A very QUICK question about Julian Assange

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
And I think they try to find out whether he helped getting the information, or if he just received it.

You're right, that is exactly what is going on now, nothing of worth is known yet.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks doesn't care much for his informants though, NO help or support for the defense of Bradly Manning.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
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'.

I'd say it has more with Assange having a rockstar lifestyle and hero status amongst his followers who provide the cash for him to keep it and must maintain that by any means he can find.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
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.

No. The secrecy was broken by PFC Bradley Manning, who made unauthorized use of his clearance level to retrieve many classified documents, and then gave said classified documents to Assange. PFC Bradley Manning is a US Citizen and US Military soldier who took a vow of secrecy when he gained his security clearance.

Assange then releasing said documents to the public is a completely separate issue, and needs to be treated as such.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
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?

Hint:

Very few things are absolute. Most things created by man are NOT absolute, including the concept of "Free Speech".
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
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.

You really think that "Western democracies" are so fragile that they cannot survive a little information transfer? A "public audit" so to speak?

I can't imagine you actually believe that.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
No. The secrecy was broken by PFC Bradley Manning, who made unauthorized use of his clearance level to retrieve many classified documents, and then gave said classified documents to Assange. PFC Bradley Manning is a US Citizen and US Military soldier who took a vow of secrecy when he gained his security clearance.

Assange then releasing said documents to the public is a completely separate issue, and needs to be treated as such.

That's great, you should really tell the investigators that they can now end the investigation regarding Manning and Assange because you already know exactly what happened, Manning is guilty and no trial is neccessary while Assange didn't aid him or encourage him in any way and is completely innocent so they can cancel that investigation.
 

Zedtom

Platinum Member
Nov 23, 2001
2,146
0
0
Manning will become a civilian if he is court-martialed. The military would probably prefer to keep him under their control and sentence him through their courts.

The Assange connection would be clarified if Manning were allowed to speak to the media. That's only going to happen if the army lets him go.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Manning will become a civilian if he is court-martialed. The military would probably prefer to keep him under their control and sentence him through their courts.


Minor point: If he's court marshalled, then his discharge from military service would occur at the very end of whatever sentence he (may or may not) receive. i.e. - If a service member stole something, was court martialled and sent to Ft Leavenworth for 2 years, he would be released from service at the same point in time he was released from prison.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Minor point: If he's court marshalled, then his discharge from military service would occur at the very end of whatever sentence he (may or may not) receive. i.e. - If a service member stole something, was court martialled and sent to Ft Leavenworth for 2 years, he would be released from service at the same point in time he was released from prison.

What's the standard sentence for treason as in handing over classified documents to a foreigner?

The civilan courts will be handed all non confidential information regarding the case so they can produce evidence if Assange had anything to do with him doing what he did, it'd be enough to encourage him to do it to build a case against Assange.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Manning will become a civilian if he is court-martialed. The military would probably prefer to keep him under their control and sentence him through their courts.

The Assange connection would be clarified if Manning were allowed to speak to the media. That's only going to happen if the army lets him go.


A court martial is the military's court. If convicted he will more than likely serve his sentence in Leavenworth prison. He would become a civilian once his sentence has been served.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
What's the standard sentence for treason as in handing over classified documents to a foreigner?

The civilan courts will be handed all non confidential information regarding the case so they can produce evidence if Assange had anything to do with him doing what he did, it'd be enough to encourage him to do it to build a case against Assange.



Digging around a little, I don't see any 'standard' sentencing guidelines. Though - as I'm sure you know - the potential is unlimited; depending on nature and severity.

I did find an article/opinion: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/long-enough-sentence/49637/ that has a passage indicating the average sentence is just a few years.



But there is clearly a gradient: Anything concerning Nukes, or War Plans, Early Warning, details of communications and cryptography is treated as a capital offence. This is the reason Mr Pollard (other thread) has been in prison so much longer than the average. Regarding Julian Assenge and Private Manning - I do not see and have not heard that their information qualifies for pursuit under this section of the statute. So I would not expect a capital sentence, were anything ultimately delivered. Specific to Assenge - He is not a US citizen, nor does he reside in the USA. And I tend to doubt he committed an extradictable offence.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm

(a)

“(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.

(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.

(b)

(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—
(A) the m bers of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).

(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence; (B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”

Elements.

(1) Espionage.

(a) That the accused communicated, delivered, or transmitted any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense;

(b) That this matter was communicated, delivered, or transmitted to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly; and

(c) That the accused did so with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.


(2) Attempted espionage.

(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;
(b) That the act was done with the intent to commit the offense of espionage;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of espionage.



(3) Espionage as a capital offense.


(a) That the accused committed espionage or attempted espionage; and
(b) That the offense directly concerned

(1) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (2) war plans, (3) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (4) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Digging around a little, I don't see any 'standard' sentencing guidelines. Though - as I'm sure you know - the potential is unlimited; depending on nature and severity.

Absolutely, but we are dealing with what is known as espionage and it does involve nuclear sites, war plans, early warning and civilian safety.

Have you checked out the sites listed? Some of them are producers of vaccines and various medications that are essential to stop an epidemic, should one occur, some of them are nuclear plants, some of them are military installations and more than one of them are nuke sites.

He'll be sentenced to death if found guilty of releasing that information, there is no question about that, but does Assange care? Has he offered anything to provide for defense? Has he done ANYTHING at all? Does Mr Rockstar Assange give a shit about Manning now that he's done with using him, now that the information has drawn more donations for Mr Assange to live off of?

I trimmed down your post since i answered everything later asked before i got to that part of your post, i hope you don't mind.

No one knows at this point what Assange could be charged with but the civil justice system does leave room for prosecuting a crime commited by aiding or even encouraging someone to commit treason.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I don't know anything that was released that would directly cause any person to be at risk for a military strike upon them.

What he did release was the 'off the record' commentary that puts a lot of big wigs at risk politically and they don't like that.

Most that are against him have absolutely no idea what is out there, they are going on speculation and propaganda.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Have you checked out the sites listed? Some of them are producers of vaccines and various medications that are essential to stop an epidemic, should one occur, some of them are nuclear plants, some of them are military installations and more than one of them are nuke sites..


Trimmed down yours, as well, since we're basically on the same page. :)


Again - That would depend on the nature of the information. Someone could leak a paper indicating that the Aircraft Carrier USS Carl Vinson can, and likely has at times, carried Nuclear Weapons. Technically, such would fall under the capital offense section of the UCMJ article I linkeed/posted earlier. In reality, the reaction to that little tidbit of information is likely to be greeted with a Yawn, a roll of the eyes, and "...gee, thanks asshole.... How about you tell us something the world *didn't* know.." . Now - leak a technical paper on how a MIRV is constructed, and you're likely to quietly disappear in the middle of the night.

Similarly - Nuclear power plants are managed by the Department of Energy, and although not actively publicized, their locations and general procedures aren't a secret. If you wanted to visit, I could lead you on a motorbike ride straight to one. So - information indicating it's location or asserting that there are nuclear materials stored on site wouldn't get much of a reaction. But getting caught leaking a delivery schedule and route would land you in prison VERY quickly.


War Plans - Are they local/tactical? Or Strategic? Both clearly warrant close attention. But information about recent insurgent activity around Khandahar is a different ball of wax than War Plans for the US reaction to an Iranian Invasion of Iraq.

Point made, I think. :) Given the relative lack of aggressive reaction, I tend to think that nothing *truly* serious from a National Defense perspective has been leaked. And I also tend to think that, while Pvt Manning is clearly in a *shit*load of trouble, his life isn't at stake so much as his youth/freedom.

And - as I'm sure you also clearly know/understand - there's also the ongoing internal sh*tstorm regarding which idiot(s) had security so lax that a private could even get to it in the first place. Heads and Careers will roll over that.


Oh - Do I think Mr. Assenge cares about Pvt Manning? Absolutely not :)
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
And - as I'm sure you also clearly know/understand - there's also the ongoing internal sh*tstorm regarding which idiot(s) had security so lax that a private could even get to it in the first place. Heads and Careers will roll over that.

I seriously doubt anyone higher than Manning's Commanding Officer will pay and I would bet if his Commanding Officer is well connected or a West Point grad the officers/NCO's below him will pay the price.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
You really think that "Western democracies" are so fragile that they cannot survive a little information transfer? A "public audit" so to speak?

I can't imagine you actually believe that.

His GOAL. Are you saying anarchists who want to take down Western democracies don't exist because they can't do it?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
His GOAL. Are you saying anarchists who want to take down Western democracies don't exist because they can't do it?

Nowhere have a seen that he is trying to "take down" anything. He is helping to expose the flaws of a corrupt system that we all know greatly needs reform and transparency.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Nowhere have a seen that he is trying to "take down" anything. He is helping to expose the flaws of a corrupt system that we all know greatly needs reform and transparency.

So why is he throwing a wrench in diplomacy and releasing critical sites? He's an anti-government extremist anarchist, plain and simple. He may have started out with good intentions, but Assange is now a megalomaniacal nutjob.

Saying that he's "helping to expose the flaws of a corrupt system" is like saying the Tea Party wants to "reign in government spending". No, what they want to do is take down government.

Edit: Typed democracy instead of diplomacy
 
Last edited:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
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.

No one has responded to this yet, but it's an interesting comparison. To your point, most "liberals" will tend to support wikileaks and oppose Plamegate while most "conservatives" will tend to oppose wikileaks, and if they don't necessarily support the leaking of Plame's identity to Robert Novak, they at least seem to play it down.

A few of points:

- I don't remember anyone saying that Robert Novak should be assasinated, declared an enemy combatant, tried under the espionage act, or that private financial and commercial institutions should refuse to do business with him. Simiarly, I don't remember anyone suggesting that The Washington Post should be declared a terrorist organization.

- The leaking of Plame's identity was clearly an act of retribution by the Bush Administration for the damaging claims set forth by her husband.

- The leaking of the Iraq, Afganistan, and cable communications does not seem to be an act of retribution against anyone.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Saying that he's "helping to expose the flaws of a corrupt system" is like saying the Tea Party wants to "reign in government spending". No, what they want to do is take down government.

Edit: Typed democracy instead of diplomacy

If the release of information is enough to take down a government, maybe that government isn't legitimate to begin with? Has Assange done anything except publish documents (and editorialize on them)?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
So why is he throwing a wrench in diplomacy and releasing critical sites? He's an anti-government extremist anarchist, plain and simple. He may have started out with good intentions, but Assange is now a megalomaniacal nutjob.

Saying that he's "helping to expose the flaws of a corrupt system" is like saying the Tea Party wants to "reign in government spending". No, what they want to do is take down government.

Edit: Typed democracy instead of diplomacy

What has he done/said that seems megalomaniacal? Besides the silly parody of him on SNL?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1PO8QbLOo From yesterday. Sounds to me like a rational intelligent person, not the Dr. Evil SNL made him to be.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
I have very little trust in the US media's judgement of others motives/sanity seeing as they have shown themselves to be in the pocket of the Government to hold their own corrupt corporate monopoly together. The US Media has 2 gambles to extend what little relevancy is left after they have shown how neutered they were during the run up to the Iraq war.

1. Calculated short term risk: throw fellow journalist under the bus, hope people buy the "he is crazy" bit to give themselves cover for why they were compliant if/when the government ever goes after THEM for doing their job.

2. Report the corruption, show the establishment that they are the 4th branch. Problem is the media is a tool of the government sold part and parcel ages ago with deregulation in the 1980s. Now the govt and media here are a two headed beast who feed one another, not so much different then our mainstream parties.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Corporate McPravada is butthurt because someone not in their circle of elites embarrassed them by actually doing what they should have been doing this whole time but are too neutered to fight back anymore against the establishment government hydra they helped create.

Jealousy is a bitch.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
What has he done/said that seems megalomaniacal? Besides the silly parody of him on SNL?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1PO8QbLOo From yesterday. Sounds to me like a rational intelligent person, not the Dr. Evil SNL made him to be.

He's stated that he wants to bring down governments that rely on secrecy, including our own. He believes he's saving the world, when in reality he's just making it harder for other people to save the world.

The only explanation I've seen for the critical sites list is that it reveals that we are some kind of "global empire". As if having crucial allies all over the world and trading globally makes us an evil empire. Total BS.