Text 13288, 122 rader
Skriven 2010-12-16 06:14:22 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 13216 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: (1/2) DHS seizes somain names
=====================================
Replying to a message of Roy Witt to Bob Ackley:

 RW> 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

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

The radio news report I heard said what I noted above.

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

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

 RW> http://tinyurl.com/2dk4rk5

I don't do Internet.  But you knew that.

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

 RW> 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.

 RW> They probably do, as Huckabee mentioned that the 'leaker' may be a US
 RW> military person, who would most certainly be charged with treason and
 RW> 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.

 RW> 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).

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

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

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

The United States is in a formal, declared war with what other nation?

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

Of course it does.  Because it can claim "WAR!" to assume all kinds of 
powers that aren't supported by the US Constitution - which, after all, is
"... just a goddamned piece of paper."

 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).

 RW> The NYT discontinued to publish after the government asked them to.

IIRC the government threatened to throw the editors and publisher in jail for a
couple
of decades.  First Amendment be d*mned - remember, it *is* "... just a
goddamned
piece of paper."

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

 RW> http://tinyurl.com/2afexyy

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)