Seuss said:

> he certainly doesn't seem a theif in any way.

What do you call somebody that knowingly accepts stolen goods for profit?  I call them a thief.

---

Seuss said:

> Either way my opinion is that messenger can not be guilty for message hes carrying.

So if I hack into a bank and steal your bank account and post it to the Nigerian Brotherhood, it isn't my fault that you get robbed blind... I'm just the messenger?

---

Seuss said:

> a) no material object is taken

My understanding is that a database of information (intellectual property) was given to Wikileaks.  Call it a copyright infringement if you wish, or a violation of the DMCA, or industrial espionage, or whatever. 

---

Quote:

> For that to be true it would have to be the government's property, which I don't see to be the case.

It was the governments property.  If I have access to the US Governments secret designs for nuclear bombs, and I make a copy of those plans, and I give those plans to Syria, am I "just a messenger" or am I guilty of a crime?

---

Quote:

> but the meer publishing of the data is not theft nor necessarily wrong or unlawful-

Ok, I agree, that since Wikileaks didn't actually take the data, they aren't the ones committing theft.  The soldier, or whoever did take the data, in my mind at least is guilty of theft (among other crimes).  It doesn't matter that he copied data rather than taking a physical object, it is still theft.  Wikileaks accepted the data, knowing that the data was stolen, which is also a crime (receiving stolen property).

---

Seuss said:

I know that Assange never had a clearance and has not signed a NDA, etc.  However, he is enabling people that have.  I don't hold him responsible for their treason, but I do hold him responsible for not vetting the material that he releases.

---

Ok, well this is pretty much my position as well, provided no case can be made that he intentionally induced espionage before the fact.  I think if he had given the US government a reasonable chance to object to the particulars in the proffered disclosure he would be much more defendable in his claims to seek to advance transparency and whistle blowing. 


The rub is: how do you distinguish a whistle blower from a security breach or good vs bad?  Pentagon papers- were these ok to leak and print?  What about the surveilance of Burmese anti-government protests and other illegal acts that seek to disclose the abuse of totalitarian regimes?  Especially when we're talking about the death penalty, this distinction is far from a trivial matter.

I tend to think the disclosures should be decided on their merits.  Basically I think the inspector general system is probably as good as you can do- get an independant agency with subpoena power and no dependancy on the agency it investigates to vet claims in a secure manner. 


Those that go outside this process face the consequences and should be judged on the merits- with popular political intervention in exceptional cases (such as the pentagon papers, for example, which I think hilighted a truth being actively lied about to a people funding and supporting the war).


Kind of how I feel about torture.  Ban it completely and the exceedingly rare ticking timebomb situations can be dealt with as exceptions.  Formal exceptions risk abuse- just as we've seen with the NSA wiretapping and the expansion of the scope of the Patriot act to all sorts of bullshit having nothing to do with the reasons advanced for its enactment.

Quote:

n order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries,[3] or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes.[4] Its work focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, environmental crime, genocide, war crimes, piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.

---

Quote:

A former attorney for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has revealed that the sex assault allegations against Assange in Sweden center around his allegedly not using a condom. James Catlin says Assange has been accused of not using a condom during consensual sex with the two accusers. Catlin says Sweden’s justice system is likely to become "the laughingstock of the world" if the case proceeds. An international arrest warrant was issued for Assange this week.

---

Seuss said:

For example, I have information that shows a US Senator had somebody killed to hide an affair she was having.  It doesn't matter if I tell the police, the news, or your mother, this is an example of whistleblowing.  Instead, I have classified plans on how a nuclear reactor is protected.

---

Quote:

I don't know the facts of the case any more than you do.  European courts have a history of thumbing their nose at US requests.  I find it unlikely that Sweden would all the sudden start bowing down to the almighty US in this case.  Even if they have, it should become very apparent once the facts of the case become public.

---

Quote:

That isn't how it works.  You don't get to decide when and how you talk to the police when they want to question you about alleged crimes.  Assange is not above the law, regardless of what his ego would like to believe.

---

Quote:

JENNIFER ROBINSON (one of his lawyers): Well, first, it’s important to note that Mr. Assange remained in Sweden for almost a month in order to clear his name. While he was in Sweden after the allegations came out, he was in touch with the prosecuting authorities and offered on numerous occasions to provide interview in order to clear his name. Those offers were not taken up by the police. Now, he obviously has had to travel for work and had meetings to attend. And in order to leave Sweden, he sought the specific permission of the prosecutor to leave, on the grounds that there was an outstanding investigation, and she gave that permission. So he left Sweden lawfully and without objection by the prosecuting authorities. Since that time, we have communicated through his Swedish counsel on numerous occasions offers to provide the answers to the questions that she may have through other means, through teleconference, through video link, by attending an embassy here in the U.K. to provide that information. And all of those offers were rejected. It’s also important to remember that the prosecutor has not once issued a formal summons for his interrogation. So, all of these communications have been informally. And in our view, it’s disproportionate to seek an arrest warrant when voluntary cooperation has been offered.

---

Quote:

Does it sound more likely that a Swedish court independently decided the charges of having sex without a condom were not worth perusing only to wait almost three months to re-open them, dilly dally and not take him in for questioning.

---

Quote:

“I don’t know what’s behind this,” he said. “But we have been warned that the Pentagon, for example, is thinking of deploying dirty tricks to ruin us. And I have also been warned about sex traps.”
...
But one of Mr. Assange’s close friends in Sweden, who said he had discussed the case in detail with Mr. Assange and one of the women, said he was “absolutely sure” that what was involved were personal animosities and grievances that flowed out of brief relationships Mr. Assange had with the women.

The man, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issues, said that the volatile mix that led to the two women’s seeking criminal charges against Mr. Assange involved his celebrity in Sweden and the ill feelings that erupted when the two women discovered they had been competing for his attentions.

---

Quote:

No, I have clearly stated that I only want to hear what the JURY decides, should it go that far.  Until then, rather than speculate like the rest of you, I will refrain from deciding that he is guilty or innocent.

---

Quote:

I care more about evidence than circumstances.  As no evidence has been released to the public, I try to hold back judgment.  However, I do find it concerning that the claims against Assange were made by two different people.

---

First it's the courts havn't presented any evidence, then it's I won't make any judgments until the final verdict is in. Good thing that evidence submitted by the courts doesn't pre-date your claims that they havn't presented any, I bet that would just make you look like a fool or a liar. (check the date of the linked article to see the inside joke here)
The only thing more funny than your refusal to look at the facts is your belief that Swedish law tries by jury.


I bet if this happened after climategate you'd read the witness statements or if they were damning to the defense you'd read them. That is to say I doubt you are a fool but rather think you are being disingenuous instead. However, I suppose they are not mutually exclusive.

It should be said that, I suspect that he may be guilty of not wearing a condom or even being somewhat chauvinistic in his attitude toward women. I do not think these are or should be crimes anywhere in the western world. Until I had found the details of the case I did suspect he may have guilty of the crimes and was worried of the implications for wikileaks.