Julian Assange Explains WikiLeaks Disclosure...

[Ben]

I believe it is a stretch to say that Assange has violated the Espionage Act given his status as a Journalist and the fact that he was not the primary source of the information.

And he isn't American....
I've said we should analogize. And look at the Ellsberg case. So, in this situation Assange is the N.Y. Times and Manning is Ellsberg. Manning did break the law... like Ellsberg.
Again, Assange is the mere Publisher....
I mean, he collaborated with the Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Why doesn't the Obama administration go after them as well.
And, too, why didn't the Nixon administration go after the N.Y. Times in the Ellsberg case?
Again, Manning, to clarify, did break the law. Unquestionably.

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...to-get-assange

[hippifried]

I really have no interest in cherry-picked history lessons, attempting to justify the beligerant stance taken toward the nation of Ecuador. None of the examples even remotely resemble what's happening in this case. There's no excuse for violating international law & treaties that have been signed. It would be a breach of trust, & there'd be no reason for anyone to maintain an embassy or even diplomatic relations with the UK.

[Stavros]

I wasn't 'cherry picking' events from history but drawing attention to the examples of recent history where Embassies have caused significant problems for the police and the diplomatic service in London. There is no 'belligerent' stance toward Ecuador -the UK has not declared war on it; there is a real sense of frustration, even embarrassment with the inability to arrest Assange, who has violated the terms of his bail, and and as I have shown, though it may contradict the 1961 protocol, the UK does have a legal right to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy, that you don't like it is irrelevant. There have been several instances in the past when officials at the USSR Embassy were 'sent home' for activities 'incommensurate with their diplomatic status', usually when a spy had been caught and there were tit-for-tat expulsions, it didn't irreperably damage UK-USSR relations. Most recently, in 2007, four Russian diplomats were expelled from the Russian Embassy in London when the government in Moscow refused to extradite Andrei Lugavoi who is wanted for questioning in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, but even that case has not ruined UK-Russian relations.

Those who put up some of the money for Assange's bail are now liable, but I don't know if those who did cough up expected that Assange would decide that anyway the law doesn't apply to him and he will do whatever he wants not to face the music. The Courts were not obliged to grant him bail, and his assumption that the rule of law will not apply to him -and in fact, should not apply to him- either in the UK or in Sweden -or for that matter, the USA is a simple case of arrogance and frankly indefensible. Daniel Ellsberg, who freely admitted photocopying secret documents when he was employed at the Rand Corporation, did not 'run away' to Canada or Peru he stayed, gave himself up and was put on trial in California and although, arguably, the documents on military strategy in Vietnam were more explosive than what has so far emerged from the Wikileaks trove, the case against him was dismissed. The New York TImes, who published the papers, also eventually was exonerated by the Supreme Court. In comparison to Ellsberg, Assange is a vain prima donna convinced of his own supreme importance.

[broncofan]

And he isn't American....
I've said we should analogize. And look at the Ellsberg case. So, in this situation Assange is the N.Y. Times and Manning is Ellsberg. Manning did break the law... like Ellsberg.
Again, Assange is the mere Publisher....
I mean, he collaborated with the Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Why doesn't the Obama administration go after them as well.
And, too, why didn't the Nixon administration go after the N.Y. Times in the Ellsberg case?
Again, Manning, to clarify, did break the law. Unquestionably.

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...to-get-assange

Good article Ben. I agree that the fact that he is not American and was not in the U.S seems significant. I had written a long post on whether there should be jurisdictional issues; whether a U.S court should be able to try a foreign national who purportedly broke a domestic law while outside of U.S territories, but the truth is jurisdiction is a tricky thing and I'm not sure whether we would have it. It certainly seems unreasonable to be able to prosecute someone who did not in any way avail himself of the benefits of citizenship, was not in our sovereign territory, but is still subject to our penal law.

At the very least, the First Amendment should provide protection for someone publishing such information; if not in procuring the information, deciding it is newsworthy and publishing it.

As you said, Manning did break the law, and though I am not sympathetic to the entire enterprise, there should be a limit to the vigor with which journalists who decide to publish such information are threatened with the full force of our espionage and sedition acts.

[hippifried]

Again, Stavros: Your examples don't fit the current scenario in the least little bit. You just seem to be grasping at straws, looking for excuses to justify the belligerent stance of the UK. & what? You don't consider a threat to invade the Ecuadoran embassy by force (an act of war) a belligerence?

The people who donated money for bail did just that. It's a donation, not a loan. You don't expect repayment on a donation. They have no liability in this.

The nation of Ecuador... Oh excuse me: The independent nation of Ecuador, who isn't part of the commonwealth & doesn't owe any ass kissing to the UK, granted political assylum to Assange because he was/is the target of a multi-national political persecution. Treaties take precident in "the rule of law" that's getting all this lip service. The UK being one of the persecuters doen't negate the protocol. Neither does the feelings & frustrations of bureaucrats.

What else ya got?

[Prospero]

Tell me all you Assange supporters how this can be justified as freedom of speech?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011...n_1115965.html

The coward should break cover and face the allegations of sex crimes. Maybe then we could begin to take him a bit more seriously.

[Stavros]

Again, Stavros: Your examples don't fit the current scenario in the least little bit. You just seem to be grasping at straws, looking for excuses to justify the belligerent stance of the UK. & what? You don't consider a threat to invade the Ecuadoran embassy by force (an act of war) a belligerence?

The people who donated money for bail did just that. It's a donation, not a loan. You don't expect repayment on a donation. They have no liability in this.

The nation of Ecuador... Oh excuse me: The independent nation of Ecuador, who isn't part of the commonwealth & doesn't owe any ass kissing to the UK, granted political assylum to Assange because he was/is the target of a multi-national political persecution. Treaties take precident in "the rule of law" that's getting all this lip service. The UK being one of the persecuters doen't negate the protocol. Neither does the feelings & frustrations of bureaucrats.

What else ya got?

Well, once again, the British government is more sensitive to the 'abuse' of Embassies than some other governments -a policewoman was after all shot dead from the Libyan People's Bureau in London, that is hardly a minor incident. Treaties do not take precedence to Acts of Parliament, because Parliament is sovereign -Parliament can, in fact, ignore directives from the European Union, and as it has given itself the legal right to enter the Ecuadorian Embassy in an extreme situation, the violation of protocol, though regretable, would not be the key issue: if for example, British visitors to the Embassy were being murdered one by one, do you think the government would do nothing? Isn't there a precedent for this (without the law of intervention) when the SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy in 1979?

Given how protocol -rather than law- governs much of diplomatic relations, I think it matters that the threatening (not belligerent) message sent to the Ecuadorian government was sent against the advice of Foreign Office civil servants, and I believe Hague does privately regret sending it.

I don't have a problem with Ecuador, the issue is the arrogance of Julian Assange issuing instructions to the governments of the UK and the USA while refusing to comply with the terms of his bail, and refusing to travel to Sweden to answer in person allegations of lawbreaking of which he insists he is innocent.

[Ben]

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control

The US and allied governments exploit both law and cyber-attacks as a weapon to punish groups that challenge it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ternet-freedom

[Ben]

Bill Maher interviews Assange:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...ange-urges-lea

[fivekatz]

And he isn't American....
I've said we should analogize. And look at the Ellsberg case. So, in this situation Assange is the N.Y. Times and Manning is Ellsberg. Manning did break the law... like Ellsberg.
Again, Assange is the mere Publisher....
I mean, he collaborated with the Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. Why doesn't the Obama administration go after them as well.
And, too, why didn't the Nixon administration go after the N.Y. Times in the Ellsberg case?
Again, Manning, to clarify, did break the law. Unquestionably.

Don't lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange's accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...to-get-assange

In part because Richard Nixon was more "liberal" than Barack Obama and certainly within the US the politics of the time in Ellsburg case made revealing state secrets regarding Vietnam a public service and post 9/11 the American people are willing to forego much of the Bill of Rights and first Bush and now Obama know it and govern their actions accordingly. Sadly perhaps, since John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act to the Patriot Act the one constant is the Bill of Rights is a very fluid document in face of fear. It matters little that WikiLeaks source is off shore it has if anything made life a little better for the leaker.