Assange: Clinton should resign over alleged spying

[Two Thumbs]

Okay, I'm starting to think this guy is funded by terrorists.

I don't know, but somewhere I read that his lawyer is connected with George Soros, so you might have a point.

The pfc or whatever he was was given top secret clearance by the Bush administration.

He was given his clearance by the military, after the FBI, or military intelligence checked him out.

Bush nor any politician has anything to do with such things.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't think it is that simple. Federal law cannot supersede the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press...this would have to be ruled on by SCOTUS. I'm also not sure you can consider Assuange "the press".

Wikileaks would fall under freedom of press. But espionage is not trumped by the First, it is an exception to it.

How does wikileaks qualify as the press?

Your second point, I am not seeing how printing something that was leaked is espionage. The person that leaked it was probably committing that. I was researching what happened with the Pentagon Papers and the NYT got off on a technicality...there was never a ruling on the basic issue.

World Nut Daily is a press organization. Wikipedia is a press organization. National Enquirer is a press organization. Teen Beat magazine is a press organization. They are organizations that collect and disseminate information (if you want to call it that) for the public. That's really all they have to be to fall under "press" for purposes of the First.

The problem is in applying the statute. First, the accused spy had to have obtained classified information. Then, that classified information had to be "published", which in legal parlance means basically "dissseminated", and the dissemination had to be knowing and/or willful. Third, the information had to be harmful to the US government and helpful to a foreign government.

So in this case, the guy stealing the information completed the steps needed to meet the elements of espionage. It stops there as one full criminal transaction, and since he's military they get his sorry ass. Assange can most definitely be charged with espionage regardless of press credentials if it can be proven he was a conspirator. In other words, if rather than simply receiving the information passively he did something or provided something to further the espionage. Then he is part of that criminal transaction and can go down on espionage charges, press or no.

Stolen information is treated differently than stolen property, obviously. It's not an identifiable "thing" that can be traced and returned to its owner, once it's out it's out. So you have to trace the elements of the statute through each transaction, mere possession of it is not in itself a crime - with a few rare exceptions, none of which apply here.

Am I making sense?

 

[Ravi]

Wikileaks would fall under freedom of press. But espionage is not trumped by the First, it is an exception to it.

How does wikileaks qualify as the press?

Your second point, I am not seeing how printing something that was leaked is espionage. The person that leaked it was probably committing that. I was researching what happened with the Pentagon Papers and the NYT got off on a technicality...there was never a ruling on the basic issue.

World Nut Daily is a press organization. Wikipedia is a press organization. National Enquirer is a press organization. Teen Beat magazine is a press organization. They are organizations that collect and disseminate information (if you want to call it that) for the public. That's really all they have to be to fall under "press" for purposes of the First.

The problem is in applying the statute. First, the accused spy had to have obtained classified information. Then, that classified information had to be "published", which in legal parlance means basically "dissseminated", and the dissemination had to be knowing and/or willful. Third, the information had to be harmful to the US government and helpful to a foreign government.

So in this case, the guy stealing the information completed the steps needed to meet the elements of espionage. It stops there as one full criminal transaction, and since he's military they get his sorry ass. Assange can most definitely be charged with espionage regardless of press credentials if it can be proven he was a conspirator. In other words, if rather than simply receiving the information passively he did something or provided something to further the espionage. Then he is part of that criminal transaction and can go down on espionage charges, press or no.

Stolen information is treated differently than stolen property, obviously. It's not an identifiable "thing" that can be traced and returned to its owner, once it's out it's out. So you have to trace the elements of the statute through each transaction, mere possession of it is not in itself a crime - with a few rare exceptions, none of which apply here.

Am I making sense?

Yes, you are making sense. It is my understanding Assange can be charged either way and freedom of the press is immaterial because I don't think he qualifies as the press. Nor does Wikipedia.

What I am curious about is if anyone that published what Assange uploaded is also chargeable. And I am still not convinced that federal law trumps freedom of the press.

 

[shintao]

I kind of agree.... but..... for the record....

Manning (I will not give him a rank because he is a disgrace to his uniform) abused his security clearance to download the information. Are you saying that we should not trust our military - who are security cleared to the appropriate level for that information? WTF? It was not 'America's' fault.... it was one traitorous bastard within the military. He should face charges for treason - unfortunately that's highly unlikely. But he can be charged with espionage and he should go to prison for life. We should go after Assange, for espionage and put him in prison for life. And, just for the crack of it, we should also go after the NYT for their part. Send the editor to prison for life to - same charge.

Then, maybe, other people will realize that we do not take our national security as something to be fucked with.

Looking from a military standpoint, Manning should be locked away so far in a federal prison they have to pump him sunlight. He is a traitor, like so many other traitors we allow to roam free in our government, because they are from the "other world" of elites. Manning would surely use that knowledge as a precedent to show if it is good enough for the geese, it is good enough for him. You can't have it both ways,..........well yes you can!!!

He's been in prison since May.

How many in a firing squad can still miss Manning and still kill him? What is the distance of the firing squad from the prisoner?

 

[goldcatt]

How does wikileaks qualify as the press?

Your second point, I am not seeing how printing something that was leaked is espionage. The person that leaked it was probably committing that. I was researching what happened with the Pentagon Papers and the NYT got off on a technicality...there was never a ruling on the basic issue.

World Nut Daily is a press organization. Wikipedia is a press organization. National Enquirer is a press organization. Teen Beat magazine is a press organization. They are organizations that collect and disseminate information (if you want to call it that) for the public. That's really all they have to be to fall under "press" for purposes of the First.

The problem is in applying the statute. First, the accused spy had to have obtained classified information. Then, that classified information had to be "published", which in legal parlance means basically "dissseminated", and the dissemination had to be knowing and/or willful. Third, the information had to be harmful to the US government and helpful to a foreign government.

So in this case, the guy stealing the information completed the steps needed to meet the elements of espionage. It stops there as one full criminal transaction, and since he's military they get his sorry ass. Assange can most definitely be charged with espionage regardless of press credentials if it can be proven he was a conspirator. In other words, if rather than simply receiving the information passively he did something or provided something to further the espionage. Then he is part of that criminal transaction and can go down on espionage charges, press or no.

Stolen information is treated differently than stolen property, obviously. It's not an identifiable "thing" that can be traced and returned to its owner, once it's out it's out. So you have to trace the elements of the statute through each transaction, mere possession of it is not in itself a crime - with a few rare exceptions, none of which apply here.

Am I making sense?

Yes, you are making sense. It is my understanding Assange can be charged either way and freedom of the press is immaterial because I don't think he qualifies as the press. Nor does Wikipedia.

What I am curious about is if anyone that published what Assange uploaded is also chargeable. And I am still not convinced that federal law trumps freedom of the press.

That's where the Schenck line of cases comes in. Espionage is carved out as an exception to First Amendment protections. All First Amendment protections.

Wikipedia and wikileaks as entities are most certainly press, the same as any other online news source. The fact that they collect and disseminate information to the public that qualifies as "news" is what matters, not who provides that information or whether those people are paid, specially trained, licensed or have any other special credentials. The better question would be whether individual contributors qualify as "journalists", and as to that I'm not sure but would probably say no. The owners, editors, etc. would, however, qualify.

Here's a decent brief summary of First Amendment Freedom of Press given as a definition:

Freedom of the Press legal definition of Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the Press synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Pentagon Papers case? That was a basic prior restraint case, the standard for prior restraint has not changed. But prior restraint in that case was the Pentagon suing in civil court asking for an injunction against the NYT and WashPo before a story ran. The government bringing criminal espionage charges against a specific journalist for stealing or conspiring to steal the information after a story runs is not a prior restraint and is a very different case with very different standards. Check the tabs for the various concurring rationales.

New York Times Co. v. United States

And no, once you get a generation away from the source it's a genie out of the bottle. The information has already been disseminated and enters speech protection. (With a very few exceptions that don't apply here)

 

[Two Thumbs]

Looking from a military standpoint, Manning should be locked away so far in a federal prison they have to pump him sunlight. He is a traitor, like so many other traitors we allow to roam free in our government, because they are from the "other world" of elites. Manning would surely use that knowledge as a precedent to show if it is good enough for the geese, it is good enough for him. You can't have it both ways,..........well yes you can!!!

He's been in prison since May.

How many in a firing squad can still miss Manning and still kill him? What is the distance of the firing squad from the prisoner?

I think the military hangs traitors. (not certain)

Either way they won't try him for treason. The law on treason is very thin. They may say they are, and will seek the DP, but probably to get him to plead guilty to espionage.

 

[syrenn]

Assange: Clinton should resign over alleged spying - U.S. news - WikiLeaks in Security - msnbc.com
msnbc.com
updated 1 hour 1 minute ago 2010-12-01T18:28:47

The founder of WikiLeaks, the organization that has published tens of thousands of confidential American diplomatic cables, says U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should resign if she ordered diplomats to spy.

"She should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up," Julian Assange told Time Magazine in an interview.

That takes some nerve for a wanted man to say.

'Ridiculous and absurd'
The White House called Assange's statements on Clinton "ridiculous and absurd," according to CNN.

"I'm not entirely sure why we care about the opinion of one guy with one website,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Our foreign policy and the interests of this country are far stronger than his one website."

I'm not a big fan of Gibbs, but Rock on big man! Tell that screwball he's under arrest!

Ya know what, i hate that woman. But in this she is doing nothing that every other country isn't doing to us and everyone else. If that is what she ordered, good for her.

No i dont think she should resign.

 

[antagon]

I don't think it is that simple. Federal law cannot supersede the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press...this would have to be ruled on by SCOTUS. I'm also not sure you can consider Assuange "the press".

Wikileaks would fall under freedom of press. But espionage is not trumped by the First, it is an exception to it.

How does wikileaks qualify as the press?

Your second point, I am not seeing how printing something that was leaked is espionage. The person that leaked it was probably committing that. I was researching what happened with the Pentagon Papers and the NYT got off on a technicality...there was never a ruling on the basic issue.

this is what my earlier link to the U.S.C. states. i dont see how one could paraphrase classified info without being a spy:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States"

(laced with my emphasis)

you couldn't host or mirror wikileaks at this point with it exposed that the info was classified.

 

[Ravi]

You all make some good points but I am not convinced. We shall see what the court case brings.

 

[California Girl]

Bullshit. Stolen property does not become "not stolen" merely if you hand it off to someone else.

is this a matter of wikileaks taking a facillitator position with the material, rather than a direct conspirator? do they have freedom of the press in such a matter? if so, would that freedom protect them from endictments of espionage?

Exactly the dilemma we will be faced with.

We need to be careful here.

It may change the entire freedom of speech thing....it is not so cut and dry.

Next, there will be reason to shut down Glen Beck as some will claim his approach can be damaging to the US.

And then maybe during a republican administration Rachel Maddow is next?

Freedom of speech applies to Americans, in America. It is not a global policy. It does not apply to Wikileaks. It is not American. It is not the media. It is not applicable.

 

[California Girl]

World Nut Daily is a press organization. Wikipedia is a press organization. National Enquirer is a press organization. Teen Beat magazine is a press organization. They are organizations that collect and disseminate information (if you want to call it that) for the public. That's really all they have to be to fall under "press" for purposes of the First.

The problem is in applying the statute. First, the accused spy had to have obtained classified information. Then, that classified information had to be "published", which in legal parlance means basically "dissseminated", and the dissemination had to be knowing and/or willful. Third, the information had to be harmful to the US government and helpful to a foreign government.

So in this case, the guy stealing the information completed the steps needed to meet the elements of espionage. It stops there as one full criminal transaction, and since he's military they get his sorry ass. Assange can most definitely be charged with espionage regardless of press credentials if it can be proven he was a conspirator. In other words, if rather than simply receiving the information passively he did something or provided something to further the espionage. Then he is part of that criminal transaction and can go down on espionage charges, press or no.

Stolen information is treated differently than stolen property, obviously. It's not an identifiable "thing" that can be traced and returned to its owner, once it's out it's out. So you have to trace the elements of the statute through each transaction, mere possession of it is not in itself a crime - with a few rare exceptions, none of which apply here.

Am I making sense?

Yes, you are making sense. It is my understanding Assange can be charged either way and freedom of the press is immaterial because I don't think he qualifies as the press. Nor does Wikipedia.

What I am curious about is if anyone that published what Assange uploaded is also chargeable. And I am still not convinced that federal law trumps freedom of the press.

That's where the Schenck line of cases comes in. Espionage is carved out as an exception to First Amendment protections. All First Amendment protections.

Wikipedia and wikileaks as entities are most certainly press, the same as any other online news source. The fact that they collect and disseminate information to the public that qualifies as "news" is what matters, not who provides that information or whether those people are paid, specially trained, licensed or have any other special credentials. The better question would be whether individual contributors qualify as "journalists", and as to that I'm not sure but would probably say no. The owners, editors, etc. would, however, qualify.

Here's a decent brief summary of First Amendment Freedom of Press given as a definition:

Freedom of the Press legal definition of Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the Press synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Pentagon Papers case? That was a basic prior restraint case, the standard for prior restraint has not changed. But prior restraint in that case was the Pentagon suing in civil court asking for an injunction against the NYT and WashPo before a story ran. The government bringing criminal espionage charges against a specific journalist for stealing or conspiring to steal the information after a story runs is not a prior restraint and is a very different case with very different standards. Check the tabs for the various concurring rationales.

New York Times Co. v. United States

And no, once you get a generation away from the source it's a genie out of the bottle. The information has already been disseminated and enters speech protection. (With a very few exceptions that don't apply here)

Wikipedia and Wikileaks are not press.

 

[Nighthawk62]

Assange: Clinton should resign over alleged spying - U.S. news - WikiLeaks in Security - msnbc.com
msnbc.com
updated 1 hour 1 minute ago 2010-12-01T18:28:47

The founder of WikiLeaks, the organization that has published tens of thousands of confidential American diplomatic cables, says U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should resign if she ordered diplomats to spy.

"She should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up," Julian Assange told Time Magazine in an interview.

That takes some nerve for a wanted man to say.

'Ridiculous and absurd'
The White House called Assange's statements on Clinton "ridiculous and absurd," according to CNN.

"I'm not entirely sure why we care about the opinion of one guy with one website,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Our foreign policy and the interests of this country are far stronger than his one website."

I'm not a big fan of Gibbs, but Rock on big man! Tell that screwball he's under arrest!

It will be interesting to learn what this very strange person has to say abter he is caught and arrested by Interopl.

An underground existence is nothing new for Assange, his associates have pointed out. Driven by his anti-secrecy crusade and convinced that governments are out to get him, he has long avoided fixed residences, borrowing travel funds and sleeping on other people's couches between marathon sessions at the computer.

WikiLeaks announced via Twitter, meanwhile, that it has been the target of repeated hacker attacks since the publication of more than 250,000 leaked State Department communications, a claim in line with Assange's frequent assertions that U.S. intelligence agencies are intruding on his work.

While Assange stayed out of sight, his Stockholm lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, filed an appeal Wednesday against the Swedish government's arrest order. At the same time, his London attorney, Mark Stevens, said the Stockholm prosecutor's tactics show that she is out to get Assange for more than legal reasons.

"Since Sweden is a civilized country, I have to come to the conclusion that this is persecution and not prosecution," Stevens said in an e-mail to the Associated Press.

One news report suggested that Assange is considering asking for asylum in Switzerland. But that country is known for keeping secrets, so that seemed an unlikely solution. Moreover, WikiLeaks has announced that its next big project is to reveal the confidential documents of a major bank, believed to be Bank of America, which could make the land of numbered accounts an awkward haven for Assange.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in hiding, avoiding Interpol warrant

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, you are making sense. It is my understanding Assange can be charged either way and freedom of the press is immaterial because I don't think he qualifies as the press. Nor does Wikipedia.

What I am curious about is if anyone that published what Assange uploaded is also chargeable. And I am still not convinced that federal law trumps freedom of the press.

That's where the Schenck line of cases comes in. Espionage is carved out as an exception to First Amendment protections. All First Amendment protections.

Wikipedia and wikileaks as entities are most certainly press, the same as any other online news source. The fact that they collect and disseminate information to the public that qualifies as "news" is what matters, not who provides that information or whether those people are paid, specially trained, licensed or have any other special credentials. The better question would be whether individual contributors qualify as "journalists", and as to that I'm not sure but would probably say no. The owners, editors, etc. would, however, qualify.

Here's a decent brief summary of First Amendment Freedom of Press given as a definition:

Freedom of the Press legal definition of Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the Press synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Pentagon Papers case? That was a basic prior restraint case, the standard for prior restraint has not changed. But prior restraint in that case was the Pentagon suing in civil court asking for an injunction against the NYT and WashPo before a story ran. The government bringing criminal espionage charges against a specific journalist for stealing or conspiring to steal the information after a story runs is not a prior restraint and is a very different case with very different standards. Check the tabs for the various concurring rationales.

New York Times Co. v. United States

And no, once you get a generation away from the source it's a genie out of the bottle. The information has already been disseminated and enters speech protection. (With a very few exceptions that don't apply here)

Wikipedia and Wikileaks are not press.

I disagree, as far as First Amendment press distinction goes. They certainly fit the established criteria.

But that side note doesn't really matter, since press protection is merely a derivative of speech. Where espionage and most other issues are concerned, press has no higher protection than any individual would have under speech rights. That goes for civil actions such as Ravi's example of the NYT Penatgon Papers case involving prior restraint, and it goes for criminal actions that fall outside speech protections. Like...espionage.

 

[Jarhead]

Lets just say the documents were acquired by Al Queda and they posted them. Afterall, they could have just as easily been given to them.

What would our reaction be? What would we expect our President to do and/or say?

Would we claim "unfair" tactics by our enemy?

Would we call for the arrest and prosecution of the high up Al quaeda memeber that released them?

Folks, in my eyes, we have no one to blame for this than ourselves. We blew it. We allowed classified documents to get in the hands of those that do not respect the term classified.

I am a true believer in personal responsibility. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

We should spend more time ensuring classified documents stay that way and less time blaming others for capitalizing on our mistakes.

 

[goldcatt]

is this a matter of wikileaks taking a facillitator position with the material, rather than a direct conspirator? do they have freedom of the press in such a matter? if so, would that freedom protect them from endictments of espionage?

Exactly the dilemma we will be faced with.

We need to be careful here.

It may change the entire freedom of speech thing....it is not so cut and dry.

Next, there will be reason to shut down Glen Beck as some will claim his approach can be damaging to the US.

And then maybe during a republican administration Rachel Maddow is next?

Freedom of speech applies to Americans, in America. It is not a global policy. It does not apply to Wikileaks. It is not American. It is not the media. It is not applicable.

It's a jurisdictional question, CG. The "victim" in these cases is American, the res is American, he willingly availed himself of American personnel, resources and information in order to commit the acts, therefore the US would be perfectly within its rights to request extradition and try him under our own laws and in our own courts. The fact that he is not American makes no difference in matters of jurisdiction. It simply means we're not the only ones who can get him, and our laws aren't the only ones that could have been broken.

International conflict of laws issues are a bitch.

 

[California Girl]

Exactly the dilemma we will be faced with.

We need to be careful here.

It may change the entire freedom of speech thing....it is not so cut and dry.

Next, there will be reason to shut down Glen Beck as some will claim his approach can be damaging to the US.

And then maybe during a republican administration Rachel Maddow is next?

Freedom of speech applies to Americans, in America. It is not a global policy. It does not apply to Wikileaks. It is not American. It is not the media. It is not applicable.

It's a jurisdictional question, CG. The "victim" in these cases is American, the res is American, he willingly availed himself of American personnel, resources and information in order to commit the acts, therefore the US would be perfectly within its rights to request extradition and try him under our own laws and in our own courts. The fact that he is not American makes no difference in matters of jurisdiction. It simply means we're not the only ones who can get him, and our laws aren't the only ones that could have been broken.

International conflict of laws issues are a bitch.

I understand that. The free speech thing is a crock of shit... there is no freedom of speech get out for Assange.

Wikileaks is a website, it is not recognized anywhere on the planet as 'press'. Assange knowingly published confidential information stolen from the US Government. Everyone involved should be charged with espionage.

And... we really need to redefine 'treason' to cover this sort of act.

The DoJ absolutely must go after Assange... our international relationships with other security services is paramount. We need to show them we will deal with this shit and ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Jarhead]

Freedom of speech applies to Americans, in America. It is not a global policy. It does not apply to Wikileaks. It is not American. It is not the media. It is not applicable.

It's a jurisdictional question, CG. The "victim" in these cases is American, the res is American, he willingly availed himself of American personnel, resources and information in order to commit the acts, therefore the US would be perfectly within its rights to request extradition and try him under our own laws and in our own courts. The fact that he is not American makes no difference in matters of jurisdiction. It simply means we're not the only ones who can get him, and our laws aren't the only ones that could have been broken.

International conflict of laws issues are a bitch.

I understand that. The free speech thing is a crock of shit... there is no freedom of speech get out for Assange.

Wikileaks is a website, it is not recognized anywhere on the planet as 'press'. Assange knowingly published confidential information stolen from the US Government. Everyone involved should be charged with espionage.

And... we really need to redefine 'treason' to cover this sort of act.

The DoJ absolutely must go after Assange... our international relationships with other security services is paramount. We need to show them we will deal with this shit and ensure it doesn't happen again.

But like I said in my previous post...do you think our enemies will give a crap about us "dealing wioth this shit"?

Do you think North Korea will hesitate to publish classified docs? Will we then go after whoever in the North Korean government acquired them? Exactly how will that work? Arrest a dictator and try him for espionage against his "enemy"?

Just because Assnge is not a declared "enemy" does not mean he is any less our enemy than North Korea who is ALSO not a declared "enemy".

This is not an issue of who got their hands on the docs. It is an issue of how we let the docs get into the wrong hands.

We blew it and we are trying to blame those who hate us for the negatoive consequences.

To me, that is not a conservative way of thinking.

 

[goldcatt]

Freedom of speech applies to Americans, in America. It is not a global policy. It does not apply to Wikileaks. It is not American. It is not the media. It is not applicable.

It's a jurisdictional question, CG. The "victim" in these cases is American, the res is American, he willingly availed himself of American personnel, resources and information in order to commit the acts, therefore the US would be perfectly within its rights to request extradition and try him under our own laws and in our own courts. The fact that he is not American makes no difference in matters of jurisdiction. It simply means we're not the only ones who can get him, and our laws aren't the only ones that could have been broken.

International conflict of laws issues are a bitch.

I understand that. The free speech thing is a crock of shit... there is no freedom of speech get out for Assange.

Wikileaks is a website, it is not recognized anywhere on the planet as 'press'. Assange knowingly published confidential information stolen from the US Government. Everyone involved should be charged with espionage.

And... we really need to redefine 'treason' to cover this sort of act.

The DoJ absolutely must go after Assange... our international relationships with other security services is paramount. We need to show them we will deal with this shit and ensure it doesn't happen again.

Who wants to charge a non-American with treason? A person who is not subject to the sovereign cannot, by definition, betray the sovereign to which he holds no allegiance.

Espionage is a different crime, separate and apart from treason, for a reason.

Go back and read your lines of cases on "press", CG. Wiki may not be given a press pass for events because they lack the journalistic standards of other press organizations, but as an entity they meet all established legal criteria. The Courts are not bound to define terms as the trade does, they are applying different principles for different purposes.

But again, it matters not. The question posed earlier was whether Assange would be protected from prosecution for espionage in the US because of the First Amendment's protection. The answer is NO. Whether he is "press" or not is irrelevant. Press protection is a derivative of and is no broader than speech protection. Go back and read Schenck and progeny for the full explanation if you like. They're free all over the web.

And to go back even further into first principles, when analyzing whether a US law is applicable in US courts for a crime committed over which the US holds jurisdiction, the nationality of the accused and the location of the crime also matters not. It's an examination of the legal standard and due process under which the accused would be tried, e.g. in US courts. Which are bound to follow US law. Yes, including the First Amendment. If his actions are protected within the jurisdiction seeking extradition, then no crime has been committed. If they are not protected, he can be prosecuted. Based on jurisdiction and application, not location.

Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of liars. Take your pick.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I agree with Assange. She should resign.