charlestudor2005: Your analysis is flawed in several respects:
WRONG. My analysis is spot on. Do realize that before I bring something up for discussion, or debate, I put my information through a vetting process. If I'm rejecting something here, there's a very good chance that I rejected it in the vetting process. There's an excellent chance that I have previously argued against it on another message board.
Now watch me demonstrate how flawed your argument is...
charlestudor2005: It is hornbook law that you have to prosecute a criminal case in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred.
First, a hornbook law covers laws that are basic and commonly known. These laws are commonly accepted, they're like the Accountant's "GAAP," or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles."
Second, your description here, restricts your explanations to the obvious. For instance, if you broke into a jewelry store in New York City, you'd be tried in New York City, not in Los Angeles. That, is it's most basic form.
But anybody dealing with the law would notice that you don't only have law in its most basic form.
Let's bring this up a few notches.
You can bring someone up for trial, even if they weren't in your jurisdiction when they committed the crime. This is referred to as the long arm statute. If you, or any of your operations, are within a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction can bring you up on charges.
I'll use your next comment to elaborate:
charlestudor2005: Since there is no evidence that Wikileaks did anything inside the US or its territories, no crime, including treason or espionage can be pursued.
Even if you could pursue a crime, there is no jurisdiction in the US.
WRONG.
You can access Wikileaks from within US Jurisdiction. Wikileaks releases classified information, information that the US government intended to remain secret. Wikileaks, available on the Internet in the United States, gets accessed, from within the United States and its territories, and the citizenry see things they were not intended to see.
The mere fact that they're "present" on the Internet, in the United States, puts them under our jurisdiction should our government decide to pursue Espionage charges against him.
This is part of the long arm statute, something I'll expand with my reply to your next statement:
charlestudor2005: There is no evidence that Wikileaks did anything illegal in gaining the information. If they just received the information unsolicited, it is really hard to pursue a criminal case since each crime prosecuted must show criminal intent.
WRONG. If you take what Wikileaks did, it'd fit perfectly with this section of 18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it,
Now, had he turned around and returned the information to the United States Government, along with any resources containing said information, then you'd be able to use the "unsolicited" argument.
However, he turned around and released the information. In this case, it's not going to matter whether or not he got the information unsolicited.
Classified information is a need to know basis only. So if you get access to it, and you know you're not entitled to it, yet you disseminate it, that's criminal intent right there.
charlestudor2005: As far as extradition is concerned, it's a fairly complicated process, and not a slam dunk as you might think.
I never claimed, or indicated, that this was an easy process. Please read what I write with the intentions of understanding what I said. I know for a fact that this is possible, as people with nothing but a high school education could easily understand what I type.
charlestudor2005: First of all, there must be a US indictment, yet to have happened. Second, there must be some reasonable expectation of a guilty verdict. Third (and I think this is true for England), the US must, in advance, waive the death penalty. Fourth, the US must pay all the costs of extradition.
Again, nowhere in my argument did I say something that contradicted this. As I've previously stated, the government has to build its case. Obviously, once it has a case, it'd go through the process of extraditing him and putting him on trial. I'm aware of what the US has to do to try to get someone extradited.
This amounts to a red herring argument to the real argument.
charlestudor2005: Fifth, it is not certain by any stretch of the imagination that a court would agree to extradite. It would clearly be a blow to ask for extradition and be turned down. After Roman Polanski, it's not outside the realm of possibility.
Again, this has nothing to do with the argument dealing with whether the United States can bring the Useful Idiot up on charges or not.
charlestudor2005: Your knowledge of the law and your research leaves quite a bit to be desired,
Oh really?
Your posts painfully show that you don't understand how the law really works, and it painfully shows that you're not good at researching the law... outside of what you could Google. You attempted to use the dumb**s private version of the hornbook law in your argument, and your attempt to dismiss the long arm statute, and what's needed to qualify someone as falling under said statute for trial purposes.
Piece of advice. Know what you're talking about before telling someone that their research "leaves much to be desired."
charlestudor2005: as does you realistic POV of what the US can accomplish in another country. Contrary to your experience in Afghanistan, or wherever it was you served, the US does not control every country in the world. As a matter of fact, most countries find ways to thumb their noses at us.
What I actually said:
"Hint, got back from a combat deployment to Iraq," - herfacechair
WHERE, in THAT statement, does it say Afghanistan? This is typical of your reading comprehension weakness when you come across to read things. Your reading comprehension weakness also painfully shows when you present your argument on this thread.
Second, I know what the United States can accomplish overseas. Obviously, I witnessed that in Iraq recently, where I could say, with the strongest of convictions, that we won that war with a straight cut victory, and that we've accomplished the objectives there that we set out to accomplish.
And we did that despite those who didn't believe that we could do it.
I've also gone overseas every decade of my life, and I've seen the results of US efforts overseas.
Nowhere, in my post, do I argue that the United States controls every country. When it comes to who we could prosecute? I'm on point. We HAVE gone after people in other countries, and brought them back to the US to stand trial.
As for other country's "thumbing their noses" at us. Every time I've gone overseas, I've seen evidence of people wanting to "become like us." We get more cooperation from the countries we work with than the "nose thumbing."
