Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

[Wallaby]

I wouldn't go there, many posts deleted as inflamatory and off topic so rather than risk a short stay in remand it may be better just stick to the topic.

[KhunAussie52]

Softgeorge, just use the ignore button. Easy.

How do you do that? I am new.. This guy really gets tempetures boiling. Why is his conduct allowed on here.

This was asked previously and ignored: Where and when did UG mention the word Australia? What is the "conduct" to which you are referring that would "get tempetures (temperatures) boiling?

That has now been settled.Please leave it alone :jap:

[KhunAussie52]

Softgeorge, just use the ignore button. Easy.

How do you do that? I am new.. This guy really gets tempetures boiling. Why is his conduct allowed on here.

Welcome to the forum,nice to meet you!!

[LaoPo]

Softgeorge, just use the ignore button. Easy.

How do you do that? I am new.. This guy really gets tempetures boiling. Why is his conduct allowed on here.

Welcome to the forum,nice to meet you!!

A most WELCOME from me too but "softgeorge" might want to protect his "softness" a little and wear one of these, preparing for battle.....

LaoPo

[metisdead]

Let's return to the topic currently in progress, thanks.

[philw]

But then again, we are talking about the US govt and they will do whatever they want regardless of it's legality.

Can you name any country that does everything ethically and legally and is beyond reproach?

CYMRU. ( except they wear red shirts and would undoubtedly be misunderstood here........)

Edited December 13, 2010 by philw

[philw]

Chuckd, Assange didn't ask for it to be pro bono. Geoffrey Robertson QC is one of the most respected barristers on constitutional law and extradition law in both the UK and Australia. It was he who requested the work pro bono and jumped on a plain to go over and assist him.

Just what is it you have against someone getting sex for free? Do you think everyone should have to pay for it?

You obviously have nothing against the leaks as all you are thinking about is trying to put shit on Assange. As I have stated before, I couldn't care less if it was Charles Manson publishing the leaks, the person behind it has nothing to do with it.

Typical of both the US govt and my own govt, instead of dealing with the facts and the issues they go after the man in an attempt to discredit him. But it doesn't hold water in this case as we all know the leaks to be true so any attempt to assasinate his reputation really is a nonsense and shows they just trying to move the goalposts.

But I'm afraid Jo Public is well aware of this tactic and is not buying it.

In short, Wikileaks is not about the man, it is about the system and the freedom of speech haters just have to get over it.

I second the motion................:jap:

Third and well put.

[Ulysses G.]

As I have stated before, I couldn't care less if it was Charles Manson publishing the leaks...

It would certainly make most people question his motives. Assange claims to be trying to better the world, rather than committing espionage. If he is committing other crimes, It would certainly make that defense very difficult to defend.

[KhunAussie52]

As I have stated before, I couldn't care less if it was Charles Manson publishing the leaks...

It would certainly make most people question his motives. Assange claims to be trying to better the world, rather than committing espionage. If he is committing other crimes, It would certainly make that defense very difficult to defend.

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Edited December 13, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[venturalaw]

As I have stated before, I couldn't care less if it was Charles Manson publishing the leaks...

It would certainly make most people question his motives. Assange claims to be trying to better the world, rather than committing espionage. If he is committing other crimes, It would certainly make that defense very difficult to defend.

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Yes. The case is New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). The Supreme Court ruled that the government had failed to make a successful case for prior restraint (preventing the Times from publishing classified documents), however this decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents (emphasis added).

[KhunAussie52]

As I have stated before, I couldn't care less if it was Charles Manson publishing the leaks...

It would certainly make most people question his motives. Assange claims to be trying to better the world, rather than committing espionage. If he is committing other crimes, It would certainly make that defense very difficult to defend.

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Yes. The case is New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). The Supreme Court ruled that the government had failed to make a successful case for prior restraint (preventing the Times from publishing classified documents), however this decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents (emphasis added).

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times' to print the materials.

And i was discussing Julian Assange.An Australian citizen!!!!

could you please post the source of your quote!

Edited December 13, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[KhunAussie52]

Concurring opinions

Justice Hugo Black wrote an opinion that elaborated on his view of the absolute superiority of the First Amendment. He was against any interference with freedom of expression and largely found the content and source of the documents to be immaterial.^[4] Justice William O. Douglas largely concurred with Black, arguing that the need for a free press as a check on government prevents any governmental restraint on the press.^[5]

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote separately to explain that the publication of the documents did not qualify as one of the three exceptions to the freedom of expression established in Near v. Minnesota (1931).^[6]

Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White agreed that it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure national security through the protection of its information. However, in areas of national defense and international affairs, the President of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branch. "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government."^[7]

^[/url]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_StatesJustice Thurgood Marshall argued that the term "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint, and also argued that it is not the Court’s job to create laws where the Congress had not spoken.^[8]

[venturalaw]

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Yes. The case is New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). The Supreme Court ruled that the government had failed to make a successful case for prior restraint (preventing the Times from publishing classified documents), however this decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents (emphasis added).

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times' to print the materials.

And i was discussing Julian Assange.An Australian citizen!!!!

could you please post the source of you quote!

You missed the issue in the case. The source of my post was the case, which I have read and we have both cited. Have you read the case? The Court ruled in favor of the Times regarding the issue of prior restraint. However, the Times would still be subject to prosecution for espionage if the documents were in fact published. The U.S. is not seeking to prevent your Australian citizen from publishing the documents (which would be a request for prior restraint). The documents have already been published. Therefore the issue of prior restraint is irrelevant.

Edited December 13, 2010 by venturalaw

[KhunAussie52]

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Yes. The case is New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). The Supreme Court ruled that the government had failed to make a successful case for prior restraint (preventing the Times from publishing classified documents), however this decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents (emphasis added).

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times' to print the materials.

And i was discussing Julian Assange.An Australian citizen!!!!

could you please post the source of you quote!

You missed the issue in the case. The source of my post was the case, which I have read and we have both cited. Have you read the case? The Court ruled in favor of the Times regarding the issue of prior restraint. However, the Times would still be subject to prosecution for espionage if the documents were in fact published.

I was responding to this quote!!

"It would certainly make most people question his motives. Assange claims to be trying to better the world, rather than committing espionage. If he is committing other crimes, It would certainly make that defense very difficult to defend."

Edited December 13, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[venturalaw]

There are many who have committed offenses seeking to "Better the world." For instance, that was Hitler's goal. Most however disagreed.

[KhunAussie52]

There are many who have committed offenses seeking to "Better the world." For instance, that was Hitler's goal. Most however disagreed.

I was not aware that Hitler was a journalist

I think your mention of that tyrant,has no place in this forum.

I am discussing Julian Assange.:jap:

Edited December 13, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[Ulysses G.]

The Court ruled in favor of the Times regarding the issue of prior restraint. However, the Times would still be subject to prosecution for espionage if the documents were in fact published. The U.S. is not seeking to prevent your Australian citizen from publishing the documents (which would be a request for prior restraint). The documents have already been published. Therefore the issue of prior restraint is irrelevant.

TOTALLY relevant. The Supreme Court was very clear that the New Yorks Times could be prosecuted for actually publishing the classified documents.

[KhunAussie52]

The Court ruled in favor of the Times regarding the issue of prior restraint. However, the Times would still be subject to prosecution for espionage if the documents were in fact published. The U.S. is not seeking to prevent your Australian citizen from publishing the documents (which would be a request for prior restraint). The documents have already been published. Therefore the issue of prior restraint is irrelevant.

TOTALLY relevant. The Supreme Court was very clear that the New Yorks Times could be prosecuted for actually publishing the classified documents.

And have they been prosecuted?

[canuckamuck]

For those of you who are so pro Wikileaks, I ask you this: how should the person or people who originally stole the files be treated by the US government?

[koheesti]

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Yes. The case is New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). The Supreme Court ruled that the government had failed to make a successful case for prior restraint (preventing the Times from publishing classified documents), however this decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents (emphasis added).

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times' to print the materials.

And i was discussing Julian Assange.An Australian citizen!!!!

could you please post the source of your quote!

You're asking for a source after posting without giving the source yourself - unless of course you write with hyperlinks?

[Ulysses G.]

And have they been prosecuted?

What does that have to do with the fact that you asked for a legal precedent and were provided with one?

Edited December 13, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[KhunAussie52]

"rather than committing espionage."

Please answer this.Has there been a legal precedent "a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases" to support your assertion?

my source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Yes. The case is New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). The Supreme Court ruled that the government had failed to make a successful case for prior restraint (preventing the Times from publishing classified documents), however this decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents (emphasis added).

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of the New York Times' to print the materials.

And i was discussing Julian Assange.An Australian citizen!!!!

could you please post the source of your quote!

You're asking for a source after posting without giving the source yourself - unless of course you write with hyperlinks?

Has a foreign national been convicted for a similar offence by the US............................!

Will they also charge the British,Australian,German press for publishing.

Goodnight 4 amigos :jap:

[Ulysses G.]

They will probably only charge WikiLeaks for disseminating the Information in the first place. After it was exposed to the world it was legitimate news.

Yes, foreign nationals have been charged with espionage.

[philw]

For those of you who are so pro Wikileaks, I ask you this: how should the person or people who originally stole the files be treated by the US government?

Arrested and charged under the applicable laws.

Exactly as someone in the uk breaking the OS acts.

This is all deadly serious stuff and all the players are probably very well aware of the consequences of their actions.

That is perhaps why their "treasonable" actions can be regarded as heroic.

Maybe there is a bigger standard than national expediency and hypocrisy.

[TAWP]

Hold onto your hats, but I agree with philw.

[philw]

Hold onto your hats, but I agree with philw.

Wow, thanks man, i was starting to feel a bit of a persecuted Welsh minority.......

But we are right.

As voters and taxpayers we have the right to know what our representatives do, say and act on our behalf.

They are, and quite properly, accountable.

[koheesti]

As voters and taxpayers we have the right to know what our representatives do, say and act on our behalf.

They are, and quite properly, accountable.

WHY do people keep saying this? This is only true in that one country's representatives are accountable only to their own voters and taxpayers - NOT to those voters or taxpayers from other countries.

[KhunAussie52]

ELEANOR HALL: As the leaks from the WikiLeaks website continue, the US government is again condemning what it calls the 'illegal' publication of state secrets.

But some Australian legal experts question whether the website's founder, Julian Assange, has broken any law.

Lawyers for Mr Assange say that instead Australia's Prime Minister may have behaved illegally by defaming their client.

The director of the Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney, Dr Ben Saul, says Mr Assange is the victim of an international smear campaign.

Simon Lauder has our report.

http://www.abc.net.a...10/s3086781.htm

Edited December 13, 2010 by KhunAussie52

[LaoPo]

Julian Assange to appear in court to appeal for release

• Sweden's bail refusal to be tested at UK court

• Baroness Kennedy joins website founder's defence

guardian.co.uk Vikram Dodd - Monday 13 December 2010 21.35 GMT

The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, will try to win his release from prison tomorrow, a week after being ordered to be held on remand as Sweden requested his arrest over allegations that he sexually assaulted two women.

But even if the judge at Westminster magistrates court in London grants Assange bail, he could still be held.

The Crown Prosecution Service, which will represent the Swedish authorities in the UK court, has the right to appeal against any bail decision. Usually the suspect would still be held in custody anyway until an appeal hearing.

Raj Joshi, a former head of the European and international division at the CPS, and an expert on extradition, said: "If they feel they have grounds for opposing bail, they would be duty bound to appeal that. He'll be held pending the appeal, and until it is decided. That hearing is usually held within 48 hours."

The chances of Assange going underground, given that his face was "plastered all around the world", were low, he added. "With a number of conditions, such as, maybe, a tag, it would be difficult to see why bail would not be granted."

The decision to oppose bail will be made by the Swedish authorities, with Britain's CPS merely representing their interests in at tomorrow's hearing. Speculation that the US could lodge an extradition request continued over the weekend, but it is regarded as highly unlikely any such request would be lodged tomorrow.

Baroness Kennedy, who has extensive experience in human rights, has joined Assange's defence team.

More:

http://www.guardian....-appeal-release

Edited December 13, 2010 by LaoPo

[KhunAussie52]

By Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW, on 2010-12-04

Dear Prime Minister,

From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of "illegal" on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.

Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.

As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth's "secrets" that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth.

Likewise under Treason law, there must be an intent to assist an enemy. Clearly, and reinforced by publicly available material such as Professor Saul's excellent article:

http://www.theage.co...-cry-over-wikil...

...Julian Assange has almost certainly committed no crime under Australian law in relation to his involvement in Wikileaks.

An Australian citizen is apparently being singled out for "special treatment" Prime Minister. There are legitimate concerns among citizens here that his treatment by the Swedes is connected to US interests which are against the activities of Wikileaks, and you will note the strident, outrageous (and illegal) calls inciting violence against him in the US in demands for his assassination, by senior influential US politicians.

the letter continues-

http://anewmatrix.bl...-australia.html

Edited December 13, 2010 by KhunAussie52