Text 13216, 110 rader
Skriven 2010-12-15 16:32:53 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 13195 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: DHS seizes somain names
===============================
14 Dec 10 17:22, Bob Ackley wrote to Robert Bashe:

 DD>>>>>> There are some USAmericans that think they should try him for
 DD>>>>>> treason.

 RW>>>>> I haven't heard anyone say that.

 RB>>>> You're generally better informed.

 RW>>> Yeup. No one has offered that he be tried for treason. At least not
 RW>>> in the US.

 RB>> You mean Fox News hasn't reported it? Amazing...

 BA> Former Arkansas Governor and former presidential candidate Mike
 BA> Huckabee

Wrong! Huckabee has advocated the prosecution to the fullest extent of the
law, those who have given to the Wikileaks, the 250k files leaked there.
He didn't mention the death penalty at all, not even for those who leaked
that info.

I suppose anyone could take what he says out of context and make the claim
that he actually said 'death penalty'...

7 seconds into this video, he mentioned the publisher of Wikileaks, but
diverted from an opinion from the 'publisher' to those who 'leaked' the
documents too Wikileaks, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I don't think that includes the death penalty, since the only death
penalty in the US Federal law is for Treason and/or Espionage.

http://tinyurl.com/2dk4rk5

 BA> - among others - has called for Assange to be tried for
 BA> teason and executed.

Nope. The leakers, not Assange himself.

 BA> Those folks don't understand what 'treason' is in this country; after
 BA> all, it does have a very specific and limited definition.

They probably do, as Huckabee mentioned that the 'leaker' may be a
US military person, who would most certainly be charged with treason and
subject to the death penalty, even under military law.

 BA> BTW, they could probably get WuikiLeaks source(s) for that, provided
 BA> that those sources are US citizens.  IOW< whoever filched the
 BA> documents in the first place.

Yeup.

 DD>>>>>> I wonder if they know what treason is - or do they think all of
 DD>>>>>> the Earth's inhabitants owe allegiance to the US regime...

 RW>>>>> Try looking up the definition of the word, espionage. You may be
 RW>>>>> enlightened by it.

 RB>>>> And you might be enlightened by discovering that espionage is not
 RB>>>> a synonym for treason.

 RW>>> Exactly my point. Thanks for helping to make it once again.

 BA> Actually, you both might want to verify your 'definitions' of
 BA> 'espionage.' I don't think it fits either WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks'
 BA> source(s).

Try reading the USC on that. It far surpasses what the dictionary has to
say about it.

"The Espionage Act of 1917 (USC 18, Pt 1, Ch 37)[1] is a United States
federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into
World War I."

 BA> Theft? Certainly.  Receiving stolen property? that too.
 BA> But not spying and not espionage.  Insofar as the source(s) are
 BA> concerned, revealing classified material to those unauthorized to
 BA> have access to it also applies.

Doing so would fall under the provison of the law that states; to support
America's enemies during wartime,

You or any of the Euros here might not think there's a war going on with
the Taliban or Al Qeada, but the government does.

 BA> The situation with WikiLeaks is analagous to that of the New York
 BA> Times and the Pentagon Papers scandal 35 or so years ago.  Daniel
 BA> Ellsberg, the source, was tried, convicted and jailed; the New York
 BA> Times, which published the material, was not (although IIRC the
 BA> government did threaten to).

The NYT discontinued to publish after the government asked them to.
Nixon got an injunction to end NYT publication, too late. A few days
later, the Washington Post began to publish articles that were released to
them by Ellsworth and when the government asked that they discontinue
publication, they refused. They were served with an injunction to stop
publishing, which eventually brought the case to the Supreme Court.

http://tinyurl.com/2afexyy

"On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6-3, that the government
failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint
injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on
significant, substantive matters."

                R\%/itt

  Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)