Text 13308, 142 rader
Skriven 2010-12-17 14:53:10 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 13288 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: (1/2) DHS seizes somain names
=====================================
16 Dec 10 06:14, Bob Ackley wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>>>>> Yeup. No one has offered that he be tried for treason. At least
 RW>>>>> not 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
 RW>> of the law, those who have given to the Wikileaks, the 250k files
 RW>> leaked there. He didn't mention the death penalty at all, not even
 RW>> for those who leaked that info.

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

The actual video that websites claiming that Huckabee actually said that,
is available for everyone to see and hear. He never mentioned the death
penalty. Instead, they took what he said out of context and made that
claim based on their assumption that there is a death penalty clause in
the law. There isn't.

 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

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

Yes I did know that, but I didn't put it there for you, I put it there so
others can access the video and see for themselves what was actually said.

 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;
 BA>>> after all, it does have a very specific and limited definition.

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

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

 RW>> Yeup.

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

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

 RB>>>>>> And you might be enlightened by discovering that espionage is
 RB>>>>>> not 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
 RW>> has to say about it.

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

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

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

It's in a 'war' just like any other war that we've been in since Korea,
1950. Viet Nam wasn't a formally declared war, but we were in it.

 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.

 BA> Of course it does.  Because it can claim "WAR!" to assume all kinds
 BA> of powers that aren't supported by the US Constitution

I don't believe you're right there.

 BA> - which, after all, is "... just a goddamned piece of paper."

Maybe it is in your eyes, but no one but you has ever mentioned that it
is or ever backed up what they say about it with proof.

 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.

 BA> IIRC the government threatened to throw the editors and publisher in
 BA> jail for a couple of decades.

That didn't seem to work with the Washington Post. They continued to
publish those papers.

 BA> First Amendment be d*mned - remember, it *is* "... just a goddamned
 BA> piece of paper."

According to you.

 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
 RW>> they 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


                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)