Posted on 08/23/2012 11:28:33 AM PDT by managusta
They just can’t help themselves. Today it’s John Pilger in the New Statesman: “The pursuit of Julian Assange is an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism”. One by one the cream of the intellectual left (and George Galloway) are lining up, in well-disciplined rows, to hurl themselves lemming-like onto the rocks of WikiLeaks. Tony Benn: “the charges are that it was a non-consensual relationship. Well that's very different from rape”. Galloway: "Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape”.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
We already claim extraterritorial application of our laws to the whole of humanity.
If, for instance, a Columbian drug lord blows up an airplane in an attempt to assassinate the Columbian VP, and happens to kill an American or two in the process ... we can extradite him, try him, and execute him. This exact scenario occurred with Pablo Escobar — who spent the last couple of years of his life doing everything he could to prevent Columbia from legalizing extradition to the US.
There is no jurisdicitonal difference between a foriegn actor killing an American in a foreign country ... and a foreign actor soliciting an American soldier to steal American secrets from a foreign country.
Jurisdiction depends on what he did, and to whom ... not who he is or where he did it. My understanding of the espionage act is that we already have jurisdiction.
SnakeDoc
There is absolutely no evidence that a honey trap was involved. If you read up on the details of the case, and the women involved, you'd see that the notion of a honey trap is far-fetched at best.
While *all* analogies are wrong in some way; the analogy between parachutes and condoms illustrates the essential point. Parachutes are safety equipment — like seat belts, helmets, hard hats, steel toed boots, and condoms. The woman consented to “safe” sex — she did *not* consent to sex without a condom. (The relative efficacy of condoms is completely beside the point.)
lol
lol
lol
Already claim and ought to claim are two different things. Other, unfriendly, powers will return the disfavor.
Yes, and my understanding of it is that he was convicted of treason because he had an unexpired British passport at the time he began his broadcasts.
Condoms aren't safety devices. Condoms are contraceptive devices. There are obvious cases where they prevent something desirable from happening. The analogy is inapt all your spinning to the contrary.
I know the details of the accusations in this case; which are not proof of anything at this point. Reread my post: I stipulated to a hypothetical advanced by teflon9 which I did not -- and do not -- advance myself, which, per impossible still makes Assange guilty of a crime.
Unfriendly powers already do. Iran held three hikers for over a year for espionage. They did nothing but wander across an unmarked border. Any actual American agents that are caught will certainly be killed absent aggressive intervention.
Our enemies should not dictate American policy. It is bad precedent for us to allow a foreign national to intentionally leak classified material with the intent of aiding our enemies, and to simply ignore his crimes for fear of reprisal. Reprisal is inevitable, no matter what we do to Assange.
SnakeDoc
He is accused of having sex with a woman who was drunk and unconcious a SECOND time after she had passed out. He had sex with another woman the day before.
Condoms are indeed safety devices — imperfect safety devices, but safety devices nonetheless. My analogy is apt & I'm not the one spinning anything here. (Reminder — *all* analogies are wrong, in some way. Some are useful. I contend that my analogy (however flawed) was useful, and apt.)
The salient fact remains: the woman agreed to sex *with* a condom. She contends that Assange forced her to have sex *without* a condom. Based on her perception of the relative risks, that was her choice to make. If these facts hold, Assange is a rapist.
“with the intent of aiding our enemies”
Really, or just with the intent of informing the American people, who’ve been kept in the dark about so much for so long?
“with the intent of aiding our enemies”
Really, or just with the intent of informing the American people, who’ve been kept in the dark about so much for so long?
“But the US hasn’t been in a declared state of war since 1945”
Yes, and the constitutionality of US military actions since then is a whole nother issue I’m going to leave alone for the time being!
Illegitimate rape?
Why would you think Julian Assange gives a damn about the American people?
SnakeDoc
>> “But the US hasn’t been in a declared state of war since 1945”
You’re wrong. Nowhere does the Constitution require the magic words “declaration of war”. All that is required is Congressional authorization. An “Authorization for Military Action” or “Authorization for the use of force” will suffice as a declaration of war for Constitutional purposes.
- The Vietnam War was declared by “The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”. Passed both Houses, near unanimous. Was eventually repealed, though.
- The Gulf War was declared by “The Authorization for Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991”. Passed both houses.
- The War on Terrorism and Afghan War was declared in the “Authorization for use of Military Force Against Terrorists”. Passed both houses, near unanimous.
- The Iraq War was declared by the “Authorization for the use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”. Passed both houses.
There have been several Congressionally declared wars since 1945.
SnakeDoc
They were on Iranian territory. The analogy would be if Iran started issuing warrants for Americans who, say “broke” Iranian blasphemy laws, when writing on an American website, then got the author arrested on an extradition warrant when he vacationed in Indonesia.
No, you did not use the correct term. The "legitimacy" Akin referred to was the legitimacy of the exemption, not the "legitimacy" of the crime.
I contend that my analogy (however flawed) was useful, and apt.
You're right: having sex without a condom -- like jumping without a parachute -- means immediate, certain, and violent death. I should have realized this after I buried my 1,000th wife or so...
Nonsense. Iranian “blasphemy law” isn’t analogous to espionage law. Iranian espionage law might be analogous ... but they already extend that to anybody they can get their hands on.
I’m not prepared to let fear of the Iranians dictate how we respond to Assange’s crimes. It is bad precedent to let him walk. You ought to fear what not punishing him might invite from enemy regimes.
SnakeDoc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.