57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:49 am
@spendius,
Quote:
When American dignity is outraged watch out.


Ask the people of Iraq. Ask the poor peasants of Cambodia and Laos. Ask the poor of Vietnam. Ask the poor of [stick in just about any country in the world]
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 12:23 pm
@JTT,
This might interest you JT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/85/a3677385.shtml.

I know it's trivial by the side of the countries you name but it's an interesting story and I know it is true.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 01:30 pm
@spendius,
All I got was "404 - Story Page Not Found", Spendi.

0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 08:40 pm
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/431444_471145202903749_199943898_n.jpg
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 09:32 pm
@hingehead,
Dead on, Hingehead!!!!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 12:21 am
Interesting article, just posted on Twitter.
From Radio Sweden.
So it was possible for the Swedish authorities to interview Julian Assange in London, but now it is "too late" because national pride is involved, & doing so would appear to be a backdown? :

Quote:
Legal expert: "Under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad"
Published: fredag 17 augusti kl 15:07 ,
Radio Sweden


Legal expert Ove Bring says to Radio Sweden that it is now "too late" for Swedish prosecutors to question Julian Assange in London. It has become a "matter of prestige" to not give the Wikileaks founder "special treatment."

But he also says that if Assange did come back to Sweden the most likely scenario is that he would be questioned, and then released.


Quote:
Links:
Swedish refusal to interview Assange in London is a "matter of prestige"
Assange could have been questioned in London


"As a rule Swedish citizens who are suspected of criminal behaviour should be interrogated in Sweden", says professor emeritus Ove Bring, of the Swedish national defence college. "And now it's too late to make an exception for Mr Julian Assange. That would not be a very good precedent for the Swedish legal system."

He says that prosecutors could have decided to question Assange in London earlier on in the case. "It would have been possible to go to London directly, many months ago, when he had just arrived there. But now it's a matter of prestige, and it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system. To make an exception for him, because he is a famous person, is not a very good idea now. The exception should have been made earlier on, when it was less dramatic."

"Under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad."
Ove Bring also says that the Assange case is "very exceptional. I don't know if it has happened before", that so much effort has been put into chasing someone merely suspected of a crime, but that he doubts that the case is costing the prosecution authority much.

Professor Bring says that the Ecuadorian decision changes little, since Julian Assange is still in the UK, with British police waiting to seize him and hand him over to the Swedish authorities. But that the most likely scenario is that, after questioning, Assange is released.

"If he goes to Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime. Then he could go to Ecuador, to take advantage of the asylum that he has been granted."


Legal expert: "Under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad":
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5235707

0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 09:30 am
Quote:
OAS calls on Britain, Ecuador to resolve diplomatic spat over WikiLeaks founder’s asylum
(Associated Press, August 24, 2012)

WASHINGTON — The Organization of American States on Friday urged the governments of Britain and Ecuador to peacefully end a standoff over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was granted asylum by Ecuador and is holed up in that country’s embassy in London.

Meeting at OAS headquarters in Washington at Ecuador’s request, foreign ministers and senior officials from the 34-member bloc adopted a resolution that calls for the two sides to continue a dialogue to resolve the situation. Assange is wanted in Sweden for questioning on sex allegations, and Britain says it will arrest and extradite him if he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Ecuador had accused Britain of threatening to raid its embassy in violation of diplomatic conventions to extract Assange and had sought support from the OAS in objecting to such a possibility.

However, due to objections from the United States, Canada and others, including Panama and Trinidad and Tobago, all of whom said the OAS was not the proper venue to discuss a bilateral dispute, references to the alleged threat were removed from a draft resolution offered by Ecuador and strongly backed by leftist allies Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro maintained that Britain had made the threat in an Aug. 15 communique that said there were legal grounds on which British authorities could revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy in order to arrest Assange on the premises. He called it “not only a threat, but a very blunt threat.”

Britain sent a letter to both Ecuador and the OAS late Thursday denying that the communique was a threat and pledging to respect the Vienna Conventions that set out the inviolability of diplomatic missions.

But Maduro told the OAS that the initial threat had not been withdrawn and that Ecuador still considered it operative. Ecuador and its allies had wanted the OAS resolution to say Britain had put the inviolability of diplomatic missions “at risk” with its Aug. 15 communique.

Instead, however, that language was deleted and the resolution reiterated “the obligation of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify noncompliance with their international obligations and (expressed) its solidarity and support for the government of the Republic of Ecuador.”

Assange and his supporters claim the Swedish sex case is the first move of a Washington-orchestrated plot to make him stand trial in the U.S. for publishing hundreds of thousands of secret Pentagon and State Department documents that were allegedly leaked by Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is awaiting trial in the scandal. The U.S. and Sweden dispute this.

Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London two months ago and was last week granted diplomatic asylum by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 10:46 am
Quote:
Bradley Manning's Trial Set To Begin In February In WikiLeaks Case
(Bill Chappell, National Public Radio, August 30, 2012)

The trial of Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of passing hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the WikiLeaks website, has been scheduled to begin in early February. That news came on the last of three days of pretrial hearings held in Fort Meade, Md., this week.

Of the court date, Wikileaks tweeted, "Manning full trial has been scheduled for Feb 4. He will have spent nearly 3 years detained without trial. Legal max is 120 days."

If convicted, Manning would face a possible life sentence. The 22 charges filed against him range from aiding the enemy to transmitting defense information, and fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

At the hearings, defense lawyers for Manning, who is being confined in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., argued for the full release of more than 1,300 emails that relate to the conditions in which the accused soldier is being detained. The government had previously released only about half of the emails sought by Manning's team.

The judge in the case, Army Col. Denise Lind, has said she will review those emails to determine whether they should be released.

Thursday, Lind ruled that government prosecutors would be able to introduce details about Manning's military record at the trial, including reported incidents of misconduct.

More hearings have been scheduled before the February court date, to handle questions about Manning's detention, his right to a speedy trial, and how to handle classified information during the court proceedings.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 10:55 am
@wandeljw,
Former President George W Bush, his vice president, Dick Cheney, and six other members of his administration have been found guilty of war crimes by a tribunal in Malaysia.

Oh, if only it were the Hague. Or better yet, the U.S. Supreme Court. I guess it’s a start, though

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/05/malaysian-war-crimes-tribunal-finds-bush-and-cheney-guilty/
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 07:15 pm
A long article posted in this morning's AGE (Melbourne, Oz) newspaper:

Julian Assange (& Wikileaks) is an "enemy of the (US) state" ...
.... according to declassified ( FOI) US Air Force counter-intelligence documents - investigations of the activities of a (US Air Force) cyber systems analyst based in Britain & suspected of leaking information to Wikileaks supporters....

"The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

Which, if the analyst was found to be guilty - which she wasn't - would have landed her in the same predicament as Bradley Manning?

As for Julian Assange ... if officially deemed to be the "an enemy of the state" , that puts him in the same category as al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives ... & potentially subject to the same sort of retaliation. Yes?


Another interesting piece of information in this article. FOI is a wonderful thing! :

Concerning the Australian government (which, of course officially knows nothing, hears nothing & says as little as it can, hoping it will all go away ... & also claims it has done everything it possibly can (!) to assist Assange. And knows absolutely nothing about any possible US extradition. Rolling Eyes )

Quote:
The Australian diplomatic reports canvassed the possibility that the US may eventually seek Assange's extradition on conspiracy or information-theft-related offences to avoid extradition problems arising from the nature of espionage as a political offence and the free-speech protections in the US constitution.

Hmmmmm...


Quote:
US calls Assange 'enemy of state'
September 27, 2012 - 8:52AM
Philip Dorling/the AGE


http://images.theage.com.au/2012/09/27/3667978/dh_assange-20120927073241588858-620x349.jpg
Julian Assange ... "enemy of the state". Photo: AFP

THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.


The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" — not releasable to non-US nationals — record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.

The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, des-cribed as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

The analyst's access to classified information was suspended. However, the investigators closed the case without laying charges. The analyst denied leaking information.

Assange remains holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London. He was granted diplomatic asylum on the grounds that if extradited to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations, he would be at risk of further extradition to the US to face espionage or conspiracy charges arising from the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret US military and diplomatic reports.

US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage.

Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee - both once involved in presidential campaigns - have both urged that Assange be "hunted down".

Assange's US attorney, Michael Ratner, said the designation of WikiLeaks as an "enemy" had serious implications for the WikiLeaks publisher if he were to be extradited to the US, including possible military detention.

US Army private Bradley Manning faces a court martial charged with aiding the enemy - identified as al-Qaeda - by transmitting information that, published by WikiLeaks, became available to the enemy.


Mr Ratner said that under US law it would likely have been considered criminal for the US Air Force analyst to communicate classified material to journalists and publishers, but those journalists and publishers would not have been considered the enemy or prosecuted.

"However, in the FOI documents there is no allegation of any actual communication for publication that would aid an enemy of the United States such as al-Qaeda, nor are there allegations that WikiLeaks published such information," he said.

"Almost the entire set of documents is concerned with the analyst's communications with people close to and supporters of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, with the worry that she would disclose classified documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

"It appears that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the 'enemy'. An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc."

The Australian government has repeatedly denied knowledge of any US intention to charge Assange or seek his extradition.

However, Australian diplomatic cables released to Fairfax Media under freedom-of-information laws over the past 18 months have confirmed the continuation of an "unprecedented" US Justice Department espionage investigation targeting Assange and WikiLeaks.

The Australian diplomatic reports canvassed the possibility that the US may eventually seek Assange's extradition on conspiracy or information-theft-related offences to avoid extradition problems arising from the nature of espionage as a political offence and the free-speech protections in the US constitution.

Assange is scheduled this morning to speak by video link to a meeting on his asylum case on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting will be attended by Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.

In a separate FOI decision yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the release of Australian diplomatic cables about WikiLeaks and Assange had been the subject of extensive consultation with the US.


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

.....
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 08:01 pm
@msolga,
Yes, he's obviously of "no interest to the US" whatsoever.

When three corporate giants own virtually all of the mainstream media, they get to call the shots on what (if any) infotainment gets to our ears and eyes.

Real information? You're kidding aren't you? Who wants the truth, when bullshit is so much more entertaining.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 08:54 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
Yes, he's obviously of "no interest to the US" whatsoever.

You know, the US ambassador to Australia is the only vaguely "official" US representative I've heard say that.
On what basis did he say that?
There's never been any endorsement or denial by the US government. (not that I've come across, anyway)

0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 08:57 pm
Transcript of Julian Assange Address to the UN

Published: Thursday 27 September 3am BST
Source

Transcript of Julian Assange’s Address to the UN on Human Rights - given on Wednesday 26th September - Proofed from live speech

Watch the speech

Foreign Minister Patino, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen.

I speak to you today as a free man, because despite having been detained for 659 days without charge, I am free in the most basic and important sense. I am free to speak my mind.

This freedom exists because the nation of Ecuador has granted me political asylum and other nations have rallied to support its decision.

And it is because of Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that WikiLeaks is able to "receive and impart information... through any media, and any medium and regardless of frontiers". And it is because of Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the right to seek asylum from persecution, and the 1951 Refugee Convention and other conventions produced by the United Nations that I am able to be protected along with others from political persecution.

It is thanks to the United Nations that I am able to exercise my inalienable right to seek protection from the arbitrary and excessive actions taken by governments against me and the staff and supporters of my organisation. It is because of the absolute prohibition on torture enshrined in customary international law and the UN Convention Against Torture that we stand firmly to denounce torture and war crimes, as an organisation, regardless of who the perpetrators are.

I would like to thank the courtesy afforded to me by the Government of Ecuador in providing me with the space here today speak once again at the UN, in circumstances very different to my intervention in the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva.

Almost two years ago today, I spoke there about our work uncovering the torture and killing of over 100,000 Iraqi citizens.

But today I want to tell you an American story.

I want to tell you the story of a young American soldier in Iraq.

The soldier was born in Cresent Oaklahoma to a Welsh mother and US Navy father. His parents fell in love. His father was stationed at a US military base in Wales.

The soldier showed early promise as a boy, winning top prize at science fairs 3 years in a row.

He believed in the truth, and like all of us, hated hypocrisy.

He believed in liberty and the right for all of us to pursue happiness. He believed in the values that founded an independent United States. He believed in Madison, he believed in Jefferson and he believed in Paine. Like many teenagers, he was unsure what to do with his life, but he knew he wanted to defend his country and he knew he wanted to learn about the world. He entered the US military and, like his father, trained as an intelligence analyst.

In late 2009, aged 21, he was deployed to Iraq.

There, it is alleged, he saw a US military that often did not follow the rule of law, and in fact, engaged in murder and supported political corruption.

It is alleged, it was there, in Baghdad, in 2010 that he gave to WikiLeaks, and to the world, details that exposed the torture of Iraqis, the murder of journalists and the detailed records of over 120,000 civilian killings in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He is also alleged to have given WikiLeaks 251,000 US diplomatic cables, which then went on to help trigger the Arab Spring. This young soldier’s name is Bradley Manning.

Allegedly betrayed by an informer, he was then imprisoned in Baghdad, imprisoned in Kuwait, and imprisoned in Virginia, where he was kept for 9 months in isolation and subject to severe abuse. The UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, Juan Mendez, investigated and formally found against the United States.

Hillary Clinton’s spokesman resigned. Bradley Manning, science fair all-star, soldier and patriot was degraded, abused and psychologically tortured by his own government. He was charged with a death penalty offence. These things happened to him, as the US government tried to break him, to force him to testify against WikiLeaks and me.

As of today Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for 856 days.

The legal maximum in the US military is 120 days.

The US administration is trying to erect a national regime of secrecy. A national regime of obfuscation.

A regime where any government employee revealing sensitive information to a media organization can be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or for espionage and journalists from a media organization with them.

We should not underestimate the scale of the investigation which has happened into WikiLeaks. I only wish I could say that Bradley Manning was the only victim of the situation. But the assault on WikiLeaks in relation to that matter and others has produced an investigation that Australian diplomats say is without precedent in its scale and nature. That the US government called a "whole of government investigation." Those government agencies identified so far as a matter of public record having been involved in this investigation include: the Department of Defense, Centcom, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the US Army Criminal Investigation Division, the United States Forces in Iraq, the First Army Division, The US Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, the CCIU, the Second Army Cyber-Command. And within those three separate intelligence investigations, the Department of Justice, most significantly, and its US Grand Jury in Alexandria Virginia, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which now has, according to court testimony early this year produced a file of 42,135 pages into WikiLeaks, of which less than 8000 concern Bradley Manning. The Department of State, the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Services. In addition we have been investigated by the Office of the Director General of National Intelligence, the ODNI, the Director of National Counterintelligence Executive, the Central Intelligence Agency, the House Oversight Committee, the National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB - the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

The Department of Justice spokesperson Dean Boyd confirmed in July 2012 that the Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks is ongoing.

For all Barack Obama’s fine words yesterday, and there were many of them, fine words, it is his administration that boasts on his campaign website of criminalizing more speech that all previous US presidents combined.

I am reminded of the phrase: "the audacity of hope."

Who can say that the President of the United States is not audacious?

Was it not audacity for the United States government to take credit for the last two years’ avalanche of progress?

Was it not audacious to say, on Tuesday, that the "United States supported the forces of change" in the Arab Spring?

Tunisian history did not begin in December 2010.

And Mohammed Bouazizi did not set himself on fire so that Barack Obama could be reelected.

His death was an emblem of the despair he had to endure under the Ben Ali regime.

The world knew, after reading WikiLeaks publications, that the Ben Ali regime and its government had for long years enjoyed the indifference, if not the support, of the United States - in full knowledge of its excesses and its crimes.

So it must come as a surprise to Tunisians that the United States supported the forces of change in their country.

It must come as a surprise to the Egyptian teenagers who washed American teargas out of their eyes that the US administration supported change in Egypt.

It must come as a surprise to those who heard Hillary Clinton insist that Mubarak’s regime was "stable," and when it was clear to everyone that it was not, that its hated intelligence chief, Sueilman, who we proved the US knew was a torturer, should take the realm.

It must come as a surprise to all those Egyptians who heard Vice President Joseph Biden declare that Hosni Mubarak was a democrat and that Julian Assange was a high tech terrorist.

It is disrespectful to the dead and incarcerated of the Bahrain uprising to claim that the United States "supported the forces of change."

This is indeed audacity.

Who can say that it is not audacious that the President - concerned to appear leaderly - looks back on this sea change - the people’s change - and calls it his own?

But we can take heart here too, because it means that the White House has seen that this progress is inevitable.

In this "season of progress" the president has seen which way the wind is blowing.

And he must now pretend that it is his adminstration that made it blow.

Very well. This is better than the alternative - to drift into irrelevance as the world moves on.

We must be clear here.

The United States is not the enemy.

Its government is not uniform. In some cases good people in the United States supported the forces of change. And perhaps Barack Obama personally was one of them.

But in others, and en masse, early on, it actively opposed them.

This is a matter of historical record.

And it is not fair and it is not appropriate for the President to distort that record for political gain, or for the sake of uttering fine words.

Credit should be given where it is due, but it should be withheld where it is not.

And as for the fine words.

They are fine words.

And we commend and agree with these fine words.

We agree when President Obama said yesterday that people can resolve their differences peacefully.

We agree that diplomacy can take the place of war.

And we agree that this is an interdependent world, that all of us have a stake in.

We agree that freedom and self-determination are not merely American or Western values, but universal values.

And we agree with the President when he says that we must speak honestly if we are serious about these ideals.

But fine words languish without commensurate actions.

President Obama spoke out strongly in favour of the freedom of expression.

"Those in power," he said, "have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent."

There are times for words and there are times for action. The time for words has run out.

It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks, to cease its persecution of our people, and to cease its persecution of alleged sources.

It is time for President Obama do the right thing, and join the forces of change, not in fine words but in fine deeds.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 09:01 pm
Ecuador, that heroic defender of Human Rights and all that is good and just in the world.

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 09:49 pm
@msolga,
Julian Burnside (AO QC) on Twitter just now:

Quote:
Now it's revealed that the US calls #Assange an "enemy of state". http://bit.ly/SBV3eZ Will Aus now take seriously the danger he faces
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 10:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Your insights continue to enlighten. Even when you repeat them on the same thread. Well done you.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 08:06 am
Quote:
Julian Assange Doesn't Know How To Tie A Tie
(Huffington Post UK | By Felicity Morse | September 27, 2012)

Julian Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June. If he steps foot outside the building, he faces immediate arrest and extradition to Sweden.

Yet despite being cooped up inside the embassy for 100 days, it seems the WikiLeaks founder has still not learnt how to knot a tie.

His address, made via videolink at the UN on Thursday, showed Assange attempting to talk on matters of international importance whilst sporting some sort of distracting folded-cravat-style neckerchief.

The 41-year-old Australian, unabashed by his bizarre neck-pleat, told a room full of diplomats his organisation had played a part in the Arab uprisings, saying the 251,000 US diplomatic cables released via WikiLeaks "went on to help trigger the Arab Spring."

His comments came as the Ecuadorian said that Assange could be in the Knightsbridge embassy for up to ten years if the deadlock between Ecuador and the UK government continued.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/790570/thumbs/a-JULIAN-ASSANGE-640x468.jpg
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 04:06 pm
Kind of a tangent - but I saw vague parallels with this library world story

Swartz Faces Additional Charges in Alleged JSTOR Theft
By Roy Tennant on September 21, 2012

Seth Finkelstein’s blog alerted me to the fact that the case against Aaron Swartz for stealing JTSOR files had expanded from four felony counts to thirteen. The overview of the revised charges:

“Between September 24, 2010, and January 6, 2011, Swartz contrived to:

a. break into a restricted-access computer wiring closet at MIT;
b. access MIT’s network without authorization from a switch within that closet;
c. access JSTOR’s archive of digitized journal articles through MIT’s computer network;
d. use this access to download a substantial portion of JSTOR’s total archive onto his computers and computer hard drives;
e. avoid MIT’s and JSTOR’s efforts to prevent this massive copying, efforts that were directed at users generally and at Swartz’s illicit conduct specifically; and
f. elude detection and identification.”

The indictment is quite readable and is only 16 pages long. Whether you think Mr. Swartz is striking a principled blow for the freedom of information, or is a common (or not so common) thief, it will be interesting to see what comes of this case. As Finkelstein puts it, “It’s beyond my pay grade to figure out how many years in prison that all could be, when taking into account the complexities of sentencing law. Let’s leave it at a large scary number. Enough to ruin someone’s life.”

No matter what you think of JSTOR’s pay wall, if Swartz did what the charges allege, and there is apparently security camera footage to help prove it, these are serious allegations that go to the heart of what it means to be a civil society. If you believe something is wrong there are ways to call attention to and change that wrong — including civil disobedience. But these charges describe crimes that should give anyone pause no matter what you think of the ends Swartz may have been trying to achieve.

I'm thinking that most of those indictments don't apply to Assange - so maybe he can expect a lesser sentence than Swartz gets?

Seriously though, it's made me think about information theft as a crime. So different from property crime, do those rules work any more. What is the value of information? And that value rises with lack of access. And you can steal it but the owner still has it. I'm sure that will make no sense after I wake up.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 06:52 pm
I'll read that later, hinge.
When I'm a bit more wide awake & alert! Smile
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 07:05 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
"The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

.... As for Julian Assange ... if officially deemed to be the "an enemy of the state", that puts him in the same category as al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives ... & potentially subject to the same sort of retaliation. Yes?


More on Julian Assange's possible (likely?) "enemy of the state" status .
Also comments on the speech to the UN yesterday.

I found this video interview, discussing the implications for Julian Assange, on Twitter. It's with Assange's US legal adviser.

Very informative. Well worth a look.



..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 08:17:47