Julian Assange - Assassin Bait?

[Ian]

Assange is an agent whose mission is to stir up so much shit that the US and other governments will have a pretext for coming down hard on the next whistle-blower.

Not to be confused with Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook. He's an FBI stooge who's convinced untold millions of people to give out information about themselves and what they think and do every day. Absolutely sinister.

[Audley Strange]

Sedition, not treason surely?

Heh. I think he's more likely to end up in one of those anonymous prison complexes, but I have a suspicion he has not quite blown his load quite yet, keep watching.

He's not a US citizen, so it cannot be treason. Might be treason against the UK, but that's a stretch. No, he's an enemy combatant and a spy and should be treated as such.

You misunderstood, I was suggesting that as you said "IF he had been an American citizen". I'm sure there is difference between treason, which I think is a deliberate betrayal of your state to a foreign power, like those little traitors that blew themselves up on buses in London and Sedition which is an attempt to undermine political office.

I'd disagree that he was either an enemy combatant or a spy though any more than you would be if I dumped on your lap "100 secrets Obama doesn't want you to know" that proved he was into creating Socialist paradise replete with mass Demonic Possession and Rape camps, and you alerted the media.

I don't like the guy much, but I find it amusing that those who laud the U.S. of being the pinnacle of freedom and democracy are getting their knickers in a twist about what is in essence a freedom of expression issue.

[Audley Strange]

Assange is an agent whose mission is to stir up so much shit that the US and other governments will have a pretext for coming down hard on the next whistle-blower.

Not to be confused with Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook. He's an FBI stooge who's convinced untold millions of people to give out information about themselves and what they think and do every day. Absolutely sinister.

Heh. He didn't convince them of anything, they used the service.

I could get in deep to why Facebook is Sinister, but since this is a bit of a derail, instead I'll resort to one of my mottos. Fuck Facebook.

[Schneibster]

I'd disagree that he was either an enemy combatant or a spy though any more than you would be if I dumped on your lap "100 secrets Obama doesn't want you to know" that proved he was into creating Socialist paradise replete with mass Demonic Possession and Rape camps, and you alerted the media.

I think there is a fair bit more to it than that; we're talking about a database of diplomatic communications, that is, communications that would reveal the background not only of previous negotiations, but of ones in progress- more than a few of which involve negotiations between nuclear states. This is dangerous to bystanders, not to mention legitimate US and allied interests (such as, say, for example, British interests, since we seem to be in bed together so much). "Spy" is pretty much where I'd go; "enemy combatant" seems hyperbolic to me, and I am in any case against militarizing what should be civilian matters of criminal or tortious conduct.

I don't like the guy much, but I find it amusing that those who laud the U.S. of being the pinnacle of freedom and democracy are getting their knickers in a twist about what is in essence a freedom of expression issue.

I had the same attitude until it turned out that the key to the entire thing had been revealed, releasing the entire database to the public domain without necessary redaction. This clusterfuck occurred because dumbshit was busy being paranoid instead of making sure he kept his commitment to his news outlet partners to hold back the parts that shouldn't see the light of day unless he was offed or disappeared. His news outlet partners have now repudiated him, and his integrity no longer means shit, AFAIC. It's no longer amusing, now it's a clusterfuck (which may appear amusing on the outside, but on the inside involves people getting killed for, for example, helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons).

[fordo]

this thread makes me lol.

[Audley Strange]

I'd disagree that he was either an enemy combatant or a spy though any more than you would be if I dumped on your lap "100 secrets Obama doesn't want you to know" that proved he was into creating Socialist paradise replete with mass Demonic Possession and Rape camps, and you alerted the media.

I think there is a fair bit more to it than that; we're talking about a database of diplomatic communications, that is, communications that would reveal the background not only of previous negotiations, but of ones in progress- more than a few of which involve negotiations between nuclear states. This is dangerous to bystanders, not to mention legitimate US and allied interests (such as, say, for example, British interests, since we seem to be in bed together so much). "Spy" is pretty much where I'd go; "enemy combatant" seems hyperbolic to me, and I am in any case against militarizing what should be civilian matters of criminal or tortious conduct.

Well I don't see him as a spy because I don't think he did any spying. Unlike say that doofus Gary MacKinnon who actively hacked into intelligence networks. While MacKinnon may have been doing it for his own ends he was spying on the U.S. Government. Wikileaks however received a data dump, they did not actively or aggressively breach any intelligence networks.
That was whomever gave Wikileaks the information. (I'd be interested on your take on whether Bradley Manning's case should be considered a traitor a spy or a civilian criminal.)

Assange is a cynical self aggrandising opportunist certainly, which seems to me make him more of a frustrated politician than anything else. I have little sympathy for him since I also agree that the release of the encrypted key to the non redacted files is deeply irresponsible.

[Schneibster]

Well I don't see him as a spy because I don't think he did any spying. Unlike say that doofus Gary MacKinnon who actively hacked into intelligence networks. While MacKinnon may have been doing it for his own ends he was spying on the U.S. Government. Wikileaks however received a data dump, they did not actively or aggressively breach any intelligence networks.

Your argument is not unreasonable, but I suspect that technical definitions of espionage involve not only obtaining but receiving. We'd have to go look it up in US law; that's not hard, I expect it would be the US Code or the UCMJ, both of which are easily available online, but we'll only go there if you're interested enough. I'm not by myself.

The thing is, espionage is revealing secrets to enemies; and publishing them on the Internet will certainly do that. So I suspect technically that's what they'd charge him with, assuming it comes to that. Right now it's academic because AFAIK he's not in custody, nor is he on US soil. I don't expect to see an expedition to get him, at least not just show up and murder him or whatnot. They might arrest him and bring him here, though I doubt it if they haven't so far. I wouldn't care to speculate other than that.

That was whomever gave Wikileaks the information. (I'd be interested on your take on whether Bradley Manning's case should be considered a traitor a spy or a civilian criminal.)

Well, if Manning was a member of the military at the time, then he's under the UCMJ, not the US Code, although the UCMJ substantially incorporates the US Code. I suspect he could be charged with both espionage and treason; I haven't been following the case, frankly, because I don't really care as long as they don't just off him, or do something stupid like torture him or some shit. Everybody gets their day in court, even people who murder and eat babies, which is surely worse than all but the highest treason or espionage, which this is not. They'll throw the book at him so I expect to hear charges of both before long. I will be disappointed if they try for the death penalty, because I'm not in favor of it. Other than that, I really don't care. He was disgruntled and did something stupid and now he pays. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Assange is a cynical self aggrandising opportunist certainly, which seems to me make him more of a frustrated politician than anything else. I have little sympathy for him since I also agree that the release of the encrypted key to the non redacted files is deeply irresponsible.

Yeah, I think our views are pretty close. I felt like he might have started out trying to do good but has wound up doing evil because he got greedy and/or paranoid.

[Seth]

Assange is an agent whose mission is to stir up so much shit that the US and other governments will have a pretext for coming down hard on the next whistle-blower.

Not to be confused with Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook. He's an FBI stooge who's convinced untold millions of people to give out information about themselves and what they think and do every day. Absolutely sinister.

Interesting assertion...and not entirely un-credible, unfortunately.

I agree with you that putting such personal information in the hands of some computer geeks you don't know, much less publishing it to the world, is incredibly stupid.

You'll note that my Facebook page has zero personal information on it, for that very reason.

[Seth]

Sedition, not treason surely?

Heh. I think he's more likely to end up in one of those anonymous prison complexes, but I have a suspicion he has not quite blown his load quite yet, keep watching.

He's not a US citizen, so it cannot be treason. Might be treason against the UK, but that's a stretch. No, he's an enemy combatant and a spy and should be treated as such.

You misunderstood, I was suggesting that as you said "IF he had been an American citizen". I'm sure there is difference between treason, which I think is a deliberate betrayal of your state to a foreign power, like those little traitors that blew themselves up on buses in London and Sedition which is an attempt to undermine political office.

I'd disagree that he was either an enemy combatant or a spy though any more than you would be if I dumped on your lap "100 secrets Obama doesn't want you to know" that proved he was into creating Socialist paradise replete with mass Demonic Possession and Rape camps, and you alerted the media.

I don't like the guy much, but I find it amusing that those who laud the U.S. of being the pinnacle of freedom and democracy are getting their knickers in a twist about what is in essence a freedom of expression issue.

You're laboring under the misperception that our protections for "freedom of expression" are absolute. They aren't, and never have been, and were never intended to be utterly without constraint. Even at the time the First Amendment was written they were aware of the need for military and diplomatic secrecy, which is why the Constitution carefully defines treason in part as giving "aid" to our enemies. Revealing military and diplomatic secrets is the very essence of "giving aid" to our enemies, which is why Bradley Manning should hang for treason and Julian Assange should be arrested, tried, convicted and hung for espionage.

What they did was far worse than falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and we all know that that's not permissible "free expression."

[Seth]

Well I don't see him as a spy because I don't think he did any spying. Unlike say that doofus Gary MacKinnon who actively hacked into intelligence networks. While MacKinnon may have been doing it for his own ends he was spying on the U.S. Government. Wikileaks however received a data dump, they did not actively or aggressively breach any intelligence networks.

Your argument is not unreasonable, but I suspect that technical definitions of espionage involve not only obtaining but receiving.

Yup. Or transmitting.

18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or
(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
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with 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
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; 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
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or
control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the
national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to
be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(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.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a
conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the
defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p)
of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall
apply to -
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to
such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts
from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining
after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by
law.

We'd have to go look it up in US law; that's not hard, I expect it would be the US Code or the UCMJ, both of which are easily available online, but we'll only go there if you're interested enough. I'm not by myself.

Done.

The thing is, espionage is revealing secrets to enemies; and publishing them on the Internet will certainly do that. So I suspect technically that's what they'd charge him with, assuming it comes to that. Right now it's academic because AFAIK he's not in custody, nor is he on US soil. I don't expect to see an expedition to get him, at least not just show up and murder him or whatnot. They might arrest him and bring him here, though I doubt it if they haven't so far. I wouldn't care to speculate other than that.

Espionage is also obtaining secrets for the purpose of revealing them if it affects national defense.

That was whomever gave Wikileaks the information. (I'd be interested on your take on whether Bradley Manning's case should be considered a traitor a spy or a civilian criminal.)

Well, if Manning was a member of the military at the time, then he's under the UCMJ, not the US Code, although the UCMJ substantially incorporates the US Code. I suspect he could be charged with both espionage and treason; I haven't been following the case, frankly, because I don't really care as long as they don't just off him, or do something stupid like torture him or some shit. Everybody gets their day in court, even people who murder and eat babies, which is surely worse than all but the highest treason or espionage, which this is not. They'll throw the book at him so I expect to hear charges of both before long. I will be disappointed if they try for the death penalty, because I'm not in favor of it. Other than that, I really don't care. He was disgruntled and did something stupid and now he pays. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

He can hang under the UCMJ, but it's ALSO treason as defined by Article III:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Assange is a cynical self aggrandising opportunist certainly, which seems to me make him more of a frustrated politician than anything else. I have little sympathy for him since I also agree that the release of the encrypted key to the non redacted files is deeply irresponsible.

Yeah, I think our views are pretty close. I felt like he might have started out trying to do good but has wound up doing evil because he got greedy and/or paranoid.

Bullshit. He didn't start out trying to do good, he knew full well, from the moment he received the data, that he was engaged in espionage and was undertaking to levy war on the United States. He hates the United States and is perfectly happy that the information is killing Americans and others. He's an enemy combatant and his fate should be the same as any other person who levies war on us.

[Tyrannical]

I suspect the CIA assassination plot need only involve a "fan" with an STD.

[Schneibster]

Well researched, Seth.

I think there are people who think secret == evil.

I think they're wrong; oversight of necessarily secret activity needs to exist, but without violating the secrecy.

But they think that, so I have no problem describing them as thinking they are doing good when they reveal secrets. I'm not sure why you called bullshit on that. It doesn't strike me as very insightful.

Know thy enemy and all like that.

[Seth]

Well researched, Seth.

Thanks. Took all of about 15 seconds to query "US code espionage" and copypasta, but thanks anyway.

I think there are people who think secret == evil.

Well, "other people's secrets==evil" anyway. Assange didn't have any problem with being all upset about his little sex secrets being "free."

I think they're wrong; oversight of necessarily secret activity needs to exist, but without violating the secrecy.

That's what we have representative government for.

But they think that, so I have no problem describing them as thinking they are doing good when they reveal secrets. I'm not sure why you called bullshit on that. It doesn't strike me as very insightful.

Because no one with even half a brain could rationally believe that revealing uncensored military and diplomatic secrets on the internet is going to do unalloyed "good." Sure, they thought it was "good" for their cause, which is destroying America, but that's hardly the metric.

Know thy enemy and all like that.

Kill thy enemy, more like. Much more efficient and safe.

[Schneibster]

I think there are people who think secret == evil.

Well, "other people's secrets==evil" anyway. Assange didn't have any problem with being all upset about his little sex secrets being "free."

But those aren't gummint secrets. You're changing the subject.

I think they're wrong; oversight of necessarily secret activity needs to exist, but without violating the secrecy.

That's what we have representative government for.

Give the man a cigar. That's why the warrantless wiretapping without judicial oversight was such a big deal, and why the NYT was doing their job writing about it. Journalism is an institution of democracy just as much as government.

But they think that, so I have no problem describing them as thinking they are doing good when they reveal secrets. I'm not sure why you called bullshit on that. It doesn't strike me as very insightful.

Because no one with even half a brain could rationally believe that revealing uncensored military and diplomatic secrets on the internet is going to do unalloyed "good." Sure, they thought it was "good" for their cause, which is destroying America, but that's hardly the metric.

He wasn't revealing them uncensored, until he fucked up and revealed the decryption key. Maybe you forgot.

Know thy enemy and all like that.

Kill thy enemy, more like. Much more efficient and safe.

Ignoring advice from the olders is usually not a good idea. Sun Tzu was a pretty smart guy.

[Seth]

I think there are people who think secret == evil.

Well, "other people's secrets==evil" anyway. Assange didn't have any problem with being all upset about his little sex secrets being "free."

But those aren't gummint secrets. You're changing the subject.

Sauce, goose, gander.

I think they're wrong; oversight of necessarily secret activity needs to exist, but without violating the secrecy.

That's what we have representative government for.

Give the man a cigar. That's why the warrantless wiretapping without judicial oversight was such a big deal, and why the NYT was doing their job writing about it. Journalism is an institution of democracy just as much as government.

Indeed. But there's a difference between revealing that the government was wiretapping people without warrants and revealing WHICH people were being wiretapped and WHAT WAS SAID during the wiretapped conversations in a manner that would endanger, for example, confidential informants working undercover to catch mob bosses that ends up getting the informants and/or federal agents killed.

That's the equivalent of what Assange has done.

But they think that, so I have no problem describing them as thinking they are doing good when they reveal secrets. I'm not sure why you called bullshit on that. It doesn't strike me as very insightful.

Because no one with even half a brain could rationally believe that revealing uncensored military and diplomatic secrets on the internet is going to do unalloyed "good." Sure, they thought it was "good" for their cause, which is destroying America, but that's hardly the metric.

He wasn't revealing them uncensored, until he fucked up and revealed the decryption key. Maybe you forgot.

No excuses I'm afraid. People are dying because of what he did, that is certain. He should be held responsible for each and every death. "I didn't mean to reveal the decryption key" doesn't cut it because there should have been no key because he should have immediately turned over the data to the United States without looking at it as soon as he discovered it was classified information.

Know thy enemy and all like that.

Kill thy enemy, more like. Much more efficient and safe.

Ignoring advice from the olders is usually not a good idea. Sun Tzu was a pretty smart guy.

Well, here's my take on his quote: "If you can't kill your enemy first, then it's a good idea to know and understand him." I suspect Sun Tzu would agree with that.