A very QUICK question about Julian Assange

[techs]

I haven't been following this case very much and I was surprised to hear some television reporters advocating Assange be declared an "enemy combatant"

My question is, what did he do that is against US law? Is there a warrant out for his arrest?

Thanks.

 

[bfdd]

sames

 

[Throckmorton]

A common defense of Assange is that he's not an American so he's not guilty of treason. Well yeah, but he's releasing secret documents to our enemies. He's not breaking a law by doing that?

Does legality even matter? Are enemy combatants breaking US laws? Or are they just enemies? At what point is someone helping the Taliban considered an enemy combatant? Do they have to physically pick up an AK-47 and shoot our troops? Do they have to blow up a plane?

The strangest thing is the ethics, not the legal debate. A huge number of people, something like 30% of Americans, support him. It must be a lack of a moral compass on their part, which isn't surprising.

 

[techs]

A common defense of Assange is that he's not an American so he's not guilty of treason. Well yeah, but he's releasing secret documents to our enemies. He's not breaking a law by doing that?

Does legality even matter? Are enemy combatants breaking US laws? Or are they just enemies? At what point is someone helping the Taliban considered an enemy combatant? Do they have to physically pick up an AK-47 and shoot our troops? Do they have to blow up a plane?

The strangest thing is the ethics, not the legal debate. A huge number of people, something like 30% of Americans, support him. It must be a lack of a moral compass on their part, which isn't surprising.

Ok, so he did release "secret" information?

 

[Gyhrg71]

A common defense of Assange is that he's not an American so he's not guilty of treason. Well yeah, but he's releasing secret documents to our enemies. He's not breaking a law by doing that?

Not that I want to defend Assange but just to point out you would have to argue that the NY Times and the Guardian and so on are guilty as well as they are now releasing the same classified documents that wikileaks is.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Ok, so he did release "secret" information?

It must be nice being the village idiot...

 

[thraashman]

A common defense of Assange is that he's not an American so he's not guilty of treason. Well yeah, but he's releasing secret documents to our enemies. He's not breaking a law by doing that?

Does legality even matter? Are enemy combatants breaking US laws? Or are they just enemies? At what point is someone helping the Taliban considered an enemy combatant? Do they have to physically pick up an AK-47 and shoot our troops? Do they have to blow up a plane?

The strangest thing is the ethics, not the legal debate. A huge number of people, something like 30% of Americans, support him. It must be a lack of a moral compass on their part, which isn't surprising.

Or, you know, 30% of Americans support the concept of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

 

[techs]

Ok, so he did release "secret" information?

It must be nice being the village idiot...

Hey, I haven't really followed the story, but not one of the stories I did read said it was officially classified as secret material.

From what I understand, there are different categories. Which is why I want to know if he was indicted or a warrant issued for actually doing something illegal.

 

[Infohawk]

Maybe you could google even a little before rehashing this?

 

[RedChief]

Or, you know, 30% of Americans support the concept of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

So the first amendment means that nothing in this country is should be secret? I guess to liberals, the only people who should be locked up for releasing secrets are conservatives and if that secret involves Valerie Plame.

 

[Throckmorton]

Or, you know, 30% of Americans support the concept of the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

The First Amendment applies to foreigners?

 

[HendrixFan]

So the first amendment means that nothing in this country is should be secret? I guess to liberals, the only people who should be locked up for releasing secrets are conservatives and if that secret involves Valerie Plame.

The person spreading information did nothing illegal. The person who stole/copied/whatever the secure information to begin with did something illegal.

 

[sandorski]

The First Amendment applies to foreigners?

Not technically, but supposedly it is an Inherent Human Right. There are Humans outside of US Borders. That doesn't mean that the US Government is Legally obligated to grant that outside its' Borders, but(again) if the Constitution is what it claims to be, how can one deny such basic Rights without looking like a Hypocrite and/or basically nullifying the very claims of that document?

 

[Throckmorton]

Not technically, but supposedly it is an Inherent Human Right. There are Humans outside of US Borders. That doesn't mean that the US Government is Legally obligated to grant that outside its' Borders, but(again) if the Constitution is what it claims to be, how can one deny such basic Rights without looking like a Hypocrite and/or basically nullifying the very claims of that document?

I don't get how "free speech" can include publishing secret information but not copyrighted material. Either it's absolute or it's not. Obviously free speech isn't absolute. So why would it be considered absolute when it comes to an anarchist hell bent on damaging the West? Why wouldn't it also apply to Russian spies and the like?

 

[sandorski]

I don't get how "free speech" can include publishing secret information but not copyrighted material.

Freedom of the Press was what should be invoked here.

 

[HAL9000]

Freedom of the Press was what should be invoked here.

Freedom of the press shouldn't and doesn't cover leaking secret documents.

 

[HendrixFan]

Freedom of the press shouldn't and doesn't cover leaking secret documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[HAL9000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Supreme Court disagrees.

That's a shame. we don't roll that way over here.

 

[Throckmorton]

Freedom of the Press was what should be invoked here.

And apparently you're "the press" if you say you are. So does that mean I can declare myself a journalist and "leak" copyrighted movies?

 

[sandorski]

And apparently you're "the press" if you say you are. So does that mean I can declare myself a journalist and "leak" copyrighted movies?

Their record speaks for itself. The Afghan and other US papers were far from their first.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think that there is an argument that Assange's publishing here serves no substantial public interest unlike other journalists. There were no lies, nothing really to expose. The intent seems to be to disrupt US diplomatic relations instead.

Should taking someone's personal and private medical files and publishing them be protected under freedom of the press? There are already times when the freedom of the press is curtailed.

 

[biostud]

The person spreading information did nothing illegal. The person who stole/copied/whatever the secure information to begin with did something illegal.

And I think they try to find out whether he helped getting the information, or if he just received it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Their record speaks for itself. The Afghan and other US papers were far from their first.

If their previous leaks are considered journalism, I'd say Assange stopped being a journalist when his goal became taking down Western democracies by any means necessary.

 

[Craig234]

There's some confusion here between 'prior restraint' and punishment for publishing something after the fact.

What the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court trial was about was prior restraint, the White House telling the newspapers not to publish them.

The ruling said - 6-3 with nine different opinions - that the government can't do that.

But a majority said the paper can be prosecuted for lawbreaking by publishing them.

Similarly, the newspaper can public copyrighted materials - but then is subject to a lawsuit for damages.

Daniel Ellsberg was subject to prosecution for the leak - the charges were dropped only because the government did illegal things.

I don't know what the reason the government didn't pursue criminal charges is, but some possible factors are that the information did not harm active national security issues, in that it only exposed lies years ago; and that the government was embarrassed enough already with its secret bombing of Cambodia, the illegalities around Ellsberg, and the public sentiment for being informed of the lies.

 

[Craig234]

If their previous leaks are considered journalism, I'd say Assange stopped being a journalist when his goal became taking down Western democracies by any means necessary.

Assange has an anarchistic agenda against the corruption that vast organizational secrecy helps cause, but that's a far cry from 'bringing down governments by any means'.