Julian Assange: An espionage indictment from the US DoJ is the new Nobel Peace Prize
50 replies, posted
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-julian-assange[/url]
[quote]The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has called on the world to "step forward and stand with" Edward Snowden, after the NSA whistleblower was charged with espionage by US federal prosecutors.
In the statement, Assange accuses President Barack Obama of going back on a promise to run a transparent administration and suggests he is the true "traitor" for supposedly betraying a generation of "young, technically minded people" such as Snowden and Bradley Manning, the US Army soldier charged with aiding the enemy who is presently on trial after he gave classified material to WikiLeaks.
"The US government is spying on each and every one of us, but it is Edward Snowden who is charged with espionage for tipping us off. It is getting to the point where the mark of international distinction and service to humanity is no longer the Nobel Peace Prize, but an espionage indictment from the US Department of Justice," said Assange.[/quote]
Somewhat relevant:
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/22/us-usa-security-britain-germany-idUSBRE95L09E20130622[/url]
Germany being p.mad at US & Britain.
Assange may be a bit of a dick, but he's completely right. He's still hiding in that embassy after all this time too.
QOTD: 'It is getting to the point where the mark of international distinction and service to humanity is no longer the Nobel Peace Prize, but an espionage indictment from the US Department of Justice'
[QUOTE=Computrix;41147007]Assange may be a bit of a dick, but he's completely right. He's still hiding in that embassy after all this time too.[/QUOTE]
Well I mean, he can feel free to step on those front doors anytime he wants to but he knows he'll be taken into custody, sent to Sweden then to the US
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;41147433]Well I mean, he can feel free to step on those front doors anytime he wants to but he knows he'll be taken into custody, sent to Sweden then to the US[/QUOTE]
Not if we wrap him in diplomats and fly his ass to Iceland or something
Do they still have officers camping the embassy 24/7 waiting for him to step outside/for embassy staff to smuggle him out?
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41148116]Do they still have officers camping the embassy 24/7 waiting for him to step outside/for embassy staff to smuggle him out?[/QUOTE]
Yeah and it's cost the U.K. millions of dollars just to keep them posted there.
Eucador should hold a Julian Assange look-a-like convention in the embassy, and then slip the real Assange in among them and get them to run out and scatter all at once.
It's a shame the Ecuadorian embassy shares a building with the Colombian embassy, otherwise we could get Assange to a helicopter on the roof - If the damned Colombian embassy wasn't on the way.
Maybe he could ride a zipline from the window to an EFF/Tor Foundation helicopter... from the first floor.
This should be a Kickstarter for this. We can get the money back by filming it.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41148116]Do they still have officers camping the embassy 24/7 waiting for him to step outside/for embassy staff to smuggle him out?[/QUOTE]
Yes and its costing us god knows what a day. They need no more than one single officer to stand there. Even if he did manage to get out he wouldn't be able to leave the country (every single port of entry/exit would prevent him leaving).
[QUOTE=Jsm;41148260]Yes and its costing us god knows what a day. They need no more than one single officer to stand there. Even if he did manage to get out he wouldn't be able to leave the country (every single port of entry/exit would prevent him leaving).[/QUOTE]
What if we put him in a helicopter with a bunch of innocent diplomats? What are they gonna do? Shoot it down?
I dunno why people are so willing to support and defend people like Assange, Manning, and Snowden, they all did exactly what they are being accused of.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41148374]I dunno why people are so willing to support and defend people like Assange, Manning, and Snowden, [B]they all did exactly what they are being accused of.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, obviously.
But what they did it's necessarily bad, and a lot of people believe they shouldn't be punished for it.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41148374]I dunno why people are so willing to support and defend people like Assange, Manning, and Snowden, they all did exactly what they are being accused of.[/QUOTE]
Where's the 'confusing' rating for this post
[QUOTE=Samiam22;41148381]Well, obviously.
But what they did it's necessarily bad, and a lot of people believe they shouldn't be punished for it.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the world doesn't bend to the will of bleeding hearts, we can't pick and choose what laws apply to who and what situations just based on our feelings, that is obviously subjective and is completely illogical. People should accept the fact that he's a traitor by legislative definition, and instead of hoping that he gets off free, should be hoping he doesn't get executed.
[editline]22nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;41148382]Where's the 'confusing' rating for this post[/QUOTE]
Assange, Manning, and Snowden are accused of espionage/spying or whatever, that is exactly what they did, simple.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;41148381]Well, obviously.
But what they did it's necessarily bad, and a lot of people believe they shouldn't be punished for it.[/QUOTE]
You say 'obviously', but comments like
[quote]The US government is spying on each and every one of us, but it is Edward Snowden who is charged with espionage for tipping us off.[/quote]
are implying that what Snowden did was not espionage and that if anything it's the US government. Unless the US government has been giving out its own classified info to other countries, that's just factually incorrect.
Even if Snowden's actions are justified he still needs to be charged so that it can be resolved in a court, so that all evidence can be presented and the condemnation or exoneration is public.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41148498]Sure, but the world doesn't bend to the will of bleeding hearts, we [b]can't pick and choose what laws apply to who and what situations just based on our feelings,[/b] that is obviously subjective and is completely illogical. People should accept the fact that he's a traitor by legislative definition, and instead of hoping that he gets off free, should be hoping he doesn't get executed.
[editline]22nd June 2013[/editline]
Assange, Manning, and Snowden are accused of espionage/spying or whatever, that is exactly what they did, simple.[/QUOTE]
Actually I'm pretty sure this is exactly why we have a concept of minimum/maximum sentence. Y'know, so that we can pick and choose.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;41148531]Actually I'm pretty sure this is exactly why we have a concept of minimum/maximum sentence. Y'know, so that we can pick and choose.[/QUOTE]
But people are suggesting that he get let GO, that he shouldn't have to be arrested and tried for his crimes.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41148557]But people are suggesting that he get let GO, that he shouldn't have to be arrested and tried for his crimes.[/QUOTE]
In that case we should try Schindler because he broke the laws of the Nazi Regime. Sometimes it is not a question of what the 'law' is, but rather what the 'law' ought to be.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41148557]But people are suggesting that he get let GO, that he shouldn't have to be arrested and tried for his crimes.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather he be let go than suffer a 'fair trial'.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;41148531]Actually I'm pretty sure this is exactly why we have a concept of minimum/maximum sentence. Y'know, so that we can pick and choose.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that doesn't change whether he's guilty or innocent in the first place. Unless another law permits exclusion, guilt or innocence are pretty clear-cut. He's absolutely, positively guilty, the question is whether his guilt is mitigated or justified by his motivations, and that would come in during sentencing, as you said.
But either way he still needs to be accused and tried so that this can be publicly determined.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41148570]In that case we should try Schindler because he broke the laws of the Nazi Regime. Sometimes it is not a question of what the 'law' is, but rather what the 'law' ought to be.[/QUOTE]
Why would we try someone for breaking the laws of a country we defeated? That's an awful comparison.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148604]Yes, but that doesn't change whether he's guilty or innocent in the first place. Unless another law permits exclusion, guilt or innocence are pretty clear-cut. He's absolutely, positively guilty, the question is whether his guilt is mitigated or justified by his motivations, and that would come in during sentencing, as you said.
But either way he still needs to be accused and tried so that this can be publicly determined.
[b]Why would we try someone for breaking the laws of a country we defeated? That's an awful comparison.[/b][/QUOTE]
you missed the point entirely
[QUOTE=Kybalt;41148630]you missed the point entirely[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? Snowden is going to be tried by the US because he broke US law. Schindler wasn't tried by the US because he broke Nazi law. We don't put people on trial for breaking the laws of other countries, let alone of countries we defeated militarily. It's not a valid comparison.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148648]What are you talking about? Snowden is going to be tried by the US because he broke US law. Schindler wasn't tried by the US because he broke Nazi law. We don't put people on trial for breaking the laws of other countries, let alone of countries we defeated militarily. It's not a valid comparison.[/QUOTE]
he was trying to make a point about the law not always being right. stop arguing semantics.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148648]What are you talking about? Snowden is going to be tried by the US because he broke US law. Schindler wasn't tried by the US because he broke Nazi law. We don't put people on trial for breaking the laws of other countries, let alone of countries we defeated militarily. It's not a valid comparison.[/QUOTE]
The POINT is a statement about Natural Law theory, not the semantics of bringing to trial someone from a different country.
So Law is Law? Period. No questions asked?
If so, then it seems you would've been totally theoretically OK if Schindler had gotten caught and executed for his good deeds under the Nazis?
Nazi regime examples don't really hold up, unless you're attempting to compare our condition to literally being that of Nazi Germany then it doesn't mean anything, of course it would be wrong for Schindler to be tried and executed, such would be completely against our current society's moral ideologies. We deal with this on a case by case basis, when it comes to law and legislation we can't make any blanket statements.
I'm not very good at conveying what I mean right now, I'm sorry.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;41148655]he was trying to make a point about the law not always being right. stop arguing semantics.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and even if the law isn't right, a person who breaks the law has to be brought to trial so that it can be shown to be wrong and be overturned. Plenty of modern legal precedents have been set by cases going to the Supreme Court, reaching all the way back to the Constitution. If people want to argue that what the NSA was doing was a breach of the 4th Amendment, then Snowden going to trial would be the [i]perfect[/i] way to do it.
If Schindler had aided the Nazi regime in a major way, he could have gone to trial at Nuremburg, and then might have been acquitted on the basis of mitigating circumstances, like Hans Fritzsche was. Again, if there's a crime involved, even if there are mitigating circumstances, it's up to a court to decide.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148744]Yes, and even if the law isn't right, a person who breaks the law has to be brought to trial so that it can be shown to be wrong and be overturned. [b]Plenty of modern legal precedents have been set by cases going to the Supreme Court, reaching all the way back to the Constitution.[/b] If people want to argue that what the NSA was doing was a breach of the 4th Amendment, then Snowden going to trial would be the [i]perfect[/i] way to do it.
If Schindler had aided the Nazi regime in a major way, he could have gone to trial at Nuremburg, and then might have been acquitted on the basis of mitigating circumstances, like Hans Fritzsche was. Again, if there's a crime involved, even if there are mitigating circumstances, it's up to a court to decide.[/QUOTE]
Oh yea, like that other fellow recently. Manning something or other. Got a real productive fair trial with lotsa great precedents set.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41148744]Yes, and even if the law isn't right, a person who breaks the law has to be brought to trial so that it can be shown to be wrong and be overturned. Plenty of modern legal precedents have been set by cases going to the Supreme Court, reaching all the way back to the Constitution. If people want to argue that what the NSA was doing was a breach of the 4th Amendment, then Snowden going to trial would be the [i]perfect[/i] way to do it.
If Schindler had aided the Nazi regime in a major way, he could have gone to trial at Nuremburg, and then might have been acquitted on the basis of mitigating circumstances, like Hans Fritzsche was. Again, if there's a crime involved, even if there are mitigating circumstances, it's up to a court to decide.[/QUOTE]
Courts are traditionally a formal way of asking "Did he do that thing that is written here he shouldn't do?". In this case the technical answer is yes, and the technical response is punishment.
The example of Nazi Germany may not be applicable by many social standards, but the theory of law still stands. Had Schindler theoretically gone to court for breaking their laws they wouldn't bother with the ethics of it, but rather the fact of whether or not he saved those Jews.
Courts rarely overturn or ignore laws, and even then it must fit with all precedents, it must be somewhat relevant to the current Legal Zeitgeist, and it must not diminish the scope of punishment as a whole.
If a man breaks into my house in the middle of the night and comes at me with an axe and I shoot him in self-defense, I'm probably going to court. The fact is, I killed someone and will be charged with murder. If I am forced at gunpoint to rob a bank, I'm probably going to court, because the fact is that I robbed a bank and will be charged with theft. If I leak a bunch of classified documents showing gross government breaches of basic rights, I'm probably going to court, because the fact is that I leaked documents and will be charged with espionage.
Mitigating circumstances and justifications only come into play once the defendant is actually in court. He still gets charged with a crime, but the court is the place where he can argue his case.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;41148759]Oh yea, like that other fellow recently. Manning something or other. Got a real productive fair trial with lotsa great precedents set.[/QUOTE]
If a man shoots someone else and there are doubts as to whether it was self-defense, I don't think how bad the jail is should be a factor in deciding whether or not he gets tried. Manning was mistreated but that's a whole separate issue.
Not to mention Manning was mistreated by the military, not a civilian agency, and his actions were much less justifiable than Snowden's.
[editline]23rd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41148797]Courts are traditionally a formal way of asking "Did he do that thing that is written here he shouldn't do?". In this case the technical answer is yes, and the technical response is punishment. [/QUOTE]
The reality is that any modern justice system is far more complex than this and it is perfectly possible to be acquitted of a crime you obviously committed on the basis of your actions being justified or excused.
Again, I could in theory kill someone, be charged with murder, and be acquitted on grounds of self-defense. There's no question as to whether I committed the act (it's obvious I did), but there are factors that make it something other than an automatic you did the crime -> you get punished.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.