Free Markets, Free People


Wikileaks leaker’s legal docs leaked

I’m sorry but I find this both ironic and amusing:

LAWYERS for Julian Assange have expressed anger about an alleged smear campaign against the Australian WikiLeaks founder.

Incriminating police files were published in the British newspaper that has used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

They couldn’t be more outraged than the hundreds of Afghans who cooperated with the US were when their lives were put in jeopardy by this guy.

Yeah, I know, “two wrongs don’t make a right”, but there is a certain bit of satisfying shadenfreude in the scenario.  I’m sure I’ll eventually get over it.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

22 Responses to Wikileaks leaker’s legal docs leaked

  • Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if Assange claims leaks are not wrong, then there’s no wrong here.
    Transparency for all, if that’s how he wants to play.

  • Matter of public record right?

    WRT to the little Aussie troll, he’s not bound by any secret agreements so I can’t blame him, sanctimonious and irresponsible as he may be.

    Now the young turd we currently have in solitary confinement on the other hand…..

  • This is why “confidences” exist…as I’ve pointed out.
    No, looker, a lot of times a criminal complaint is NOT public information.
    It is TOO fun to see Assange and Fat Mikey Moore tangled in their own coils.
    Assange has broken a baker’s dozen criminal and civil laws.  Read a recent piece by Ann Coulter (a pretty good lawyer, BTW) for a quick-n-dirty on just one.  He is answerable in a US court for what he did.
    I still like IowaHawk’s solution–name him defiler of Muslim women of the year, and arch publisher of Mohamed insults.  Leak that.

    • Rags – criminal law on the ‘rape’ charge?  or criminal law for leaking our secret  information?  From a moral perspective, I’d just as soon see the sneering little troll “do a jig between heaven and hell”, but from my 50,000 foot view I don’t see how.

      Is that like ‘an American College Co-eds in the US can be executed under Iranian Sharia law for sleeping in the same dorm as male students who aren’t members of her family’ type of criminal law?

      There may be statues in the country he comes from, or lives in, that he’s violated, but just as the United States Constitution does not apply to Jon Claude Frenchman on the streets of Paris, I don’t see how his revealing our secret information is a crime in any country but this one.  If we’re going to claim our laws extend across the border into other people’s countries, then I don’t want to hear anyone grumbling about UN laws effecting us here in the US.  Sauce – Goose – Gander.

      Not to pick a fight old boy, and certainly not to make any pretense of knowledge in your area of expertise beyond what common sense (which I understand doesn’t always apply….) would dictate.   I guess you mean there are international laws he probably violated that treaties entitle us to nail him on (like piracy on the high seas…arrghhhh avast!…) .

      But as I’m not bound by British Law, “a lot of times a criminal complaint is NOT public information” doesn’t apply to me   :D .    I’m saucing Julian’s goose with the same sauce he used on our gander.

      Sigh -  two wrongs and all that….I’m standing a couple spots over at the Schadenfreude Bar that McQ is drinking at….. Mmmmmmmm Guinness.

      • Wow!  Confusion and confused thinking abound on this.
        How do you think we prosecute spies?  How do we prosecute foreign terrorists?  Foreign frauds?
        Nations…duh…have a very highly developed means of bringing to heal people who commit crimes under their laws.  Sometimes, those don’t work.  Very often, they DO.
        Ever hear of Interpol?  You may not THINK you are bound by British law, but just try an international scam that involves British victims.
        Also, I can sue a foreign national, take a judgment against them, and have it enforced under a Hague procedure.  I happens all the time.

        • I get the idea – so long as everyone on the side where he’s sitting thinks they should hand him over to us for swift justice.  Witness a certain famous film director who has fled Hollywood because we have such a ‘backward’ view of sex with drugged minors.

          I understand extradition, but if they’re arresting the guy on rape charges, it strikes me that our foreign partners in the international game of secret leaking aren’t inclined to put the man behind bars for leaking OUR secrets, nor are they terribly inclined to send him to us so that we may do so.  Or am I mistaken?

          Our agreement to work with Interpol is treaty based, they could tell us to stuff our laws, and, essentially, politely, sometimes, they do anyway.
          I realize, we wield a big stick, when we want to, and this administration in particular is loathe to use it.  I’m more interested in nailing the people who GAVE the Australian troll something to publish.

          • Pretty much ezzzactly, looker.
            Like your own local DA, foreign authorities have a LOT of discretion as to whether or not to enforce the law…or their obligations under treaty.
            That does not mean that there is no law…or treaty obligation…that could be invoked.
            Of course I agree on PFC Bradley.  He should be shot, IMNHO.  The idiots who put a PFC in the position he occupied without apparent adequate over-sight should be punished, as well.  GREAT BIG opportunity to learn and improve.
            But Assange is not a non-criminal because of the incident of his national origin, or because he never swore an oath.  He IS a criminal.  Like a lot of others, he may skate.  But it isn’t because we CANNOT go after him.
            All of which illustrates why I say NOBODY should be allowed to  call our LEGAL system a “JUSTICE SYSTEM”.  It is a black lie.  On a good day, it is a legal system.  Many times it is mere caprice…or tyranny.

    • Heh – claim he’s been doodling pictures on the back of leaked documents of a certain god and his certain prophet having a beer summit.

  • In the words of Billy Jean

    Fair is fair!
    We didn’t start this, we didn’t mean it to happen, but we’re not givin’ up til you pay.

    FAIR IS FAIR!”

    Of course …

    Billy Jack: When policemen break the law, then there isn’t any law – just a fight for survival.

  • I resent how this has been all put onto Assange for the most part.  The leaker I’m aware of seemed to seek the spotlight, imho that’s what made him the exception.

    Otherwise the Leakers and those responsible for preventing leaks aren’t getting their due attention by both the government and media.  Assange is the Leakee, imho.  He’s just publishing to the public what he’s gotten.  From what I can tell, none of this information has been secure prior to this and likely freely available to anyone with a checkbook for some time.

    To my knowledge, Assange never took an oath for secrecy, is not a US citizen, nor an agent of the US.  There’s no reason to expect him to be charged with keeping US secrets.  That’s separate from the immoral aspect of jepoardizing the lives of the men.  Although his behavior is immoral, it is not as immoral as those who were actually charged with keeping the information secure but violated that expectation.

    Its the leakers that should be getting the screws put to them.  But I think this administration and other governments wants to blame Assange so they can take their pressure off the fact security is a joke and probably has been for years.  Bush being gun shy in pursuing leakers who deserved it and the media causing him to be gun shy helped establish a little/no repercussion attitude to leaking and shares some of the blame.  They also want an excuse to regulate the internet.

    • Doesn’t your description of Assange make him a “nationless spy” ?

    • Apparently what was leaked to the British paper wasn’t secure either – thus the “irony and amusement”.

    • To my knowledge, Assange never took an oath for secrecy, is not a US citizen, nor an agent of the US.  There’s no reason to expect him to be charged with keeping US secrets.

      None of which is remotely relevant.  He is liable under both criminal and civil Federal statutes.
      Soviet or Chinese spies…or spies for German or Japan during or prior to WWII…fit all your criteria.
      Publishers of confidential information…or REpublisher…or RE REpublisher…are ALL liable under that statutes that I am aware of.

      • “Soviet or Chinese spies”

        Ah….the Russian we just caught spying recently went home to acclaim.  The Fem Fatale of the group got some VERY nice pictures of herself in their version of…what, Maxim?

        We can probably try Machmood Onmydinnerjacket for attacking an American Embassy in Tehran and holding the staff hostage for over a year.  Maybe after he’s done with his ticker tape parade through the streets of Tehran.    One man’s hero, and all that.    Julian isn’t a US citizen, isn’t bound by any oath to us, etc.  So, if he didn’t violate some law by nature of a treaty we’re party to, I don’t see how the fact that he broke US law makes him any different than the average Iranian attending a stoning or the average Britain driving on the wrong side of the road from the aspect of breaking our laws.

        • C’mon, looker.  I know you are smart enough not to cling to that position.
          IFFFF we let spies go, that NEVER means we couldn’t do otherwise.
          And, of course, there are outlaw nations with whom there will be no reciprocal law enforcement.
          But, generally, a murderer WILL get extradited (if sometimes with conditions…as in an assurance that our “horrible” death penalty will not be sought).
          I assure you, we could reach out and touch Assange…if we had the will…in a perfectly legal way.

          • “C’mon, looker.  I know you are smart enough not to cling to that position.”

            Its literally for the sake of discussion Rags.    I’ve got a dose of the contrary devil, this one is interesting because it’s clearly not clear cut to our trading partners, like terrorism or murder.  Up until a while ago, I thought the rape of a minor might qualify with murder, but as I said above, the Euro’s seem to think we’re backwards about sex with drugged children, a good portion of Hollywood thinks the same thing it seems.

      • That’s not what I said.

        What I said is he is not the most important figure in this story.  He’s 3rd, maybe second.

        #1) Leakers
        #2) Responsible for Security
        #3) Leakees (Assange + unknown others)

    • Yeah, and as for Private Weaselface

      “He’s nothing but a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worm! Hanging’s too good for him. Burning’s too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!”

      • There are already blog posts on the web bemoaning the awful treatment being accorded to PFC Manning.  It’s mind-boggling how clueless some people are.

        As for Assange, I suppose that while there is a very real concern over the way documents related to his case were leaked, there is some satisfaction in watching him and his supporters try to find a way to react.  Do they go the hypocritical route, or do they simply accept the egg on their faces?  Not much of a choice for Assange; he must defend himself and will have to be critical of the release of information that should have remained private, even though it could severely undermine his credibility.

    • Its the leakers that should be getting the screws put to them

      >>> +1

      I mean, you can tell me that he’s encouraging criminal behavior from others, etc. and that’s fine, but unless you can show me where he’s the source of the documents as opposed to the conduit, for my money the real villian in the piece are traitors (and yes, I made a deliberate choice in that word) like Manning, who leak these things in the first place.

      And while I’m not a fan of govt leaks like this one……*chuckle*   But even a worm like ASSange has rights (well, whatever limited rights they allow the peons in the EU anyway)