Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

Except Australia has already allowed the extradition of an Australian who uad nevercset foot in the USA.

Intent to infringe copyright, a most dasterdly crime.

Daryl wrote:I normally agree with much of what you say, but not on this occasion.
The US can pass laws making it an offence to have US classified information regardless of where your are. However I really fail to see how those laws should have any power outside US territory, on citizens of other countries. If any other country was to pass laws that they claimed to still hold elsewhere, I doubt that the US would accept them being prosecuted in the US.
Exceptions are covered by international treaties in things like paedophilia and drug smuggling, but the prosecutions are done under those treaties.

My opinion on this is probably coloured by personal experience. Now retired, I was reasonably senior in our Defence Department, and at times I had to determine classification levels for information.
A common discussion was along the lines of "The Minister wants this to be classified". "OK, how embarrassing is it for the government if it comes out?" "Quite embarrassing, but not enough to topple the government". "OK, then Secret should be high enough".
Many classifications were to cover up bungles, not because of risks to the national security, and much of what Wikileaks did expose was in that category. Newspaper editors have done the same and not been prosecuted.

n7axw wrote:I see that Julian Assange's extridition is still tied up in a London court. Now there is someone who needs to be answering in an American court.

Don

-

Really an aside, but the sexual charges against Assange were just plain wrong. At the core of it was that at one point he had sex without a condom without getting prior specific permission to do so. Mind you the woman who later complained, then had sexual relations with Assange for four nights after this alleged incident. Assange claimed, and there is some logic behind this, that the aim was to get him to Sweden where the US had more chance of extraditing him. Particularly if he was publicly shamed first. As to being "a piece of work", lots of single people (male and female) have lots of consensual sex.
As to the release of information, there has not been one reported case of physical harm coming to anyone mentioned in the releases. Lots of harm and embarrassment to many US officials caught out though. I still argue that the core of my argument, that no country has the right to claim that their law holds sway in other sovereign jurisdictions, holds sway.

Daryl wrote:Really an aside, but the sexual charges against Assange were just plain wrong. At the core of it was that at one point he had sex without a condom without getting prior specific permission to do so. Mind you the woman who later complained, then had sexual relations with Assange for four nights after this alleged incident. Assange claimed, and there is some logic behind this, that the aim was to get him to Sweden where the US had more chance of extraditing him. Particularly if he was publicly shamed first. As to being "a piece of work", lots of single people (male and female) have lots of consensual sex.
As to the release of information, there has not been one reported case of physical harm coming to anyone mentioned in the releases. Lots of harm and embarrassment to many US officials caught out though. I still argue that the core of my argument, that no country has the right to claim that their law holds sway in other sovereign jurisdictions, holds sway.

The question wasn't about consensual sex. The allegations were about sexual assault. If the relevant jurisdiction cleared him of that, nothing more need be said.

Correct. No country has the right to assume that it's laws hold sway beyond its borders. Extradition is the request of a country upon a country in whom an individual reside to take that person into custody and release him to the country who believes that it's laws have been broken by that individual for trial. It's not a demand; it's a request. What would be wrong would be for the FBI to go to Britian and arrest Assange on British soil. As it is the decision to honor the request and remand him to US custody rests with Britian. That is what is happening right now in a London court.

It's been a while since I have been over the details on this, but I think we did lose intelligence assets in Russia. But I'm not completely sure.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:Correct. No country has the right to assume that it's laws hold sway beyond its borders. Extradition is the request of a country upon a country in whom an individual reside to take that person into custody and release him to the country who believes that it's laws have been broken by that individual for trial. It's not a demand; it's a request. What would be wrong would be for the FBI to go to Britian and arrest Assange on British soil. As it is the decision to honor the request and remand him to US custody rests with Britian. That is what is happening right now in a London court.

There's a little wrinkle to this since Sweden also want Assange extradited. If Assange gets extradited to Sweden, Sweden can't extradite Assange to the USA without the express permission of the British.

n7axw wrote:It's been a while since I have been over the details on this, but I think we did lose intelligence assets in Russia. But I'm not completely sure.

npr wrote:To its supporters, the WikiLeaks disclosures have revealed a wealth of important information that the U.S. government wanted to keep hidden, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This included abuses by the military and a video that showed a U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq on suspected militants. Those killed turned out to be unarmed civilians and journalists.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, now under arrest in Britain, has often argued that no one has been harmed by the WikiLeaks disclosures.

But many in the national security community say the leaks were harmful to a broad range of people. However, they generally say the damage was limited and has faded since the first big WikiLeaks dump in 2010, which included hundreds of thousands of classified documents from the U.S. military and the State Department.

. . .

P.J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman when the WikiLeaks story erupted in 2010, said those most at risk were civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq who were secretly passing information to the U.S. military.

"A number of people went into hiding, a number of people had to move, particularly those civilians in war zones who had told U.S. soldiers about movements of the Taliban and al-Qaida," he said. "No doubt some of those people were harmed when their identities were compromised."

On the one hand you have US military atrocities exposed, on the other hand you have informants being exposed.

What's more important? Keeping atrocities and murders secret so informants can be safe or exposing the former which can possible lead to the death of informants?

There's no good choices, but which one is the least bad?

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:Correct. No country has the right to assume that it's laws hold sway beyond its borders. Extradition is the request of a country upon a country in whom an individual reside to take that person into custody and release him to the country who believes that it's laws have been broken by that individual for trial. It's not a demand; it's a request. What would be wrong would be for the FBI to go to Britian and arrest Assange on British soil. As it is the decision to honor the request and remand him to US custody rests with Britian. That is what is happening right now in a London court.

There's a little wrinkle to this since Sweden also want Assange extradited. If Assange gets extradited to Sweden, Sweden can't extradite Assange to the USA without the express permission of the British.

n7axw wrote:It's been a while since I have been over the details on this, but I think we did lose intelligence assets in Russia. But I'm not completely sure.

npr wrote:To its supporters, the WikiLeaks disclosures have revealed a wealth of important information that the U.S. government wanted to keep hidden, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This included abuses by the military and a video that showed a U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq on suspected militants. Those killed turned out to be unarmed civilians and journalists.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, now under arrest in Britain, has often argued that no one has been harmed by the WikiLeaks disclosures.

But many in the national security community say the leaks were harmful to a broad range of people. However, they generally say the damage was limited and has faded since the first big WikiLeaks dump in 2010, which included hundreds of thousands of classified documents from the U.S. military and the State Department.

. . .

P.J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman when the WikiLeaks story erupted in 2010, said those most at risk were civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq who were secretly passing information to the U.S. military.

"A number of people went into hiding, a number of people had to move, particularly those civilians in war zones who had told U.S. soldiers about movements of the Taliban and al-Qaida," he said. "No doubt some of those people were harmed when their identities were compromised."

On the one hand you have US military atrocities exposed, on the other hand you have informants being exposed.

What's more important? Keeping atrocities and murders secret so informants can be safe or exposing the former which can possible lead to the death of informants?

There's no good choices, but which one is the least bad?

Excellent post. I agree throughout, especially your last sentence. I would still maintain that nobody should be rifling through classified files and exposing their content randomly. Apart from the consequences, the principle of the thing is bad.

That been said, the military should be washing its own dirty laundry and dealing with its own problem children. That can be hard. In an ideal world atrocities wouldn't happen. In the world in which we actually live...well... The answer to the question doesn't come easy.

That being said, I still don't want Assange going through our classified info at random and releasing it to the public at whim!

If he has been cleared on that sexual assault charge, why is Sweden still interested in Assange?

Don

-

n7axw wrote:If he has been cleared on that sexual assault charge, why is Sweden still interested in Assange?

Don

-

Sorry, my mistake. The case was closed in November last year and the warrant was rescinded which I totally forgot about.

Annachie wrote:When you get right down to it, SDI was a massive con aimed at the USSR, and to a fair degree it worked.

That is my take on it, it was a con. Though my memory is not as crisp as it was in 1990 some impressions are clear.
The biggest mistake was for Regan to laugh at the Russian when the USSR broke up BUT
Even if it was a full success, the current administration is acting more like a Russian asset than they could ever hope to have.
If we (the USA) are still more or less intact in one year I will sell all that own and give the money to the poor.

Our rule of law is becoming a joke, these Y'all Qaeda armed thugs are storming the seats of elected government and Trump said they are good people and tells them to Liberate these states.
He fires anyone who disagrees with him, puts his cronies in positions of influence and the latest is to put the royal son in law in charge of getting federal resources to the people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/j ... virus.html
And before you Trump supporting gas-lighters say something stupid like Hunter Biden ... there is not even a paper trail because these friends of friends are using their own cell phones and OH BTW they never got ANY security clearance ... just handed a big sack of money and headed for the Trump Resort in NJ!!!
Don't you ever try to say Clinton EMAILS or anything else except GUILTY as charged of worse betrayal of the public trust since Tea Pot Dome scandal!!!

I think that Putin has a committee designing a monument for Trump and McConnell somewhere easy walking distance from Red Square.

When I was still in high school or first year at college I read an essay that told how to conquer the US from within.
Having already admitted that my memory is a bit less reliable that it once was, I cannot find the right key words to conduct a successful search of the web.
If anyone knows of this from late 1960's or early 1970's I would love help finding a copy.

Like you my memory is a bit hazy, but I remember a line from an American comic strip from about 50 years ago "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

I despair in my own country when people excuse our special forces for allegedly committing atrocities against the Taliban or ISIS, on the grounds that the other side does the same. If we copy them they have won. (A disclaimer, I have worked with our special forces, and they are incredibly skilled and brave, and I hope that the allegations are proven to be false).

Daryl wrote:Like you my memory is a bit hazy, but I remember a line from an American comic strip from about 50 years ago "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

I despair in my own country when people excuse our special forces for allegedly committing atrocities against the Taliban or ISIS, on the grounds that the other side does the same. If we copy them they have won. (A disclaimer, I have worked with our special forces, and they are incredibly skilled and brave, and I hope that the allegations are proven to be false).

I modify that line a bit: I have met the enemy and he is me!

They haven't won until we accept and normalize it. We may not be able to prevent bad things from happening, especially in war. But we don't have to accept it...

Trump recently intervened in a situation where military discipline was being administered for something similar and insisted that the guy be reinstated...

I keep telling myself it is only 7 months to the election when we fix this mess I hope.

Meanwhile covid rages on...

Don

-

Here is an interesting article that is actually on topic:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52318539

What is fascinating is that the BBC rather than some conservative source that would reflexively be dismissed as conspiracy mongers is publishing this.