• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Jullian Assange be tried for treason or something?

Should Jullian Assange be tried for treason or something?


  • Total voters
    16
It's free speech mate. You either support it or you dont. Which is it?

Well then, this guy reserves the right to do whatever the hell he wants with the information, the best the US can do is punish those who leaked it to him severely and stop taking the piss out of the freedom of information act, like hiding civilian deaths, which is just downright wrong. It serves the US right. On the other hand, the information which will disrupt operations and risk the lives of soldiers will just need to be re-evaluated.

First, he is not in the US, so the first amendment does not apply to him.

Second, free speech does have limits, and classified material is included in those limits. No one is questioning whether the guy who released the info to him is guilty of a crime, but free speech would apply just as well to him.
 
Everyone knows that 99 percent of these "secrets" are classified because they're embarrassing, not because they endanger national security. Assange held back 15,000 of the documents and asked the White House to check the rest of them to see whether there was anything that would endanger anyone's life, so the government has no right to criticize him on those grounds.

He has already released information and names that put people's lives at risk. Source: Afghan informants' lives at risk from documents posted on WikiLeaks | The Australian

Among the documents is a report from 2008 that includes a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection. He is named, with both his father's name and village included. There is also detailed intelligence on other Taliban fighters and commanders in his area. The Times has withheld all details that would identify the man.

The man names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors. "The meeting ended with [X] agreeing to meet with intel personnel from the battalion," the report reads. It is not known whether the man subsequently left the Taliban.

In other documents, named Afghans offered information accusing others of being Taliban. In one case from 2007, a senior official accuses named figures in the government of corruption. In another from 2007, a report describes using a middleman to talk to an alleged Taliban commander who is identified.
 
First, he is not in the US, so the first amendment does not apply to him.

Freedom of expression exists in Australia too.

Second, free speech does have limits, and classified material is included in those limits. No one is questioning whether the guy who released the info to him is guilty of a crime, but free speech would apply just as well to him.

America has perverted the definition of free speech, elements of hate crime and "free speech zones" being some of the best known examples of this. This information was leaked to him, that person commit ed a crime, agreed. But the journalistic nature of wikileaks gives it every right to publish this information, and to actively pursue its oppression is to actively restrict the free media.
 
Last edited:
There's your key. Your 'our' doesn't include him. He has nothing invested in US military concerns, nor, as an Australian, should he be expected to have.

Right but **** him that's why. This guy is undermining the US efforts and the 20 guys AU can afford to send over there.
 
Freedom of expression exists in Australia too.



America has perverted the definition of free speech, elements of hate crime and "free speech zones" being some of the best known examples of this. This information was leaked to him, that person commited a crime, and the journalist nature of wikileaks gives it every right to publish this information.

There is free speech and then there is trade secrets. Most places can sue you if you release trade secrets, I would consider this one hell of a trade secret.
 
There is free speech and then there is trade secrets. Most places can sue you if you release trade secrets, I would consider this one hell of a trade secret.

Considering the nature of this trade secret, like the US covering up civilian deaths, i'd say a judge may want to consider the facts first and if not the release of these documents was for a good purpose that benefits us. The government has clearly been disregarding the freedom of information act, our trust amongst other things. Leaks and tip offs are usually fundamental to many journalists, especially in this industry when they are commenting on politics. The apache helicopter footage was another example of the US being sly. Wikileaks is providing a service to the general public that is invaluable to our knowledge as people and citizens who reserve the right to just KNOW. This is fundamental to journalism and it cannot be suppressed.
 
He has already released information and names that put people's lives at risk. Source: Afghan informants' lives at risk from documents posted on WikiLeaks | The Australian

Right but **** him that's why. This guy is undermining the US efforts and the 20 guys AU can afford to send over there.

As an American, I don't think Iraq and Afghanistan have anything to do with our national security, either. But for the sake of argument I'm willing to grant that maybe a few of them could be relevant to security. That's why our government should have taken the trouble to vet them.
 
Considering the nature of this trade secret, like the US covering up civilian deaths, i'd say a judge may want to consider the facts first and if not the release of these documents was for a good purpose that benefits us. The government has clearly been disregarding the freedom of information act, our trust amongst other things. Leaks and tip offs are usually fundamental to many journalists, especially in this industry when they are commenting on politics. The apache helicopter footage was another example of the US being sly. Wikileaks is providing a service to the general public that is invaluable to our knowledge as people and citizens who reserve the right to just KNOW. This is fundamental to journalism and it cannot be suppressed.

Actually, you can't be sued for releasing trade secrets. And like you say, it's the government's job to guard legitimate secrets within the guidelines of FOIA so the public doesn't have to rely on leaks.
 
As an American, I don't think Iraq and Afghanistan have anything to do with our national security, either. But for the sake of argument I'm willing to grant that maybe a few of them could be relevant to security. That's why our government should have taken the trouble to vet them.

This has what to do with my comment that in fact names of people who are now at extra risk where in the documents released?
 
Actually, you can't be sued for releasing trade secrets. And like you say, it's the government's job to guard legitimate secrets within the guidelines of FOIA so the public doesn't have to rely on leaks.

You can in Aussie and if im not wrong the UK.
 
This has what to do with my comment that in fact names of people who are now at extra risk where in the documents released?

It has to do with it because those people's interests don't affect our national security.
 
You can in Aussie and if im not wrong the UK.

To clarify, the original leaker of a trade secret can be sued, not because the information is secret per se but because they've probably engaged in an unfair business practice. But once the information is out, it's fair game for journalists or anyone else. You can't be sued just for publishing it.
 
It has to do with it because those people's interests don't affect our national security.

Which has exactly what to do with the fact that people's lives have been put at risk by Assange's decision to publish their names and details about them on the internet?
 
Which has exactly what to do with the fact that people's lives have been put at risk by Assange's decision to publish their names and details about them on the internet?

Sorry, I didn't reread all of what you quoted from my earlier post, so I thought you were commenting on the national security issue. As for putting people's lives in danger, Assange seems to have avoided that as best he could without help from the US government.
 
Sorry, I didn't reread all of what you quoted from my earlier post, so I thought you were commenting on the national security issue. As for putting people's lives in danger, Assange seems to have avoided that as best he could without help from the US government.

He published people's names. That is, in no way, doing the best he could. That is, in fact, not trying. It's not hard to read and redact people's names.
 
Actually, you can't be sued for releasing trade secrets.

Yeah tell that to someone that has actually come pretty close to getting sued for releasing trade secrets.

@Winston also I'm not sure if you knew this or not but several operatives we have in Afghanistan had their names leaked, and what happens when they are retaliated against? The military loses an informant and a friend, as well as another civilian life. Is some of what is in there ****ty? Yeah, but I'm more for making this war end asap rather than doing anything that could delay it even further. Plus like I said, **** this guy that's why.
 
Second, free speech does have limits, and classified material is included in those limits. No one is questioning whether the guy who released the info to him is guilty of a crime, but free speech would apply just as well to him.

Is publishing classified information that you got from a third party illegal? I know that it was illegal for Manning to leak the material to Assange, but once Assange had it is there any law in the US that would prevent him from publishing it? The only comparable case I know of was the indictment of the NYTimes officials during the Pentagon Papers spat, and those charges were dropped for reasons unrealated to the legality of publishing of classified materials
 
Is publishing classified information that you got from a third party illegal? I know that it was illegal for Manning to leak the material to Assange, but once Assange had it is there any law in the US that would prevent him from publishing it? The only comparable case I know of was the indictment of the NYTimes officials during the Pentagon Papers spat, and those charges were dropped for reasons unrealated to the legality of publishing of classified materials

Probably not illegal for him where he is at the very least.
 
To clarify, the original leaker of a trade secret can be sued, not because the information is secret per se but because they've probably engaged in an unfair business practice. But once the information is out, it's fair game for journalists or anyone else. You can't be sued just for publishing it.

Well then, that just proves my point. To pursue Assange would be a major violation of free media and free speech. Thank you for clarifying that dude.
Let him leak the details. It's unfortunate, and i may not agree with what he is doing, but he is NOT a criminal.
 
I don't blame him for our country's failure to keep classified information classified.

He should never have even had the opportunity to release the info.
 
It's free speech mate. You either support it or you dont. Which is it?

Free speech doesn't cover everything.

There's your key. Your 'our' doesn't include him. He has nothing invested in US military concerns, nor, as an Australian, should he be expected to have.

Which is why he couldn't be prosecuted for treason. However, I imagine that in the course of obtaining this information, he's probably run afoul of some other laws related to conspiring to commit a crime.

Is publishing classified information that you got from a third party illegal? I know that it was illegal for Manning to leak the material to Assange, but once Assange had it is there any law in the US that would prevent him from publishing it? The only comparable case I know of was the indictment of the NYTimes officials during the Pentagon Papers spat, and those charges were dropped for reasons unrealated to the legality of publishing of classified materials

It's quite likely to be illegal if the person publishing the information played a part in obtaining the information.

In the NYT case, the reporters were just passive bystanders who had this information dumped on them. They neither encouraged nor assisted Ellsburg in gathering it. In contrast, I would bet that full disclosure of wikileaks activity would reveal that they encouraged sources to break the law by gathering information illegally or perhaps even helped those sources with some of the more technical aspects of it. If true, that would certainly open them to prosecution.
 
However, I imagine that in the course of obtaining this information, he's probably run afoul of some other laws related to conspiring to commit a crime.

But under which jurisdiction? I know nothing about Australia's extradition treaties, but as a rule they don't apply to crimes defined by one state that aren't crimes in the other. So, unless he's committed a crime under Australian law, he wouldn't be extraditable, would he?

Unrelated example: abortion is illegal in Ireland, many irish women travel to the UK for terminations. If they remain in the UK, the Irish judiciary cannot seek their extradition, even if they contracted the abortion whilst still in ireland, and hence committed a crime there.
 
Last edited:
We are living smack dab in the middle of the information age. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. Top secret information doesn't get leaked. This is lower level stuff.
 
We are living smack dab in the middle of the information age. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. Top secret information doesn't get leaked. This is lower level stuff.

Yeah I agree with this. What many people don't know is that Assange claims that he isn't even the founder of the site, and he's one of many members of a panel that all have a say in the website's administration. He's the face of Wikileaks and so he attracts a lot of attention. And he looks like the bad guy from Die Hard, which may be part of why people hate him so much.

Wikileaks has been at the center of many controversies. Most of what they've published has nothing to do with the United States, and their existence could just as easily stop a nuclear weapons program in the Middle East as it could derail the war in Afghanistan. Maybe you could take Assange down, but if we had already done that, these documents could have been leaked by a different website that refused to hold back 15,000 documents.

That's why the main objective for our government relating to Wikileaks should and will be having a good relationship with its panel and ensuring that they allow for some leaks to be published in exchange for holding back certain documents or details that could harm innocent people.
 
Back
Top Bottom