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.

 

EXCLUSIVE: WikiLeaks to move servers offshore, sources say

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Is wikileaks actually in violation of any laws?


In violation of? Yes
Being prosecuted for? Nope

Ill wager a guess that charges might be coming down the pipeline on the heels of the conclusion of the manning court martial. During the article 32 the prosecution submitted evidence linking manning directly to Assange (IE direct conversation). Maybe a conspiracy type prosecution...

If the operation fast and furious debacle is any indication of how the DOJ is running things, my guess is assange is home free.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Is wikileaks actually in violation of any laws?


In violation of? Yes
Being prosecuted for? Nope

Ill wager a guess that charges might be coming down the pipeline on the heels of the conclusion of the manning court martial. During the article 32 the prosecution submitted evidence linking manning directly to Assange (IE direct conversation). Maybe a conspiracy type prosecution...

If the operation fast and furious debacle is any indication of how the DOJ is running things, my guess is assange is home free.



So you say Yes, but then you say maybe...


It sounds to me like he's a foreign journalist leaking information like journalists do, and they actually have to create new laws to find him guilty.

Perhaps they should take it as a lesson that they need to better secure their information instead of wasting time trying to prosecute this guy....unless it's really an ego thing....



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 



It sounds to me like he's a foreign journalist leaking information like journalists do, and they actually have to create new laws to find him guilty.


I'm not exactly what you'd call a lawyer - but knowingly distributing classified material is a crime. This has been the case since the heavy censoring during World War II and continued under the Cold War.


Perhaps they should take it as a lesson that they need to better secure their information instead of wasting time trying to prosecute this guy....unless it's really an ego thing....


The problem the military and agencies have has little to do with information handling protocols and more to do with the sheer volume of classified material. Too much stuff is deemed classified and subjected to secure protocols and systems. Consequently, manpower demand to handle the traffic of the classified material goes up considerably.

This increases the chance of error, the damage a mole can do, etc. The defacto response tends to come down to classifying everything and planning to review it later (and forgetting about it because you have other things to do).

"Classified" is the new "For Official Use Only." - Under the false ideology that it's going to somehow make everything more secure.

If you'll notice - most of what Wikileaks has posted about the U.S. has been (disappointingly) bland. While there is a lot of interesting information in there that shows the human side of diplomatic relations and what-not... there's not much that is really worth the classification it's given.

We're simply overloading the system, and need to be better about selectively applying security protocols so that we can protect what needs to be protected more effectively.

Even so - that doesn't excuse the crime. Running a red light when no cars are present at the intersection doesn't really matter in the context of the law (that is for a judge to rule upon that specific case).



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Uhm.. let me try again.

Did Assange break any US laws / commit a crime? Yes
Has the DOJ filed any charges as of yet? No

There is no question he violated US law, just as there is no question about the number of people who speed while going to and coming home from work on a daily basis. Just because they are speeding doesn't mean they are going to get a ticket that day. It could come down the road, or it could never come at all.

Just because they dont get the ticket doesn't mean they aren't violating the law. Some other things to tkae into consideration -

A recent court ruling defining bloggers as non news entities (I need to do some more research to see if its state or federal).

Peoples misunderstanding of the Pentagon papers. Contrary to popular belief the Supreme Court ruling did not extend protection to news papers when it comes to printing classified material. All the ruling did was prevented the government from using the argument of embarrassment as a basis for prior restraint.

The 2 journalists involved in the pentagon papers were charged with a crime, and it made it to court. Due to a clerical error on the part of the Prosecuting Attorney the charges were dismissed by the court.

People misunderstanding the legal US definition of whistle blower. That only works when the reporting is based on evidence of criminal wrong doing / cover-up. In this case the number of documents released, which showed absolutely no criminal wrongdoing at any level in almost 99.9% of the released documents. Meaning whistle blower statutes won't apply.

As I said though, just because he broke the law doesn't mean he is going to be charged with a crime. If wishing made it so.....



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Well actually Assange didn't brake any US laws. Congress itself had that verified. Xcathra is well aware of this too.
Also the pretrial hearing of Manning was a complete and utter farce. They did however submit that JA was contacted by Manning after the whole leak thing.
edit on 1/2/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


No what I said and have been saying is he broke US laws, however no formal charges have been filed. Secondly Congress has nothing at all to do with a criminal investigation or filing charges.

As far as manning goes you do understand he is subject to the UCMJ and not civilian law right? His article 32 hearing is where evidence is presented and argued. The judge then decides if there is enough evidence to refer the matter to a court martial, which is what occurred.



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join