WikiLeaks.

[DwaynieAD]

Correct... and a few decades ago, you could have been quite legally arrested for being in the wrong seat if your were African American.

But, as you say, illegal is illegal... so any person arrested under a Jim Crow law should have had the good sense not to break it, right? Rosa Parks was just another criminal, who knowingly broke the law, right? After all, what she did was clearly illegal....

good move, if I disagree with you I get to be racist. you attempt to put words in my mouth that belittle what historical figures did. you are taking what I said and running away with it, far far from my initial point.

Was what Rosa Parks did illegal?

yes or no?

now, I did not ask you if you thought it was right or wrong, or if the reactions and consequences of what she did was right or wrong. I also never stated what my views on it were at all. I simply asked a yes or no question that has a yes or no answer and comes with no need for embellishment

 

[12bass]

Rosa Parks acted illegally by not giving up her seat to a white person. That much is clear. However, she quite rightfully stood up for her rights as a human being against an unjust and racist law.

The point of this example is to show a clear case where the law is immoral and unjust. Thus, if one such example exists, there are likely many others. So, the point to take away is to be careful with putting too much weight into whether or not something is legal/illegal, as the law in question may be unjust.

 

[Chris K]

Rosa Parks acted illegally by not giving up her seat to a white person. That much is clear. However, she quite rightfully stood up for her rights as a human being against an unjust and racist law.

The point of this example is to show a clear case where the law is immoral and unjust. Thus, if one such example exists, there are likely many others. So, the point to take away is to be careful with putting too much weight into whether or not something is legal/illegal, as the law in question may be unjust.

Not for a play of words, but (il-)legal = (not) in accordance with the law.

Suppose you mean that though a certain act may be illegal, it may still be legitimate. I agree.

 

[burk48237]

Correct... and a few decades ago, you could have been quite legally arrested for being in the wrong seat if your were African American.

But, as you say, illegal is illegal... so any person arrested under a Jim Crow law should have had the good sense not to break it, right? Rosa Parks was just another criminal, who knowingly broke the law, right? After all, what she did was clearly illegal....

A little sidebar:

Just for the record Rosa Parks did not break the law, she broke a bus company regulation. The laws forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus had been declared illegal several years earlier by the courts. It's interesting how much civil rights had regressed in the country since the turn of the century. In Plessy v. Fergeson the Court forced the train companies to segregate, they didn't want to have seperate cars or seating and that was in LA.

 

[12bass]

Not for a play of words, but (il-)legal = (not) in accordance with the law.

Suppose you mean that though a certain act may be illegal, it may still be legitimate. I agree.

Yes. There are other examples where the illegal nature of certain acts has been removed from the law books (decriminalized). Sometimes there are illegitimate (unjust) laws. But even looking at the basic legal/illegal dichotomy is too simplistic, as many cases still have to go to higher courts to see if a conviction can be upheld, as many laws are complex and open to interpretation by the judiciary. Arguments must be made, and evidence must be provided, in a way which is sufficient to show a legal transgression. And there can be many ambiguous provisos. With Assange, if the US wants to make espionage charges, there is the question of whether his actions represent a genuine threat to national security (whatever that means). Does public embarrassment constitute a threat to national security?

 

[mindbass]

to the people who hope that Assange will be charged with Espionage: the Newspaper that unveiled Valerie Plame as a CIA agent did not get punished. The journalist that got the info from the inside man was charged because he she (don't remember) wouldn't give the name of the informant. Both cases were dropped even though uncovering secret agents is highly illegal. Remember, these were events in the US by US citizens and nothing could be done. As it stands, the US is trying hard to come up with any law that Assange may have broken, but it seems like it's facing an uphill battle.

 

[steveksux]

There are to my knowlege no laws against printing classified info on the web, in books, in the newspaper.

There ARE laws on the books against people with security clearances revealing the info to people who are not cleared and do not have legitimate need to know.

The guys in trouble would be those that provided the info to wikileaks, not wikileaks for publishing them.

Govt is pissed and want retribution. The goal is also to frighten people from doing something similar in the future.

Understandable, but ultimately will probably prove fruitless.

Some things are classified to protect the country, but certainly some to protect people who have done bad things. There's a need for whistleblower protections to cover those who expose the latter sort of classified data.

Exposing diplomatic stuff serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever that I can see. Diplomacy is like making sausage, you don't really want to see how its done.

Randy

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Rosa Parks acted illegally by not giving up her seat to a white person. That much is clear. However, she quite rightfully stood up for her rights as a human being against an unjust and racist law.

The point of this example is to show a clear case where the law is immoral and unjust. Thus, if one such example exists, there are likely many others. So, the point to take away is to be careful with putting too much weight into whether or not something is legal/illegal, as the law in question may be unjust.

Well duh

I thought this was common sense stuff lol.

 

[Chris K]

Does public embarrassment constitute a threat to national security?

LOL
It's a threat to the individual 'security' of some govt. officers... that makes 'm work together. At last

 

[aborgman]

al
I point you to post #199

post #199 says it can't be done on "public opinion" - but that is exactly what jury nullification by a jury of your peers IS.

 

[warnergt]

do you have a link for this? (my bold )

Yes. The information is starting to come out. It appears that
Assange raped two women. The Guardian publishes an extensive account.

And now, Invalid Link Removed. That's a hoot!

 

[warnergt]

There are to my knowlege no laws against printing classified info on the web, in books, in the newspaper.

That's why you're not a lawyer.

It is illegal to obtain it or communicate it.
Invalid Link Removed

 

[warnergt]

...the Newspaper that unveiled Valerie Plame as a CIA agent did not get punished.

Many genuine news sources go unpunished when classified information
is leaked. I don't like it but politics gets involved. It is not good politics
to go after the media.

Valerie Plame is not a good example. It has never been determined
that she was a "covered person" (i.e. something like undercover agent) at
the time she was exposed. There is evidence that she was not.
Consequently, it is not apparent that any law was broken when her
position was revealed. The only person ever charged after the
subsequent investigation was charged for not being truthful during the
investigation.

The quantity of classified information illegally obtained and illegally
released by Wikileaks is unprecedented. It is unlikely they will get off
the hook.

 

[warnergt]

While it may be true that nations have extradition treaties, there is no evidence that such a charge has been laid against Assange. Nor has it been established that such a charge would be legally binding if applied to a person who is neither in the USA or an American citizen.

You are correct that Assange has not yet been charged. I suspect that
they are building a case first. The charge would be legally binding.

Are you of the opinion that US laws rightfully apply outside of the USA? If so, then surely, on pain of inconsistency, you must also agree that all other nations' laws also rightfully apply in the USA.

There are laws that transcend borders. When you steal or illegally
obtain items that belong to the United States you are indeed liable to
the United States. And that would be true for any country. Just because
you got the item(s) over the border doesn't mean you're off the hook.

All countries have laws against espionage against them. There is no
inconsistency there, either.

And you mention "US laws." I'm not an expert on this but it is very
possible that this falls under international laws or treaties. It is not
as if the US unilaterally imposes its laws on the rest of the world.

 

[Cabazon]

I still don't understand when it became normal for someone to be tried of a crime in a country they were not in when the "crime" happened.
Is there any sort of international law on this that I've missed?

 

[12bass]

There are laws that transcend borders. When you steal or illegally
obtain items that belong to the United States you are indeed liable to
the United States. And that would be true for any country. Just because
you got the item(s) over the border doesn't mean you're off the hook.

All countries have laws against espionage against them. There is no
inconsistency there, either.

And you mention "US laws." I'm not an expert on this but it is very
possible that this falls under international laws or treaties. It is not
as if the US unilaterally imposes its laws on the rest of the world.

Then it is agreed that, even if US citizens were never even in the country in question, other nations' laws also apply to US citizens, and that US citizens should be extradited, tried, and convicted, for breaking laws from other nations.

 

[Pacman]

Then it is agreed that, even if US citizens were never even in the country in question, other nations' laws also apply to US citizens, and that US citizens should be extradited, tried, and convicted, for breaking laws from other nations.

Only if they steal or somehow harm the other nations.

 

[TheVoiceless]

What information that has leaked, has been proven to cause damage in tangible measures? How many have died? Have any diplomatic ties be destroyed?

I am not an expert on this subject, but so far I can see direct effect from Wikileaks. Please show me one.

 

[Marlat]

I can't help but feel that this thread would benefit from a few participants actually reading up on how countries exercise jurisdiction over their citizens and crimes committed against their citizens / nation before responding. The guesswork is amusing, but more often than not, incorrect!

 

[knumbskull]

Yes. The information is starting to come out. It appears that
Assange raped two women. The Guardian publishes an extensive account.

And now, Invalid Link Removed. That's a hoot!

well those allegations make him sound like a real charmer, huh...

it will be interesting to see if the US government can put together a case against him for espionage, or whether they will wangle him over there on the rape charge (if he is convicted) by pressuring the Swedish govt., who are notoriously prone to pressure like this, as in the Pirate Bay case.