It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The US government has subpoenaed the social networking site Twitter for personal details of people connected to Wikileaks, court documents show.
The US District Court in Virginia said it wanted information including user names, addresses, connection records, telephone numbers and payment details.
Those named include Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an Icelandic MP.
The DOJ, instead of pursuing actual threats to so-called justice, such as, among other, the fact that the entire US mortgage industry is based on churn-predicated fraud, that Goldman Sachs is an undisputed monopolist in the OTC market, and that JP Morgan uses its cartel power and FRBNY affiliation to control the commodity market, has decided to instead go after private user information on Twitter of all places. And while the excuse is that this is merely another expansion in the ongoing probe against that uber-terrorist organization Wikileaks
...
it may have actually crossed the line by subpoenaning private data from an Icelandic member of parliament, Birgitta Jonsdottir, a one-time associate of Julian Assange. Furthermore, it appears that Twitter may be just one of many services which have received the DOJ subpoena
Marc Rotenberg, president of the online watchdog the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in Washington, said it appeared the US justice department was looking at building a case against WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, over its publication of secret US documents.
EPIC has already requested that the US authorities hand over information about their investigations into people who have donated to WikiLeaks via Mastercard, Visa or PayPal.
Originally posted by brill
Good post.
Am I the only who is seeing the irony in attempting to collect information from a social networking site. (yes i know some info is private but most people share their entire lives on those sites)
Two questions come to mind.
Those named include Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an Icelandic MP
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Originally posted by brill
Good post.
Am I the only who is seeing the irony in attempting to collect information from a social networking site. (yes i know some info is private but most people share their entire lives on those sites)
Two questions come to mind.
A subpoena must be issued for it to be permissable in a court of law, so the only reason they are issuing it is for that purpose. All information is already disclosed, if not easily broken into by our government.
If a subpoena is issued, and accepted in a court of law, that means that the information it provides can be used as evidence. To clarify, it would basically create a court case that is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court, that would allow the government to attain such information at it's own desire under the threat of any form of investigation. Do you see that it is a sham, and they are merely trying to open once closed doors in order to acccess the very heart of what freedoms we have left in the United States?
Iraq isn't about the middle east, neither is Afghanistan, it is about the USA and how to better implement a control grid.
Originally posted by brill
If this is to build the case against Manning then yes understood.
Originally posted by Faiol
isnt that something China would do?
but hey, isnt the US OF A the land of the free?
free from what?
Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.
The US Government went before a judge and showed information as to why they wanted the twitter information, and the judge found the info reliable and relevant and signed off on the order.
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
The security clearance needed to obtain this information without explicit assistance from any higher sources cannot be attained by a private.
The point of the trial is to prosecute a man without a voice or stature, to demonize his alleged actions and help to further clamp down on any leaks in the future, even when the material leaked should never have been classified in the first place.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
The US Government went before a judge and showed information as to why they wanted the twitter information, and the judge found the info reliable and relevant and signed off on the order.
You know it's more than likely that the US already had the information...
Obtained illegally.....
They just need to ligitimize how it was obtained so it can be used in court..
Originally posted by Xcathdra
I know this is a difficult concept for some, but its an active investigation dealing with the unathorized access, transfer, receeiving and distributing of classified information. Media is not immune from prosecution for publishing classified information, as many of you like to throw around when referring to Assange and the actions of wikileaks.
Agreed. I think many thought the same, myself included how could a simple private have access to such material.
China would just storm the building at take what they want