Wiki--- leaking = Espionage

[mudwhistle]

Where the hell do you get that?

The intent of the release of documents was clearly to hurt American operations.

They disliked the war thus they released the docs...thus they committed espionage.

I wonder why libs always have this Anything Goes mentality????

Link?

It's called common-sense....something you obviously have very little of.

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

Any statements that the accused have made in the past before the act, leading up to the act, or afterward can be used as proof of intent.

All they need to do is dig a little.

One example of intent is the following entry:

Comprehensive Tally

There is much more to be found in this list: huge numbers of vehicles, trucks, security equipment, radio equipment, detailed in some cases right down to the level of screws and washers. Examine the list, make your own observations, and post them here or email [email protected] .

This list, in fact, is a perfect example of the sort of leaked document that would benefit from a global analysis: everyone can examine it, make comments, discuss what the various units, what their items are and what they do, and come to conclusions about their strategic, political and human rights significance.

US Military Equipment in Afghanistan - WikiLeaks

 

[Samson]

Where the hell do you get that?

The intent of the release of documents was clearly to hurt American operations.

They disliked the war thus they released the docs...thus they committed espionage.

I wonder why libs always have this Anything Goes mentality????

Link?

It's not my job to get involved in this pissing contest about whether they are criminals or not. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

 

[Modbert]

It's not my job to get involved in this pissing contest about whether they are criminals or not. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Indeed.

 

[Modbert]

It's called common-sense....something you obviously have very little of.

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

Any statements that the accused have made in the past before the act, leading up to the act, or afterward can be used as proof of intent.

All they need to do is dig a little.

One example of intent is the following entry:

Comprehensive Tally

There is much more to be found in this list: huge numbers of vehicles, trucks, security equipment, radio equipment, detailed in some cases right down to the level of screws and washers. Examine the list, make your own observations, and post them here or email [email protected] .

This list, in fact, is a perfect example of the sort of leaked document that would benefit from a global analysis: everyone can examine it, make comments, discuss what the various units, what their items are and what they do, and come to conclusions about their strategic, political and human rights significance.

US Military Equipment in Afghanistan - WikiLeaks

So you have no actual proof of their intent. Point is, you're gonna have to prove intent. Until you do, they're not going to jail.

 

[Samson]

It's not my job to get involved in this pissing contest about whether they are criminals or not. I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Indeed, however I'm not going to sit there and be insulted.

What a delicate flower.....


Then just sit there and "point out the obvious."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I may not be a legal scholar, it does appear that publishing "classified" DOD documents is transmitting them is it not? Assange in my opinion has been very open about what his intentions are in publishing this material and in doing so as has been mentioned will result in a host of issues. Sec. Gates was quite correct in his statement about Assange when he said the man has blood on his hands. As for Pvt. Manning, I don't want to speculate on this, but it does appear that he and Mr. Assange have been involved in this issue. What I really am trying to get a handle on here is the WH reaction to this issue which seems tepid at times and at other times, as no big deal.

If it were that simple the editorial board of the New York Times would have been locked up many times. Since Obama is claiming that this is all old news, and that nothing that was published is actually damaging, I think you might have a hard time arguing that Wikileaks is guilty of anything.

Manning, if he released the documents, should be punished, but Assange clearly followed established precedent in publishing what he did.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's called common-sense....something you obviously have very little of.

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

Any statements that the accused have made in the past before the act, leading up to the act, or afterward can be used as proof of intent.

All they need to do is dig a little.

One example of intent is the following entry:

Comprehensive Tally

There is much more to be found in this list: huge numbers of vehicles, trucks, security equipment, radio equipment, detailed in some cases right down to the level of screws and washers. Examine the list, make your own observations, and post them here or email [email protected] .

This list, in fact, is a perfect example of the sort of leaked document that would benefit from a global analysis: everyone can examine it, make comments, discuss what the various units, what their items are and what they do, and come to conclusions about their strategic, political and human rights significance.

US Military Equipment in Afghanistan - WikiLeaks

So you have no actual proof of their intent. Point is, you're gonna have to prove intent. Until you do, they're not going to jail.

Read dumbass. Read.

The people that run the site are responsible for it's content.

It's clear that the entry above was intended to hurt the war. By providing a list of equipment they even stated that the humanitarian concerns and so forth are the main goal. They want everyone in the world to know exactly down to the last screw how much equipment, what type, and how much it cost in an attempt to hamper operations.

It took me all of 2 mins to discover this. I'm sure if you get a few FBI agents on the site they can find plenty more.

It seems their intentions are pretty damned clear....

 

[daveman]

If it were that simple the editorial board of the New York Times would have been locked up many times. Since Obama is claiming that this is all old news, and that nothing that was published is actually damaging, I think you might have a hard time arguing that Wikileaks is guilty of anything.

I bet the people the Taliban are looking for now don't think it's no big deal.

 

[Samson]

It's called common-sense....something you obviously have very little of.


One example of intent is the following entry:

So you have no actual proof of their intent. Point is, you're gonna have to prove intent. Until you do, they're not going to jail.

It seems their intentions are pretty damned clear....

Apparently, unless they say, "it is our intent to sabotage our troops overseas," then Modbert doesn't see any intent.

 

[publicprotector]

NAVY

As you are concerned about breaches of law perhaps you would like to list all the laws that the US Government has broken over the past several decades, you know torture, rendition, interment without trial, murder etc. etc. And if you have the time you can list all the crimes and laws broken in acts committed by your own police etc. again I will help you along, Ruby Ridge, Waco, tasering to death, corruption etc.

What is it that bothers you about this leak, the fact that it was a breach of law or the fact that it tells the truth about America, its people and those whom govern them.

 

[Samson]

NAVY

As you are concerned about breaches of law perhaps you would like to list all the laws that the US Government has broken over the past several decades, you know torture, rendition, interment without trial, murder etc. etc. And if you have the time you can list all the crimes and laws broken in acts committed by your own police etc. again I will help you along, Ruby Ridge, Waco, tasering to death, corruption etc.

What is it that bothers you about this leak, the fact that it was a breach of law or the fact that it tells the truth about America, its people and those whom govern them.

"tasering to death?"

As you would like to list all the laws that the US Government has broken over the past several decades perhaps you would like to start a thread so that some dumbass could derail it with off-topic stupidity.

 

[Toome]

I'm no lawyer, however, I do know a thing or two about trying to make an espionage case in court. The conventional line of thinking is that the prosecution has to show that the defendant intended to do harm to the United States by selling or giving away secrets to a foreign power. Yeah, I read the OP and am familiar with the words. I'm just saying that if you don't have a foreign power (that means a country not just a bunch of thugs who claim that they're the "People's Revolutionary Army" or "Jihad" or "United Toilet Bowl Cleaners"), then making a case for espionage is pretty darn near next to impossible.

Yeah, you can argue that American lives were lost. But the prosecution is going to have a helluva time trying to prove that the information that was leaked led directly to a military operation that specifically gained an advantage as a result. In other words, if it's a secret that the 82nd Airborne Division is going to attack the city of Shitumbollah at 1 am on the evening of the 12th, and the bad guys set up an ambush on the 11th because someone told them, then it's pretty easy to prove that the bad guys benefited from the compromise. But if the bad guys routinely set up ambushes and ambush elements of the 1st Infantry Division on the evening of the 16th, you can't prove that there was a direct cause and effect from the compromise.

Splitting hairs, yeah, I know. All I'm saying is that this turd won't flush in court as an espionage case.

As for PVT Manning, he can be prosecuted on a whole bunch of charges other than espionage ranging from security compromises to all sorts of mini-charges under misconduct, etc. that will earn him a "long tour" at Fort Leavenworth. Make no mistake about it, life at the Army's Disciplinary Barracks is a whole lot tougher than any federal prison. The real big reason for why the Army has a slam-dunk case is because Manning signed non-disclosure documents; he was given non-disclosure briefings of which there is a document proving that he attended the security training; and because the Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly defines Manning's behavior as a matter of good order and discipline. Manning is pretty much a dead duck.

Assange and the other Wiki-weenies, on the other hand, may get away with it. It was Manning who stole the data. They may have received it, but they're under no real legal obligation to not publish or release any information. If they hacked in, yeah, they stole the information. But if someone gave it to them, they're not really guilty of any crime. One of the articles mentions something about a Wiki-weenie who taught or gave Manning the means to hack into the system or transmit the data, but again, pretty difficult to tie that to espionage or a deliberate security compromise. In other words, the Wiki-weenies may end up with a slap on the wrist, if that, because Manning was not paid to provide the information.

Could be wrong on all of this. I'm just pointing out how monumentally difficult it is to prove this as a case of espionage or treason.

 

[Yurt]

Yeah, well, since wikileaks founder isn't posting in the thread, and you are, then why don't you explain how the intent "to let the American People see Documents" isn't any excuse for spying and publishing espionage.

It's not my job to get involved in this pissing contest about whether they are criminals or not. I'm merely pointing out the obvious that if they are going to take this to a court of law, they're going to have to prove intent which is going to be extremely difficult.

There are a couple of lawyers on here, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to explain to you how it could possibly work in court.

lmao....you make the argument and then run from it when called on it

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm no lawyer, however, I do know a thing or two about trying to make an espionage case in court. The conventional line of thinking is that the prosecution has to show that the defendant intended to do harm to the United States by selling or giving away secrets to a foreign power. Yeah, I read the OP and am familiar with the words. I'm just saying that if you don't have a foreign power (that means a country not just a bunch of thugs who claim that they're the "People's Revolutionary Army" or "Jihad" or "United Toilet Bowl Cleaners"), then making a case for espionage is pretty darn near next to impossible.

Yeah, you can argue that American lives were lost. But the prosecution is going to have a helluva time trying to prove that the information that was leaked led directly to a military operation that specifically gained an advantage as a result. In other words, if it's a secret that the 82nd Airborne Division is going to attack the city of Shitumbollah at 1 am on the evening of the 12th, and the bad guys set up an ambush on the 11th because someone told them, then it's pretty easy to prove that the bad guys benefited from the compromise. But if the bad guys routinely set up ambushes and ambush elements of the 1st Infantry Division on the evening of the 16th, you can't prove that there was a direct cause and effect from the compromise.

Splitting hairs, yeah, I know. All I'm saying is that this turd won't flush in court as an espionage case.

As for PVT Manning, he can be prosecuted on a whole bunch of charges other than espionage ranging from security compromises to all sorts of mini-charges under misconduct, etc. that will earn him a "long tour" at Fort Leavenworth. Make no mistake about it, life at the Army's Disciplinary Barracks is a whole lot tougher than any federal prison. The real big reason for why the Army has a slam-dunk case is because Manning signed non-disclosure documents; he was given non-disclosure briefings of which there is a document proving that he attended the security training; and because the Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly defines Manning's behavior as a matter of good order and discipline. Manning is pretty much a dead duck.

Assange and the other Wiki-weenies, on the other hand, may get away with it. It was Manning who stole the data. They may have received it, but they're under no real legal obligation to not publish or release any information. If they hacked in, yeah, they stole the information. But if someone gave it to them, they're not really guilty of any crime. One of the articles mentions something about a Wiki-weenie who taught or gave Manning the means to hack into the system or transmit the data, but again, pretty difficult to tie that to espionage or a deliberate security compromise. In other words, the Wiki-weenies may end up with a slap on the wrist, if that, because Manning was not paid to provide the information.

Could be wrong on all of this. I'm just pointing out how monumentally difficult it is to prove this as a case of espionage or treason.

Yes it's tough....and Obama and his lawyers know it's tough...thus the "No.....stop...don't do it" .

Obama can get what he wants out of anyone. He's got billions to bribe them with.

He wants this information released because it all plays into his mindset and his goal of getting us out of the Middle East entirely.

 

[Yurt]

modbert is once again incorrect, you don't need to establish intent:

intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation

number 2 would be pretty easy to prove

 

[Charles_Main]

Espionage Act 1917
It made it a crime:

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine and up to 20 years in prison.
Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

18 U.S.C. § 793
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

An interesting note in the Times story concerns WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange: "White House officials e-mailed reporters select transcripts of an interview Mr. Assange conducted with Der Spiegel, underlining the quotations the White House apparently found most offensive. Among them was Mr. Assange's assertion, 'I enjoy crushing bastards.' " Assange told reporters he wanted the material to lead to "new policies, if not prosecutions." His agenda is clear.

washingtonpost.com


Frankly this case that involves Pvt. Manning and the group known as Wikileaks should be agressivly prosecuted. Acts such as wikileaks leads to the deaths of US Military and Allied forces engaged in operations as well as those that are friendly to the US and it's allies. Further, obtaining an then publishing classified materials for the purpose of changing policy gives aid and comfort to our enemy and is an act of espionage. It remains to be seen if the WH will persue this matter, but it is my hope they do in this matter. One more thing before you who support the scum at wikileaks, this case is NOT the Pentagon papers but Im sure that many who agree with these people will try and point to that.

I agree it is, However I find it funny that there is only a push to say so now. When Obama is president. ALL the times other leaks happened and news out lets ran the papers The left Defended the people who ran them, but then that was when Bush was president.

Double standard for sure.

 

[hortysir]

Apparently, the "obvious" is too complex for you to explain?

next.

What is there to explain? The law says intent, they have to prove intent in a court of law. If you want to get into semantics of whether their intent was to hurt operations, that's a whole different thing.

Which court? Whose law?
Whose court?
Military? Criminal or Civil?
Different levels of burden.

But, seeing how Holder Inc. wants to try everyone in criminal court *shrug*

 

[hortysir]

I agree it is, However I find it funny that there is only a push to say so now. When Obama is president. ALL the times other leaks happened and news out lets ran the papers The left Defended the people who ran them, but then that was when Bush was president.

Double standard for sure.

Examples?
Links?

 

[Annie]

I've not seen this in any US news accounts:

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page - Telegraph

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page
Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the leaking of the Afghan war files, raged against his US Army employers and "society at large" on his Facebook page in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret memos, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

By Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner
Published: 10:00PM BST 30 Jul 2010

The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn't "have anything left" and was "beyond frustrated".

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," and quoted a joke about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron...

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: "Bradley Manning didn't want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast."

...

 

[EriktheRed]

So, what was the intent?

Ask the wikileaks founder. 2:1 says he's not going to say he was trying to sabotage our troops overseas. The clear wording of the law throughout is intent to hurt operations. If their intent was to let the American people see documents that they feel should be seen, then their intent is not to hurt American operations.

Well, it's easy for them to say that...