other communications that compromise our country. And let there be no doubt about the depth of the harm. Consider the sobering assessment, delivered in an email to employees of U.S. intelligence agencies late last month, by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: "The actions taken by WikiLeaks are not only deplorable, irresponsible, and reprehensible—they could have major impacts on our national security. The disclosure of classified documents puts at risk our troops, law enforcement, diplomats, and especially the American people."

Mrs. Feinstein, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from California and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

#8 12-07-2010, 10:10 AM

Espionage? Seriously?

This guy's not even a US citizen and he published information that was given to him by others (i.e., he didn't break into the pentagon and steal it). Don't US senators have to have some knowledge of US law?

Jim B. · #9 12-07-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

But if WikiLeaks leaks more things while he is in custody, can he be arraigned on those charges?

The real issue here is that he made people look bad. That's something these guys can't stand worse than murder.

That's why people get fired for seemingly unimportant things in corporate cultures, but get defended when they murder someone to "take one for the firm." Sad but true.

So true. Look at all the cockroaches running for cover when somene turned over the rock!!

To me he is a hero in the tradition of Woodward and Bernstein !!!!

People are vying for the honor to "officiate at his public crucifixion".

I'd be willing to "BET" those Swedish charges of "sexual harrassment" are totally groundless, and those 2 women were paid off just to make them.

"Sexual harrassment" is a very general term, very subject to abuse in the very making of such complaints ( A sidelong glance or a desire for revenge can be sufficient to trigger it),

...not to mention, it's fertile grounds for a bunch of constipated lawyers.

Jim B. · #10 12-07-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

^^^
No less a right wing bomb thrower than Diane Feinstein wants this guy tried for espionage!

Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act
Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security..

By DIANNE FEINSTEIN

When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove—more than 250,000 secret State Department cables—he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.

The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "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."

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

No doubt aware of this law, and despite firm warnings, Mr. Assange went ahead and released the cables on Nov. 28.

In a letter sent to Mr. Assange and his lawyer on Nov. 27, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh warned in strong terms that the documents had been obtained "in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action."

Mr. Koh's letter said that publication of the documents in Mr. Assange's possession would, at minimum:

• "Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals—from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

• "Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

• "Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries—partners, allies and common stakeholders—to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability."

That WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is breaking the law is clear.
None of this stopped Mr. Assange. That he is breaking the law and must be stopped from doing more harm is clear. I also believe a prosecution would be successful.

In an October analysis of earlier WikiLeaks disclosures, the Congressional Research Service reported that "it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate the types of documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated."

Both elements exist in this case. The "damage to national security" is beyond question. As for intent, Mr. Assange's own words paint a damning picture.

In June, the New Yorker reported that Mr. Assange has asserted that a "social movement" set on revealing secrets could "bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the U.S. administration." The same piece revealed Mr. Assange's stunning disregard for the grave harm his actions could bring to innocent people, which he dismisses as "collateral damage."

Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions. But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt.

As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.

This latest WikiLeaks release demonstrates Mr. Assange's willingness to disseminate plans, comments, discussions and other communications that compromise our country. And let there be no doubt about the depth of the harm. Consider the sobering assessment, delivered in an email to employees of U.S. intelligence agencies late last month, by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: "The actions taken by WikiLeaks are not only deplorable, irresponsible, and reprehensible—they could have major impacts on our national security. The disclosure of classified documents puts at risk our troops, law enforcement, diplomats, and especially the American people."

Mrs. Feinstein, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from California and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"National Security" is the most overwrought excuse there is for any government to do anything it wants, and commit any abuse it likes, against the world and its own citizens.

Witness the TSA, "Homeland Security" theatre, trashing the Constitutional rights of freedom of the speech, press, and against search and seizure, to bear arms, etc etc.

Witness Stalin, Hitler and every single 3rd world tinhorn dictator.

Oh yeah, Feinstein is in great company. That war criminal Dick Cheney would LOVE this.

lutzTD · #11 12-07-2010, 10:36 AM

someone wanting his 15 minutes at the cost of a lot of people. They will get him stopped one way or another. While I dont agree with everything our leaders do, there is no way any government could function without secrets. giving someone carte blanche because he is doing it for some selfish or non selfish reason is ludicrous.

MTI · #12 12-07-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Espionage? Seriously?

This guy's not even a US citizen and he published information that was given to him by others (i.e., he didn't break into the pentagon and steal it). Don't US senators have to have some knowledge of US law?

Is Citizenship a Prerequisite?

#13 12-07-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Is Citizenship a Prerequisite?

Well, if you are not a US citizen and are not within the US, what jurisdiction do they have? Can the US government make laws that apply to citizens of other countries while they are in their own countries? Could iran pass a law making it illegal for me to publish anything negative about iran within the US?