Wikileaks

[Spider]

Not really interested in discussing the political pros and cons, but from an internet pov, this is becoming a really interesting story. So, they lost Amazon as their hosting company - now they have hosts in 5 Eurpoean countries. So their DNS host switched them off - now they have many DNS hosts doing the job. They are opening mirror sites around the world and used Twitter to announce to the world their new TLDs

Stuff of which movies are made!

BBC News - Wikileaks' struggle to stay online (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11928899)

[phanio]

Too bad they could not use all that talent for good!

[Harold Mansfield]

It may very well be a movie. This is the juiciest web story since Sex.com

I'm wondering if all these attempts to continue to set up all over the world will culminate in additional charges in each country. Especially if he is using servers in allies and countries that abide by international laws.
If he is to continue this, he needs to host in Russia or Costa Rica.

Everywhere he goes, the U.S State Department is sending letters telling them that he is in violation of U.S. laws. There's only 20 or so countries that don't care about that and will throw it in the garbage. No one else wants the hassle because they will want something one day.

[Spider]

I believe this will die down, Wikilieaks will continue with the connivance of the US government and other governments, because they will find some way to benefit from it. What they don't like right now is some private citizen is doing it and that is out of their control. The banks or the insurance companies or some other group that has been sucking the blood of society since forever, will get involved, figure out how to make money off it and Wikileaks will continue under a different guise probably with different owners.

The cat is out of the bag now - no putting that baby back!

[Harold Mansfield]

I think it's past that now. The U.S. Government is after them. They have already stated that a crime has been committed and are telling everyone that if they continue to assist they are accessories. They aren't going to back down now. They want to prosecute him.
This has gone beyond just some guy posting old redacted files. He crossed the line.
You can't just post what ever you want on the internet or in a newspaper just because you have it. The problem is, you weren't supposed to have it.

People posting files is not new, but when the line is crossed and it borders on treason or espionage. It's trouble.
I just checked the site. It's down again but they are talking crap on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/wikileaks

[billbenson]

I suspect that one positive outcome may be increased efforts on computer security and prosecution of hackers. Hackers have been a problem, but this time they kicked the US Gov't where it counts. You can bet a lot of tax dollars are being spent right now to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Since the hackers took down MasterCards site with a denial of service attack as retaliation, this will hit the private sector as well. Also, I bet the US will put a lot of diplomatic pressure on other countries for cooperation. Germany, for example, is known for hackers.

[Spider]

Something that I'm sure is raising some eyebrows in Europe - the shear disregard the US Government seems to be showing towards other nations' laws. It appears that the US is taking the stand - our laws were broken and it doesn't matter where the perpetrators are or were the alleged offence took place, the world has to conform to US law.

BS!

Each country has it's own laws and if it is not a crime where it took place, it is not a crime. And if the US is going to try to ride roughshod over other nations' sovereignty, the people, if not the governments, of those other countries will be most displeased.

[Business Attorney]

Frederick,

The U.S., along with most other nations, respects international law. In addition, the U.S. has treaties with many other countries that cover issues including arrest and extradition of people who violated laws in the U.S., whether or not their acts would have been violations in the country in which they were located. U.S. securities laws are a good example. Someone may engage in defrauding U.S. investors from abroad, but many of our treaty partners will detain and extradite those perps to the U.S. for prosecution, even if their own laws are not as protective of investors. It is not one-sided, either. Our government will also detain and extradite people here who are wanted in other jurisdictions for violating laws that exist only in those jurisdictions.

Similarly, the EU has adopted many specific rules and procedures that require other member nations to defer to the laws of a particular member nation whose laws were purportedly violated.

There are still places where people can go more or less with immunity, but even where there is no treaty that requires it, a country that wants to maintain a good relationship with another country will often respect the other country's request to honor its laws.

[Spider]

I'm afraid it's not always as clear cut as that, David. If an American citizen breaks an American law while in the USA then flees to England, the British authorities would righty detain that American citizen and send him back home. No problem with that.

If this American citizen breaks a British law while in Britain and flees to the United States, how committed would the US authorities be to arrest one of their own citizens and send him to another country to be charged and face trial? That's Britain, and perhaps they would do it for Britain. But what if that other country was Saudi Arabia? Would the American authorities arrest an American citizen on American soil and send him to Saudi Arabia to face a crime he committed in Saudi Arabia? What if this other country was India? Or, China? Or Libya? Or ...

What if this American citizen, in America, dealing with Britain over the internet, did something that broke a British law but this something was not illegal in the US - that is to say, the act was not a crime where it was committed. Would the American authorities detain this American citizen over something he did while on American soil that was not a crime in America, and send him off to another country to face prosecution and trial? I very much doubt it.

Things are never quite so simple when you dig a little deeper. National soveriegnty is important to the people of each country, and until we have a one-world government, no one country's laws should take precedence over another's -- in my opinion, of course.

[Harold Mansfield]

We have treaties with Britain and many other countries that we do not hide fugitives and neither do they. We successfully extradite plenty of people from places a lot less friendly than Britain for lesser crimes than espionage and treason successfully all of the time.

Not only that, wikileaks posted information that detrimental to a lot more countries than just the U.S. He's in hot water with a few countries. When you throw out international dirty laundry on the table, you throw a few other people under the bus too.

If we want him to stand charge here, it won't be a problem to have him here. He's in Britain, not Saudi Arabia.

He can't hide in Britain from a rape case no more than he can hide for crimes against America. In case you forgot, Britain has been helping us extradite people who have committed crimes against America and Americans since the the cold war, not to mention the last 10 years in the Gulf.

Britain is an ally. A very friendly ally. There probably isn't a bigger ally to the U.S. than Britain. They don't hide people who duck out on child support, what makes you think all of a sudden they are going to fight us on extraditing him? They aren't happy with him either. Some of those documents made Britain look bad as well.

After he exhausts all of his appeals, He's done! Toast!
I'm afraid this one is cut and dry.

I'm going to side with the Licensed, Practicing American Attorney on this one.

[Spider]

But, Harold, don't you see how one-sided this discussion is already?

You carefully avoided my post. I was talking about America extraditing an American citizen to another country to be tried under that other country's laws. How would most Americans feel about that happening?

I agree with you, many people have been extradited TO America, people of many different nationalities. But how often in recent years (or ever) has America extradited an American citizen to another country for trial and punishment?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend.

[Business Attorney]

Frederick, instead of stating hypothetical, please give us FACTS. I spent about 10 minutes researching on Google and could not find a single instance (though one probably exists) of the United States refusing a request for extradition by another country.

What I DID find was:

Narendra Rastogi to be extradited from United States (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/narendra-rastogi-to-be-extradited-from-united-states_10057900.html)

Former Panama Dictator Manuel Noriega Extradited from U.S. to France (http://abcnews.go.com/International/Blotter/panamas-dictator-manuel-noriega-extradited-us-france/story?id=10486776)

Danish executive extradited from the United States admits fraud (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/246462,danish-executive-extradited-from-the-united-states-admits-fraud.html)

John Demjanjuk -- 88-year-old Nazi extradited to Germany (http://www.zimbio.com/John+Demjanjuk/articles/2/John+Demjanjuk+88+year+old+Nazi+extradited)

Extradited teacher facing sex charges (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/news/regional/03/26/extradited-teacher-facing-sex-charges/)

Marko Boskic Extradited to Bosnia for Srebrenica Genocide (http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2010/04/marko-boskic-extradited-to-bosnia-for.html)

Uruguay's most wanted fugitive extradited (http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/0809/080912miami.htm)

As someone who is always asking others to support their statements with facts, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend." Where are your facts?

[Spider]

Thank you, David, you have provided the facts for me. I read each of those articles and not one of the individuals extradited FROM the United States seems to have been an American citizen. One of them was foreign born and naturalized but he was stripped of his American citizenship seemingly before extradition.

Now, maybe there have been instances of the United States extraditing an American citizen to face charges in another country, but I - and now you - have not been able to find details of any.

[Harold Mansfield]

I'm not disregarding your post, but I think the general consensus in THIS case is that he will face charges in the U.S., or be charged in England for similar crimes.. because he put their cheese out in the wind too.
I'm only speaking about this case. Not the history of extradition.
Just this guy, and these crimes.
My belief is that there won't be much argument about it between the U.S. and Britain.
We give up "Americans" all the time for crimes they committed overseas. We have agreements with people and have for a long time.
It's really that simple.

[Spider]

Anyway, I did say I was not interested in discussing the political pros and cons. The BBC report was posted just to show the speed with which the internet afforded avoidance tactics and thwarted the attempts of authorities from closing down an information source with which they disagreed. Wikileaks, in a matter of hours, disappeared in plain view - they are now many times larger than they were at the start of today.

One thing for sure, the internet has brought more power to the people than any social movement in the past. I find this all very interesting and more than a trifle exciting.

[Harold Mansfield]

There's Americans in jail allover the world. Some of them were made to go back and face charges. This isn't a haven. You can't go to France and commit a crime and come back here and hide. And they don't let their people do it either. We have treaties that cover this.

[Spider]

Those Americans in foreign jails have been caught in-country, Harold. I don't believe any Americans have been extradited by the US government to another country for trial. But I would be open to details, if you can find something.

It's not common for any country to extradite its own citizens TO a foreign country for trial, but it does happen. If I remember correctly, three (l think it was three) British bankers were extradited from Britain to the USA over the Enron affair. But I haven't been able to find information of such happening with American citizens. In fact, I read something that suggests it might be contrary to the provisions of the US Constitution, which no treaty would be able to supersede, I imagine.

[Harold Mansfield]

I've already voiced my opinion. I think he will face charges in America or be tried in England for similar crimes.
He's not going to duck the Swedish charges just because he's British. why is this different?
He was arrested in England on a Swedish warrant. And is now in jail in his own country for a warrant from another country.
He could just as easily be arrested on an American warrant.
Treaties.
We respect them so that they will respect them. It's been going on for years.

[Business Attorney]

Those Americans in foreign jails have been caught in-country, Harold. I don't believe any Americans have been extradited by the US government to another country for trial. But I would be open to details, if you can find something.

There you go again. You are clearly implying that the U.S. refuses to expedite U.S. citizens who commit crimes overseas. Show me one case where extradition was refused on the basis that the person charged was a U.S. citizen. Until you can provide facts, you are making inflammatory claims based on nothing more than your personal feelings. I think you are just wrong.

[Spider]

I've already voiced my opinion. I think he will face charges in America or be tried in England for similar crimes.
He's not going to duck the Swedish charges just because he's British. why is this different?
He was arrested in England on a Swedish warrant. And is now in jail in his own country for a warrant from another country.
He could just as easily be arrested on an American warrant.
Treaties.
We respect them so that they will respect them. It's been going on for years.Actually, Julian Assange is not British - he is Australian. So he is not in jail in his own country on a warrant from another country. I'm not sure that is even possible. To be arrested he must have committed a crime within the jurisdiction in which he is arrested, not by treaty. The treaty only comes into play for the extradition, not the arrest. That's how I understand it, anyway.

Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, has been arressted in Britain under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) because he has been accused of committing serious crimes in Sweden. The European Arrest Warrant scheme is designed to promote co-operation between prosecuting authorities across the European Union. (Rather like the cooperation that exists between American States.) So, the jurisdiction in which the alleged crimes were committed is the EU.

[Spider]

There you go again. You are clearly implying that the U.S. refuses to expedite U.S. citizens who commit crimes overseas. Show me one case where extradition was refused on the basis that the person charged was a U.S. citizen. Until you can provide facts, you are making inflammatory claims based on nothing more than your personal feelings. I think you are just wrong.These are not my personal feelings - they are my personal findings, or lack thereof. Neither you nor I, David, have found any instance of an American citizen being extradited from America to a foreign country to face trial. I have already acknowledged that it may have happened and I have also confirmed that I have been unable to find evidence of it happening.

I think that a lack of evidence must be taken into account. You have no evidence that I have ever killed someone. I hope that lack of evidence would lead to you to assume I never have.

I certainly don't consider any remarks I have made in this thread to be inflammatory, and I am sad that you consider them so. I am simply trying to state the facts as I have observed them - that America seems eager to have foreign nationals extradited TO America for trial under American law and I don't see any Americans being extradited FROM America to stand trial overseas under another country's laws. And neither have you, if I understand your remarks correctly.

If you believe American cirtizens have been extradited from America to another country to stand trial under their laws, then you provide the evidence that this has happened. In cannot find any. I would happily be proven wrong in this case. I would feel better if I was wrong.

[Business Attorney]

The point is, and I am sure you know EXACTLY what you are doing Frederick, is that you are implying that the reason that there are no big stories of US citizens getting extradited is because the US refuses to do it. It could easily be because no one requested it, which is far more likely. If your assumption were true, that would be news and would likely be covered somewhere. If my assumption were true, there would be no news because there would be nothing to write it about.

If you can show me instances where the US refuses to extradite US citizens for trial in other countries, I am happy to be proven wrong, but until you do, I think you are completely off base.

[Spider]

... you are implying that the reason that there are no big stories of US citizens getting extradited is because the US refuses to do it....I have given you no reason to assume that - you came up with that all by yourself. Especially as this point is not really relevant to the thread as a whole.

I cannot help what you read into my words, David, but I can tell you, for a fact, that I was intending to imply no such thing.

[Spider]

Here's a new turn up for the books!

In a twist to the story it has emerged that Amazon, which last week refused to host Wikileaks, is selling a Kindle version of the documents Wikileaks has leaked.

BBC News - Amazon site unaffected by pro-Wikileaks attack (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11957367)

[Harold Mansfield]

Didn't know that. I just assumed by hearing him speak.
Even better. An Australian citizen arrested in Britain for crimes he committed in Sweden.

[Spider]

Harold, you have to read this article --

BBC News - Wikileaks: Barriers to possible US Assange prosecution (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817)

It seems very likely that Julian Assange is not guilty of any crime under which he could be prosecuted by the US government. Also, it seems likely that he cannot be extradited to the US under any treaty that exists between US-UK and US-Sweden.

I especially chuckled at -- "... in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security...." and further more - "...Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy."

This is better than a John LeCarré novel!

[Harold Mansfield]

U.S. Law syas:

Whoever receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, from any person or any source having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document or other materials relating to the national defense, or information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

If the State Department wants to file charges against him, where he is in the world doesn't matter. I'm really surprised that you are arguing so hard to prove that it does given the amount of charges and arrest warrants filed for people outside of the United States every year. This would just be one more. Julian Assange is no more or less untouchable than anyone else.

[Spider]

Never mind.

[billbenson]

I read an article a couple of days ago that said a trial regarding the publishing of the documents could go the way of freedom of the press or the put him in jail. Both outcomes are plausible. The thing is I bet he has violated all kinds of US and international laws in obtaining those documents and running his business. Still, the US government may have a completely different agenda. They are probably far more interested in going after the sources where he got the information, hackers, and making sure networks are secure. They might be perfectly happy letting him go to jail on the rape charges. The fact that the US government has been uncharacteristically quiet on this leads me to believe there is a whole bunch of stuff going on covertly.

[Harold Mansfield]

Just an update.
It seems that this is definitely going forward, the Justice Department is subpoenaing related Wikileaks Twitter accounts of both the organization, and employees and anyone involved with leaking sensitive information saying it is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation".
U.S. subpoenas WikiLeaks' Twitter account - U.S. news - WikiLeaks in Security - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40975656/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/)
U.S. Demands WikiLeaks to Release Details About Twitter Account - FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/08/wikileaks-says-twitter-account-details-subpoenaed-government/)

[billbenson]

Could be going after the hackers?

[vangogh]

I think they're looking to see if there's any connection between Assange and whoever leaked the documents beyond just the transfer of those documents. They're looking to build a case against Assange (and WikiLeaks in general) as someone who illegally obtained the documents as opposed to simply publishing documents received. The latter isn't a crime, which is why no one is going after the NY Times and others who republished some of the documents.