Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SnakeDoctor

“The pertinent part of the Espionage Act of 1917 is makes criminal the conveyance of classified information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.”

Assange can argue that he had no intention to either “interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies” and claim that he was merely engaging in journalism with juicy information obtained from an outside source. Now I have no problem with throwing the book at that outside source, namely the vile little degenerate Bradley Manning. Assange (sleazy playboy-wannabe that he is) merely does what the MSM is either too lazy or afraid of stepping on toes to do. As for the rape charges, I still standy by the honey trap theory. Just seems to convenient.


9 posted on 08/23/2012 11:53:15 AM PDT by teflon9 (Political campaigns should follow Johnny Mercer's advice--Accentuate the positive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: teflon9

Can Assange really be charged with espionage if he is a non-US citizen and was not operating within US borders? Wouldn’t that technically mean that say, a Serbian engaging in espionage on US forces in 1999 could be extradited from a third country and tried for spying?


10 posted on 08/23/2012 12:11:13 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: teflon9

He can argue all kinds of things. Doesn’t make it true.

Assange should be charged with espionage, and Manning with treason. Let a jury decide whether they’re as guilty as they appear.

SnakeDoc


11 posted on 08/23/2012 12:26:01 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: teflon9
“The pertinent part of the Espionage Act of 1917 is makes criminal the conveyance of classified information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.”

Indeed, and when say, Russia or China or Iran, decides to prosecute an American who has never set foot in their country for acts committed in the U.S. or the U.K., under their espionage laws, you'll see why trying to prosecute Assange is wrong. American law does not apply to the whole globe, just to American citizens and persons on U.S. territory. Throw the book at Manning, throw the book (at least administratively) at whatever moron set up the protocols so an Army specialist had access to classified diplomatic cables just because he had clearance to access classified Army documents, but extraterritorial prosecutions of foreign nationals almost strike me as causus belli, not that Australia will even break diplomatic relations with us over it, but perhaps they should, even as we should break off relations with China, were China to seek extradition of an American (say living in London) for publishing secret Chinese documents passed to him by a Chinese analogue of Manning.

16 posted on 08/23/2012 12:39:28 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson