Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Thread beginning with comment 452872
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely disagree"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

" Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by Bounty on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

"[q] Wikileaks 'attacked' first. This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn't do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He's in custody.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it's moral or not - which is debatable, certainly - handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences. Now, Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, and I really don't know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable. Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion -- and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear. "

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice. [/q]

You are correct about treason, but espionage is different. Many countries have espionage laws and might be willing to extradite someone who violates them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by boldingd on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.

Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.


My bold. God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.

Towards the end of http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452778 , specifically:
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


Edit: cleaned up the quote blocks a bit.

Edited 2010-12-09 00:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 00:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.


No, but, any U.S. organization that supports or works with Assange is potentially liable, see above. Materially, if Amazon had hosted WikiLeaks, or PayPal had continued to process payments to WikiLeaks, they could have been prosecuted under U.S. law.


Does this reasoning also apply to US press, such as the New York Times, who also published Wikileaks material?

If not, why not?

Read more on this theme here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101...

All you need to know about Julian Assange’s value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world’s other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases.


Also, if U.S. organizations are to be held accountable, since foreign nationals have been killed in the name of U.S. government lies, why should the U.S. governement also not be held accountable?

from the link above:
That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security. Claims mocked by released cables that show that our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan are deeply corrupt and anti-democratic, and that al-Qaida continues to find its base of support not in those countries but rather in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the very nations we arm and protect. The notion that the official tissue of lies enhances our security is rejected by the growing strength of radical Islam in the region, as evidenced by the success of Iran, the main beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.

The pretend patriots who use the national security argument to gut what remains of our most important security asset—our constitutional guarantees of a truly free press—are just what President George Washington feared when in his farewell address he warned “against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism. …”


Edited 2010-12-09 01:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Completely disagree
by vodoomoth on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely disagree"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Wrong. You forgot to add something like "and he does not live there.", which, now that I'm writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 11:56 in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.

Wrong. You forgot to add something like "and he does not live there.", which, now that I'm writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.
"

It would be a requirement if the US was just, rather than corrupt.

Opinion from an American whistleblower:
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release

Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”

by Michael Ellsberg on December 8, 2010

[Below is a news release put out by the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-signed by Daniel Ellsberg]

Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures

WASHINGTON – December 7 – The following statement was released today, signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson; all are associated with Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.


For the record, Assange is a highly respected mathematician who also did doctoral work in physics at Melbourne University, where he formed the volunteer civil rights group that was the precursor to WikiLeaks.


Comment from British justice:
Assange may be released
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-may-be-r...
A British judge says the WikiLeaks founder may be released from jail next week unless Swedish prosecutors produce evidence in London to back up their allegations.

Senior district judge Howard Riddle said Swedish authorities would need to show some convincing evidence if they wanted to oppose bail for the 39-year-old Australian when he appears in court next Tuesday to oppose extradition to Sweden.

...

Gemma Lindfield, the lawyer representing Swedish authorities at the initial extradition hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, said she believed the strength of the evidence over the sex charges was not relevant to the process of extraditing him under a European Arrest Warrant.

Judge Riddle disagreed, saying the four charges, including rape, were "extremely serious allegations (and) if they are false, he suffers a great injustice if he is remanded in custody".

The judge said he would "suggest" to Ms Lindfield that "if she is going to oppose bail in future", she would need to be armed with some substantial material to back up the allegations.


Edited 2010-12-09 12:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Completely disagree
by TheGZeus on Thu 9th Dec 2010 14:28 in reply to "RE[5]: Completely disagree"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

A bombing is a wholly different crime and type of crime.
I'm not saying either side of this argument is correct; I'm just saying this particular point is moot.

Reply Parent Score: 2