If Assange is not a citizen, he needs to be tried under espionage. I'm a little perplexed by your position (although I think it's great you lump
politicians in with him).
The espionage act is one possible avenue.. The others would be receiving classified information when not authorized to have it in possession.
Distributing classified information knowing that information could be obtained by enemies of the US and used to harm US interests, etc etc etc.. I can
keep going but at this point, the legalities involved have been debated back and forth.
As for his status as a non citizen in this area its not relevant. Reason being is you have 2 people who got together and acted to support the others
activities - that brings into play conspiracy charges. Secondly we have treaty agreements with certain nations when it comes to classified
information and unauthorized access / release of that info. Australia and the UK are signatories to those agreements. Whether the countries involved
will act is up to them. Last I saw Australia did not seem interested in going after Assange - which is their choice.
As for my position - I'm not a fan of wikileaks and I cannot stand Julian Assange. he is a hypocritical ass hat whose ethics would raise eyebrows in
the Court of Caligula. With that being said my position was present prior to all the other scandals that have occurred with this administration - up
to and including curtain calls / politics. When compared side by side this Administration has put our military and civilians in greater peril than
Manning or Assange have.
If this government wants to try and claim the moral high road by going after Assange, then they best be prepared to issue the very same charges to
themselves, including treason since they are US citizens.
If it were say, the FSB (KGB) who was responsible for setting up wikileaks, would you still believe action should be taken. Since they are too outside
Of course - and if we look back on history you will find incidents where foreign nationals in this country, and abroad, have been taken into custody
and charged with violating US Federal Law / Military Law / Traties etc. The same holds true of American citizens who assisted foreign powers.
The issue in this part of your argument is the manner in which the scenario is layed out.
There is a huge difference when it comes to nation states spying on each other as opposed to individual citizens acting without their countries
knowledge / consent. This is where this particular part of the argument becomes insane, since its ok for nations to engage in that activity but not
what's good for the goose eh?
As for crimes occurring and people being in other nations - We have extradition treaties with other nations, and vice versa. Those agreements revolve
around nations cooperating when it comes to legal issues. The US is a signatory to the various treaties involving the arrest of foreign nationals and
the Consular notification and access provisions of those treaties.
Charges can be laid...
Arrest warrant can be sought...
The judge can sign off on it and make it international...
That information goes to Interpol and is entered...
The person in question is red flagged and customs agencies of Interpol nations watch for and can detain...
At that point its up to the nations and their agreements on whether they honor the request or refuse it.
Use Yahoo or Google and type in refused extradition to see my point....
Now, understandably they are an organization and not a single person, but one could argue that wikileaks too is an organization.
The problem I see with this position is the definition of an organization. That definition will vary form nation to nation, based on local / federal
laws of the various countries. You would need to look at the international legal standard, if one exists (I don't think that frame work is present).
However we come back to US law being violated, where it is not relevant if the person in questions considers himself to be a member of the media. In
this country there is no protection for Media when it comes to the release and publication of classified information.
In this area its not enough for people to think he is an organization. The standard used is 250+ years of US case law.
Would the top brass of FSB be wholly responsible, and they should be tracked down and prosecuted, or should the US go to war with Russia in this case?
I posit the question because it is funny how things change once something becomes political, or when something dealing with a single person changes
once a flag is behind it.
As I have stated there is a difference between nation states and individuals.
As for what should happen? Ask Julius and Ethal how it worked out for them.
In the case of Assange, he is not spying on behalf of Australia. He is acting on his own and in his own name for a cause he believes in. Whether we
think his actions are noble or asinine is a personal question.. My only thought on that one is if you are going to play stickball in Brooklyn, you
better know the rules.
I'm sure the Russians have been selling secrets for a good number of years now, and since a bunch of sleeper agents and active ones have been
prosecuted or ejected from the country in the last few years, I kinda feel like it's a reasonable comparison.
I don't think its a good comparison simply because Wikileaks and Assange are not nation states or a member of a foreign intelligence agency.
It gets figuratively boiled down to - You cant arrest a nation for espionage.
Pollard... Rosenberg's... Powers...
US Government Security Breaches
Also, in light of the revelations with the NSA, who there should be prosecuted for espionage they committed in other countries?
26-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)
That would be up to the countries' they spied on and their respective laws. However, before any of them are shipped out on foreign warrants, they
first need to be brought up on charges here in the US and held accountable for violating the law and Public trust.
To expand on foreign governments and spying on them what we normally get is a prisoner exchange.. Our spies for their spies.