Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill 389

Posted by samzenpus
from the kickig-a-dead-horse dept.
angry tapir writes "New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution. Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, introduced the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination, or SHIELD, Act (read the bill here [PDF]). The bill would clarify US law by saying it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:08PM (#35226134)

    So, does this apply to Libby / Chaney leaking name of active CIA operative? Oh wait, got a pardon from Bush....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

    • Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:4, Informative)

      by rwade (131726) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:21PM (#35226296)

      More to the point, he had his sentence commuted because Bush thought 30 months for endangering the life of a intelligence operative was excessive:

      From the wikipedia article you cite:

      "After Libby was denied bail during his appeal process on July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month federal prison sentence, calling it "excessive", but he did not change the other parts of the sentence and their conditions.[17] That presidential commutation left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation."

      He was still punished, but whether a fine and probation is enough is questionable...

      • Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)

        by jpmorgan (517966) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:06PM (#35226768) Homepage

        Libby was convicted on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, not actually outing Plame.

      • More to the point, he had his sentence commuted because Bush thought 30 months for endangering the life of a intelligence operative was excessive:

        Hrrm, so what about the CIA cover company she worked for? And all the informers involved with that company? Nah, not a single scratch reported, right?

        • Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)

          by AHuxley (892839) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:30PM (#35226976) Homepage Journal
          The US informers involved with "that company" where left in Iraq. Many where systematically 'lost' in the fog of war, like they where on some list.
          The movie Fair Game hints at the details http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0977855/ [imdb.com]
          As for US law, this will be very chilling on the press. From the 1920's and 30's books on US ww1 code breaking to the Pentagon papers, NSA books ect. US law has been clear about the freedom to publish. What has been published is mostly collected from the press, been cleared or hints at deep crime, useless hardware/software, limited hangout efforts, pure propaganda or PR.
    • Apply it to Libby and Cheney all you want. Richard Armitage revealed the fact that Valeria Plame was an agent.

           

      • Well, revealing the information was ALWAYS a crime. This law seeks to make it illegal to "publish" that, which would include the Washington Post (in this instance) as well as several people, including Libby, who "published" it on television.

        The "leaks" were from Bradley Manning, just like they were from Armitage in the example. They're seeking to make it illegal to "publish" already leaked information.

        It won't pass a constitutional test and is such an absurd knee-jerk, with so many ridiculous implications

        • Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:48PM (#35226574)
          Keep in mind that we don't even know that Bradley Manning was the one who leaked the information. The only "evidence" anybody knows about is simply an accusation by someone else... someone who happens to have been convicted before of hacking into computers...
        • by sg_oneill (159032)

          Yep, its going to get killed at the first hurdle, because the big papers can just throw infinite lawyerage at it, and these lawyers are press lawyers who live and breathe first amendment.

          Its a bit like those silly anti-porn laws that used to get introduced every few years then get knocked off as being unconstitutional. A couple of years later it'd start again because politicians dont introduce the laws for them to be laws but to create persecution complexes for mouthbreathing authoritarian conservatives to

      • Apply it to Libby and Cheney all you want. Richard Armitage revealed the fact that Valeria Plame was an agent.

        Exactly, Libby and Rove were Whistleblowers like Bradley Manning - where's he at?

    • Except that Valerie Plame's name was not leaked by Libby/Cheney. It was leaked by Richard Armitage (who opposed the Iraq war).
    • Re:Libby and Cheiney (Score:5, Informative)

      by CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:08PM (#35226798) Journal
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pete_King#Valerie_Plame_comments [sourcewatch.org]

      In 2005, during the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, King said the crosshairs ought to be set on the news media, which weren't tough enough on her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, rather than Karl Rove. King also suggested that the media "be shot" for pursuing the story and identifying White House aide Karl Rove as the alledged leaker.[6]

  • Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shoten (260439) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:08PM (#35226136)

    Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability; in other words, you can't make something illegal today, and then prosecute the guy that did it yesterday. It's more like the early laws around computer crime, which came about not to prosecute people who had already been hacking, but instead came about because existing law didn't properly address something that should already have been criminalized, in the eyes of the legislature.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ...and I thought SHIELD was the organisation with Samuel L. Jackson in it?
    • by Fluffeh (1273756)

      Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way...

      He is basically following the "Trick me once, shame on you... trick me twice, shame on me" mentality.

      • by exomondo (1725132)

        Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way...

        He is basically following the "Trick me once, shame on you... trick me twice, shame on me" mentality.

        at least it's not the bush version..."fool me once, shame on....shame on...you...................the fool can't get fooled again"

      • Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Teancum (67324) <(robert_horning) (at) (netzero.net)> on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:44PM (#35227098) Homepage Journal

        There still is a rather obscure part of the U.S. Constitution:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        I don't know what part of "congress shall make no law" those guys can't figure out, but making a law to prohibit the publication of the names of people is unconstitutional. It says so right there.

        Then again, if they don't give a damn about the constitution and are willing to be so bold as to shut down a media outlet by legislation, they also don't give a damn about ex-post facto laws either.

        No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

        (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4)

        Some people thought it was idiotic and wasting time to actually read aloud this document at the beginning of the current session of Congress. Frankly, I don't think it gets pounded into their heads enough and that should be an annual tradition.

        • by sumdumass (711423)

          lol.. do you really think they care about what the constitution says?

          Seriously, they just pulled stunts and tricks to get a health care bill passed that was declared unconstitutional by a court of law. They are still trying to fund that law. People are reinterpreting the constitution to create whatever authority they want whenever they want it. Look at the bastardization of the general welfare clause in the attempts to justify social spending.

          I always told people, if you don't like what it says, amend it. b

      • Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anachragnome (1008495) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @10:03PM (#35227644)

        "Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way..."

        Too fucking late.

        Only 4,091 of 251,287 of the diplomatic cables have been released so far.

        Lets take a look at the way things are playing out. Starting in Tunisia, we have mass protests that eventually lead to the ouster of Tunisia's ruling elite. These protests started on December 17, 2010. Wikileaks had been releasing cables relating to Tunisia starting on November 30, 2010, more then two weeks before Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated. Next is Egypt. Demonstrations there started on January 25, 2011. Wikileaks started releasing cables from Cairo on December 13, 2010. Next, Jordan. Protests started there in late-January. Wikileaks began releasing cables regarding Jordan as early as November 30, 2010. It goes on and on...

        The fact of the matter is the events taking place there have all been preceded by cable releases that directly apply to those countries. I am surprised Brazil hasn't followed suit--plenty of cables to get people riled up in Brazil.

        Reading between the lines? You bet. So fucking what--everyone does it. It is part of our "intuition", that inner-self that tells us the truths we do not want to hear. What I see are very scared men trying ANYTHING to stem the flow of cables. Shit is changing fast and Wikileaks is most certainly NOT helping things, as far as the scared little men are concerned. They are losing power, that which they hold in the highest possible esteem. These cables are being released strategically and the little men are starting to realize the shit they are in, finally understanding the true power of truth. To what end are they being released strategically? A shift of power from the elite and corrupt. To whom? Who knows. That remains to be seen.

        The US government doesn't want Assange for execution or prosecution--they want to hold him hostage, alive, to stop the flow of cables. Nothing else will do as the little men know he has insurance. But, we all know that will not work. It is TOO FUCKING LATE. Julian knew what he was getting into, and life is full of risks.

        The train is just leaving the station, folks. The real changes are still to come. Roughly 246, 000 cables left...

    • Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcmonkey (96054) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:19PM (#35226266) Homepage

      Yes, but leaving those documents available on WikiLeaks after the law passes (if it passes in to law) would be an on-going act that could be illegal.

      • by pclminion (145572)
        Sounds like good reason to immediately release the entire stash of documents before it becomes illegal to do so. There are still hundreds of thousands we haven't seen yet.
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Is wikileaks hosted in the USA?
        I really doubt that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bstender (1279452)

      Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability

      you trying to tell a law-maker what the law is? maybe they'll just pass another law making it lawful to enact retroactive law enforcement, bitch! it's not like the US public will say squat about it anyway as long as the cheap gas and Bacon double-cheesburgers keep rolling. and don't try that "i have rights constitution" bs, you must be a terrorist to talk like that. i've heard enough, guards, silently lock him away.

      • by riverat1 (1048260)

        The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.

        No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheEyes (1686556)

          The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3.

          No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

          Except it's already been done, and relatively recently: telcom companies were given retroactive immunity for participation in the Bush warantless wiretapping program [talkingpointsmemo.com].

          Make no mistake: despite what politicians of both sides of the aisle say, no Republican, and far too few Democrats, really know or agree with what's actually in the Constitution.

          • Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by RLaager (200280) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:17PM (#35226864)

            Retroactively granting someone immunity (which is a limited form of retroactively making something legal) is very different from making something retroactively illegal. For example, if Congress were to repeal the prohibitions on marijuana and apply that retroactively, people could be released from jail. On the other hand, if Congress made possession of ibuprofen illegal retroactively, the fact that someone owned Advil (and took it all) last year could land them in jail. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that making something legal retroactively would not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.

            I'm not taking a position, in this post, on the wiretapping immunity law itself, the legality of said wiretapping, or the legality of Congress granting such immunity.

            • by qeveren (318805)

              Funny, it doesn't say anything about 'illegal', it just says 'ex post facto Law'. It's like say, being convicted on a possession of marijuana charge, and then two weeks later they make marijuana legal. You don't get to go free because it's legal now; it wasn't legal when you committed the act.

      • Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by adamstew (909658) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:48PM (#35226568)

        Except they can't do that. It's expressly forbidden to do this in the US Constitution. It's called "Ex Post Facto" and it's not allowed.

        I could be wrong, but I don't even think an amendment to the constitution can allow ex post facto laws, since it's explicitly in the section called "limits on congress".

        • Re:Misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @09:50PM (#35227582) Journal

          You seem to think things forbidden by the constitution can't be done.

        • Sorry to say, we left the Constitution behind quite some time ago. In earlier times (like when I was sitting in my constitutional law class @ Boalt), you're right, it would have been ex post facto and prohibited. No more. Stuff that I would have bet my life I'd not see in the USA (warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention without trial, etc.) is now just doin' business. No constitutional amendments needed. Just aquiescence by all concerned.

    • by bhagwad (1426855)
      What puzzles me is how can the US (or any country) make a law that can possibly apply to what a citizen of another country does outside the US?

      Assange is Australian. He never committed any "crime" on US soil. How the hell can any US law be legally binding on him? It has to be either an Australian law or the law of the land where he's staying. Or do I not understand what's going on? The US cannot for example pass a law saying "Shouting 'zigaboob' in Italy in a public space" is illegal. It can only say it
      • Most of the inmates in Guantanamo bay are accused (not charged) of breaking US law in a foreign (not USA) country. You are making the mistake of thinking the US gov must follow the laws, where it's already been clearly shown that's not true.
      • What puzzles me is how can the US (or any country) make a law that can possibly apply to what a citizen of another country does outside the US?

        No, any country can declare anything, anywhere illegal, if it wants to. I don't understand why that would not be so.

        The US has had laws like that for a very long time, such as the Alien Tort Claims Act from 1789, which is still on the books, and still used at times. Of course, enforcing such a law can be rather tricky. Just because something is made illegal worldwide by one country, there's no obligation for any other country to recognize that or to cooperate.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by timeOday (582209)
      Are you entirely sure? There are people who argue that the Constitution applies not to actions of the US government in general, but that it only guarantees rights to US citizens. So, for example, the US government could detain foreigners without charging them indefinitely (no right to due process) or torture them (no ban on cruel and unusual punishment).
      • by tm2b (42473)
        Yes, but they are idiots. The protections in the USC are rooted in the enlightenment ideals of the natural rights of humans.
        • by timeOday (582209)
          Oh, I agree. But my point is, ex post facto wouldn't make me feel entirely safe in visiting the US if I had reason to think some new law was really targeting I had done in the past.
      • Well, they're usually idiots. Most of the guarantees of rights in the Constitution apply to 'people' or 'persons' and not merely citizens.

    • The Constitution explicitly outlaws Ex Post Facto laws - and does so twice, to be sure.

      However, the U.S. government has a way around Constitutional limitations it does not like. It simply ignores them. They all pretend that the limitation is not there, and just do what they want.

      In recent years the usual "justification" for usurpation of power are the twin "threats" of terrorism and pedophilia. The "terrorists" are generally people who are upset because the United States government - or the thugs it

  • In Sweden, we can't apply laws retroactively, that is, if something is still legal at the time you do it, you have not suddenly committed a crime just because someone passes a new law. How is the situation in the US?
    • by Nidi62 (1525137)
      The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws in Article 1, Section 9. So, no.
    • by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      That is one of the things the Constitution has a specific thing to say about. Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3 says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

      So if the law were passed it would make such an act illegal in the future, but would not apply to what has already been done.

      Now what this would do it make it illegal for Wikileaks to release more information along the lines specified in the bill. Just because they had it before the law was passed wouldn't mean they could freely releas

  • article 1 section 12 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

    • by Fjandr (66656)

      Well, we have laws impairing the obligation of contracts and those that result in the forfeiture of estate through conviction, so it's only a matter of time before the rest of the section is ignored as well.

  • I'm not sure exactly why this would apply to Assange. US law, last I checked, doesn't allow for prosecution of an act committed while it was still legal.

  • I don't see how the courts would uphold this outside of wartime (in wartime courts routinely let Congress and the Executive Branch run all over the Constitution), assuming the publisher didn't have "dirty hands" in obtaining the information in the first place.

  • I guess this is some sort of panic attack to be able to legally block wikileaks from the US and that make sure that Assange actually can be taken to court if it shows that he allowed someone in the US to take part of any of the leaked cables after this law is passed..
  • How about (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gonoff (88518) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:16PM (#35226220)

    Bills should be introduced in the USA, UK, Australia and lots more places saying things like

    It is a crime to hide things from the electorate. (This should not be mixed up with "Freedom of Information acts" that rarely work.)
    It is a crime to govern by misdirection of public attention.
    It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.
    It is a crime to take away civil rights, whatever the state of the nation
    It is a crime to introduce 'knee jerk' legislation.
    It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law
    It is a crime to give or accept identifiable corporate campaign donations

    That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.

    • That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.

      No, it would violate an individual's right to free speech. Because money is speech (somehow)! Sure, it causes so many problems and the average person has no chance against people with seemingly unlimited supplies of money (outside of unrealistic boycotting, which may or may not work), but it's speech somehow, and therefore we can't make that a crime!

    • by Nidi62 (1525137)

      It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.

      So, the US emergency response plans would become illegal, where the government is scattered across the US while regular citizens are left to die?

      It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law

      This is already illegal in the US and, more than likely, the UK and Australia as well.

    • While I do agree on most counts, I don't think that hiding things from the electorate is a crime, it's more of a sheer necessity. A lot of times things that aren't deemed "morally acceptable" by the masses need to be done for the greater good of a country, also there are some things that NEED to be kept a secret to be of any use (just think what would happen if informations about undercover operations or police investigations would be made public... they'd be useless). Sure they should be revealed 30 years
  • by mug funky (910186) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:16PM (#35226224)

    in a way this could be good.

    now there's no doubt about what needs to be redacted, and wikileaks can get on with their job without that extra accusation being thrown at them. just redact protected names and be done with it.

  • Seems like a bigger deal than it is-- had Assange done what everyone told him to do & take the extra 5 minutes to censor all the names, it would still be law-abiding! Well...names of the human-rights-violators should still be left intact...
    • by bstender (1279452)
      1. no names means the leaks are fairly useless to the public, who are the ones who need to know
      2. this pathetic law he's pitching is about reinforcing the state of immunity from accountability for those very criminals (himself included)
      3. they're all human rights violators, putting it politely
  • But (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:20PM (#35226282)
    But will they be able to get Nick Fury to run S.H.I.E.L.D?
  • by VShael (62735) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:28PM (#35226354) Journal

    Gee, I wonder if anyone could use the SHIELD Act to prosecute Karl Rove or someone for leaking Valerie Plames CIA cover.

    Oh that's right. It's not a crime when Republicans do it.

  • So King claims jurisdiction outside of USA. Audacious, if stupid. Would he be OK with Ruritania legislating against morons being elected to US Congress on the basis that this constitutes a clear and present danger to the world? Would the USA comply with demands to extradite King and others of his ilk to be incarcerated until such time they are deemed fully functional and literate?
  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:32PM (#35226406) Homepage Journal

    Anonymous seems to have stumbled upon a much bigger problem. Read Glen Greenwald's piece [salon.com] on the collaboration between DoJ, BoA and rogue 'security' companies. Greenwald was to be personally targeted, and now he's taking names:

    It's impossible to imagine the DOJ ever, ever prosecuting a huge entity like Bank of America for doing something like waging war against WikiLeaks and its supporters. These massive corporations and the firms that serve them have no fear of law or government because they control each. That's why they so freely plot to target those who oppose them in any way. They not only have massive resources to devote to such attacks, but the ability to act without limits.

    It's his most powerful piece to date.

  • "... it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."

    I agree with this statement.
    By all means, pass it as a law and then bring in Samuel L. Jackson sporting an eyepatch to start an agency named after this Bill.

  • by WombatDeath (681651) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:36PM (#35226444)

    How about a bit of legislation prohibiting the titling of bills in a manner that constitutes blatant propaganda? It's perhaps not as bad as the PATRIOT act, which is the most crotch-punchingly offensive example I've come across, but it's the same fucking ballpark. I'm not sure who should be most insulted: people who don't back the legislation, or the general public whose intelligence is held in such dim regard (and all snark aside, I don't think that most people are really all that stupid).

    If simply using sequential numbers is too boring, I propose that the opposing team be allowed free rein to add words to the title of the bill, with no right of appeal or amendment granted to the originator. In this case, for instance, the 'no' camp could insist that the title be amended to Another Nugget of Awful Legislation Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination.

  • by chicago_scott (458445) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:40PM (#35226492) Journal

    "The bill would clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the U.S. military or intelligence community."

    Anyone who would want to create a classification of people who are immune from public scrutiny is definitely an enemy of United States. That's you Rep. King.

  • wikileaks won't be able to be prosecuted for the leaks they've done, but they won't be able to make any new leaks. This isn't about retaliation or damage control, but about giving them some legal teeth for later.

  • by Dracos (107777) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:47PM (#35226556)

    Didn't WikiLeaks ask at least one federal department for help redacting names and other identifying info from the documents, and those departments declined to do so?

    I bet the people who drafted this Bill for him (and I don't mean his staff) didn't know that, or conveniently forgot about it.

  • Today, Curveball admitted he lied to start the Iraq War.

    Millions dead - mostly civilians and drafted Iraqi soldiers.

    Bankrupt nation - both Iraq and America.

    After the war crimes trials for all three ... then they can come for Assange.

    And NOT a MOMENT before.

  • by jameskojiro (705701) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:56PM (#35226634) Journal

    They should throw the book and the bench at Pfc. Bradley Manning and not touch Jullian Assange. Manning was the one who STOLE the information in the first damn place.

    This amounts to trying to "kill the messenger" if the messenger was telling everyone about something he heard from from someone who stole the information. It has a bad "chilling effect" and is not good for free speech.

    It is like trying to shut down a newspaper that published stolen state secrets, instead of going after the person who stole them in the first place.

  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:01PM (#35226700)
    So... It would be unlawful for a foreign citizen, to publish information in a foreign country, using foreign resources. Basically a US crime, but not committed on US territory. Good luck with that.
  • by Stripe7 (571267) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:03PM (#35226726)
    That still does not address the issue that Assange is an Austrialian currently residing in England. Does that mean rendition teams from US will apply US laws to any foreign citizen? Then the reverse is true and rendition teams from other foreign countries can do the same to US citizen. Like prosecute Cheney or Bush for war crimes with rendition teams in the US.
    • by Tom (822) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @06:16AM (#35230104) Homepage Journal

      Yes, No.

      Yes, the US routinely applies US laws to foreign citizens. I have first hand experience of that, as one of the defendants back in the DeCSS case.

      No, the same does of course not apply the other way around. The US does not consider itself a peer amongst peers, it thinks of itself as the greatest nation on earth, chosen by god himself, above all international law save the one they bring themselves, with guns and tanks.

      But it's good that they're doing it now. Julian has hinted towards this from the beginning, it will give his fight against extradition more strength.

  • by rahvin112 (446269) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @08:36PM (#35227014)

    Lets make sure it's retroactive so Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney can go to jail for espionage as well! After all they did compromise the identity of a secret agent of the CIA.

  • by 3seas (184403) on Thursday February 17, 2011 @06:25AM (#35230138) Journal

    I am an American, but I do not see the US government being any longer a genuine American government consistent with its founding documents. But only drifting further and further away, becoming a rouge government. And now its becoming quite obvious the US government is disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent, but instead leads the people with deception.

    What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too.

    The math is to simple. there will be 7 billion people on this planet this year and its only some fraction of 1% of the population that is causing all the trouble and waring wasteful expense of the mind games of these few rather than correcting real world problems for the rest of us, RE: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml [unesco.org] which would be much more effective at reducing the motives of others to attack us, as well.
    This is the best indicator of a government that can be rightfully diagnosed as being psychologically unfit to command anyone.

    Making up the rules as they go along does not work in this country as its supposed to be a democracy but where is our opportunity to vote on this?
    Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfield publicly stated that they cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon spending.... Thats about $8,000 per man, woman and child in the US..... Its also taxation without representation... striking at the very heart of the birth of the US.... the Boston Tea Party... And they continue to spend massive amounts for defense.... 47% of the total world defense spending. Add in the Allies spending and we are over 60% of world spending where teh remaining 40% is divided amount many many poor countries. We don't need to spend anywhere near that much on defense... unless we are going to be attacked by Aliens... Yeah right....

    What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too, for teh US government continues to show evidence of their failure to understand the founding documents of this country and even teh Declaration of Independence states its not only our right but duty to put of such corrupt government and make the corrections ourselves.
     

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...