Re: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

I bring up "the sex thing" because I'm curious why no other charges have yet
been filed against him.  What with him being such a horrible criminal and
all, I'd think he would have been charged with a relevant crime by now.

Perhaps it is because in the last major case our government tried to
prosecute the publishers of leaked information, the Supreme Court sided with
my over the top defense, 6-3.

Perhaps it is because prosecuting WikiLeaks means also prosecuting several
international newspapers, who are publishing most of the leaks before
WikiLeaks does.

A Congressional Research Service report stated that "there is ample
statutory authority" for a prosecution. But it goes on to say: "...we are
aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through
unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for
publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make
such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based
on concerns about government censorship. To the extent that the
investigation implicates any foreign nationals whose conduct occurred
entirely overseas, any resulting prosecution may carry foreign policy
implications related to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction."

Essentially, CRS found that a plausible reading of the Espionage Act, by
itself, might find some grounds to charge Assange --but that precedent, the
Constitution, and jurisdictional issues all weigh against a successful
prosecution.

So if my defense is over the top, at least I have the legal bits of it in
common with 6 Supreme Court Justices and the Congressional Research Service.

-- 
Nick
On Dec 7, 2010 7:45 PM, "Karl" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I doubt he will, but he certainly could, and he should be willing to
>> stand for that belief.
>
> He clearly *is* standing for that belief. That doesn't mean he needs to
> voluntarily and passively be imprisoned for crimes he hasn't committed,
crimes
> which are not acknowledged by the jurisdictions he lives and travels in,
and
> crimes which have been invented after the fact (i.e. Lieberman's attempt
to add
> some more provisions to our Espionage Act, in violation of the 1st
amendment and
> the Supreme Court's rulings on the same).
>
> **sorry, but he received stolen documents from a military person in
violation of
> security classifications. He has committed a crime, the least of which is
> conspiracy and the only reason he will likely circumvent espionage is
because he
> is not a foreign agent, he is an individual.
>
> **your defense of him is a bit over the top.
>
> The for the only crime he has been charged with, which has nothing
whatsoever to
> do with the leaks, he voluntarily met with British police today and was
arrested
> without bail.
>
> **yes, and I am ignoring the whole sex thing, and cannot imagine why you
bring
> it up other than to distrtact.
>
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot