Thread: Interesting video interview with Julian Assange

Regardless of how you feel about him, please view the video before you post something.

The Young Turk guy is wearing a suit now?

Watched it - so his (and others') claim is that the Espionage Act of 1917 is unfairly being used to make the leaking of protected documents a criminal act when it was originally designed to stop active espionage. In this instance it is being used as justification to pursue criminal charges against those who leak info that is deemed classified or not for public consumption.

Have I about gotten that right?

Now then, Joe Biden is a shock-jock politician who's statement that Assange is a high tech terrorist is on par with comments made by Palin and others, so Biden = Palin on this issue as I understand it. Question, is the President's stance equal to that of his Vice President? Is everybody equally out to get Assange, is Washington finally united like we always wished they would be?

Calling for somebody's execution is ... a bit extreme, but I do believe that the punishment for espionage is execution, so in that sense, if he or Bradly Manning are found guilty under the current law, then the law says they get the firing squad I guess.

[From the Wikipedia article on the EA of 1917: ...snip...To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.]

So yeah, death penalty for espionage as defined under that law...no getting around that other than to change the law.

Interesting stuff...Pint's eloquent post a couple weeks back made me ponder my stance on such leaks...I still dont think they are wise, but as the right to bear arms was intended to keep a government in check and subject to revolution at it's founding, perhaps the new "arms" are the types of embarrassing secrets being leaked on this weapon of mass destruction known as the Internet.

Like I said, I still think that if doing X is illegal, we have a responsibility to prosecute for X until the law is changed.

I saw an interesting article title on comcast.net the other day, called "Politicians to Watch in 2011" - and my response was "every last f'in one of them"

These politicians are talking about targeted assassination. That is illegal.

As far as espionage, the info that has been leaked hardly endangers the US. It does on the other hand expose diplomats bad mouthing their foreign counterparts and it paints a less than rosy picture of our military forays into other countries. It would be nice if someone could show how any of this info has directly endangered the US.

Isn't that dependent on a subjective definition of "endangerment"?

What about economic endangerment? If we lose political clout with our most important allies in, say, the fight against terrorism, and we lose their support in dealing with, say, Iran for example...wouldnt that be endangerment? Not all costs are literal and fixed...there's such a thing as opportunity cost, and damage to our global reputation has a very real opportunity cost associated with it, wouldn't you agree?

Global politics are way more complex than I claim to understand but I think "endangerment" goes well beyond something like telling the North Koreans the weaknesses of our airplanes and tanks. I think it's too early to tell what the cumulative impact of these leaks is so far.

Essentially what I am saying is that if our interpretation of the intent of the 1917 law must be reconsidered due to advances in technology and the nature of global conflict and politics, so must the qualifiers on laws designed to govern such things. You apparently interpret "endanger" as a physical state while I believe it is much more than that.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Except nothing that has been leaked endangers the US. So execution would not be applicable here.

If damage to "global reputation" is a concern, then maybe we ought to think about that concern before making agreements/performing actions that our government would feel the need to cover up.

And since when have conservatives worried so much about "global reputation"? Wasn't that very phrase seen as more of a liberal albatross in other foreign policy discussions ie invasions/occupations, unquestioningly blind support of Israel, arms treaties and the list goes on.....

I'll re-quote you since you edited and simply say this in response to your red words below:

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

These politicians are talking about targeted assassination. That is illegal.

As far as espionage, the info that has been leaked hardly endangers the US. It does on the other hand expose diplomats bad mouthing their foreign counterparts and it paints a less than rosy picture of our military forays into other countries. It would be nice if someone could show how any of this info has directly endangered the US.

That's what lawyers are for during criminal cases. People are charged with crimes based on what they MIGHT have done and the legal process bares out that accusation - that's how the system works to prosecute criminals AND change existing laws...this case will likely be a watershed moment in such matters...but to pretend that the only justified way to move forward with trial is with absolute proof that his actions endangered America in some quantifiable manner is preposterous. The fact that the material was classified and was illegally leaked is probable cause to move forward with charging the leaker with a crime...the criminal trial that follows will determine if that is appropriate.

Or we could skip the justice system altogether if you are that confident that no endangerment of any kind occurred. That would be a red-letter day for the American justice system. No trials, just Judge Trigger. You are the law!

Show me a person who disagrees with that statement and I'll be first in line to propose deporting them. I think we need to hold our government to a higher standard...unfortunately that's the catch-22 here...in order for that higher standard to occur then the info must get out.

I think eggs are being broken en-route to a nice fluffy omelet...but a mess is being made none the less. One with legal ramifications that probably will be punished.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

If damage to "global reputation" is a concern, then maybe we ought to think about that concern before making agreements/performing actions that our government would feel the need to cover up.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Isn't that dependent on a subjective definition of "endangerment"?

What about economic endangerment? If we lose political clout with our most important allies in, say, the fight against terrorism, and we lose their support in dealing with, say, Iran for example...wouldnt that be endangerment? Not all costs are literal and fixed...there's such a thing as opportunity cost, and damage to our global reputation has a very real opportunity cost associated with it, wouldn't you agree?

Global politics are way more complex than I claim to understand but I think "endangerment" goes well beyond something like telling the North Koreans the weaknesses of our airplanes and tanks. I think it's too early to tell what the cumulative impact of these leaks is so far.

Essentially what I am saying is that if our interpretation of the intent of the 1917 law must be reconsidered due to advances in technology and the nature of global conflict and politics, so must the qualifiers on laws designed to govern such things. You apparently interpret "endanger" as a physical state while I believe it is much more than that.

See, when you have to stretch the meaning of endangerment to include economic reasons and or diplomatic gaffes, you're reaching. This isn't comparable to the Rosenberg's giving away atomic secrets. That was a clear case of espionage that put American lives at risk.

And you still haven't addressed that fact that some politicians were talking about targeted assassination. Our own CIA can't even deny that there doesn't exist a directive to assassinate Assange.

CIA Responds to Assange Assassination FOIA Request -- [PHOTO], page 1