40 replies to this topic

[WearyRhino]

If they were lies then there would be a public interest in them being shown to be lies. However, if they are not then there isn't.

Again you miss the point. Other people, acting in my name, shouldn't be allowed to determine what I should and shouldn't be allowed to know.

No, it is not an absolute. If I asked you for your PIN number on your bank card and your password on your email address, would you give them to me?

I suspect that you would not. These things are secret for a reason.

You are confusing the public and private spheres - I don't operate my bank account or email on your behalf.

[ckn]

Why would publishing documents be a crime? Did he steal the documents? If yes then charge him with theft, if not he's done nothing wrong. The whole point of Wikileaks is that they are LEAKS. Info provided to them. This website has no less right to publish them than a newspaper would for publishing similar leaks about government behaviour etc.

In the UK, it's a criminal offence to publish documents classified under the Official Secrets Act without them being declassified first. I suspect every country has a similar law. The law is a fairly easy one to prove, if you know (or should reasonably have known) that the documents were classified then you shouldn't publish them.

The government behaviour points get through the media because except in really extreme circumstances the acts of a politician are not classified under the Official Secrets Act.

[Bedford Roughyed]

In the UK, it's a criminal offence to publish documents classified under the Official Secrets Act without them being declassified first. I suspect every country has a similar law. The law is a fairly easy one to prove, if you know (or should reasonably have known) that the documents were classified then you shouldn't publish them.

The government behaviour points get through the media because except in really extreme circumstances the acts of a politician are not classified under the Official Secrets Act.

I think I read on the BBC that its not illegal to publish in the USA, constitution and free speech and all that. (Its illegal to spy or to steal the documents, but Wikileaks have done neither).

[Bedford Roughyed]

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

More details on the allegations.

[ckn]

http://www.guardian....-assange-sweden

More details on the allegations.

A bit more from his side of the story

[Ullman]

I don't really have a strong opinion either way whether Assange is in the right or not, but I saw him being interviewed on Newsnight a few days back.

My word he's boring.

[East Coast Tiger]

In the UK, it's a criminal offence to publish documents classified under the Official Secrets Act without them being declassified first. I suspect every country has a similar law. The law is a fairly easy one to prove, if you know (or should reasonably have known) that the documents were classified then you shouldn't publish them.

The government behaviour points get through the media because except in really extreme circumstances the acts of a politician are not classified under the Official Secrets Act.

They're not published in the UK. They're on the net. And the Australian govt has already said he has broken no Australian law by publishing. This issue just shows why people don't understand what the internet means these days. It has no boundaries and comes under no jurisdictions. Except when governments decide to do the kind of dodgy deals they are doing to keep this bloke quiet, ironically the kind of thing WikiLeaks is actually exposing.

[ckn]

They're not published in the UK. They're on the net. And the Australian govt has already said he has broken no Australian law by publishing. This issue just shows why people don't understand what the internet means these days. It has no boundaries and comes under no jurisdictions. Except when governments decide to do the kind of dodgy deals they are doing to keep this bloke quiet, ironically the kind of thing WikiLeaks is actually exposing.

The law on publishing on the internet: Your post above was published in the UK because I'm in the UK and that's where I read it. If you're in Outer Mongolia and read it then that's where it's published. The law was solidified here both by formal law and case law over things such as child pornography, if you have a server abroad to try to take it out of UK jurisdiction but it's read by UK readers then you fall under UK law for publishing to those readers.

The internet isn't as lawless as some people would like.

[East Coast Tiger]

The law on publishing on the internet: Your post above was published in the UK because I'm in the UK and that's where I read it. If you're in Outer Mongolia and read it then that's where it's published. The law was solidified here both by formal law and case law over things such as child pornography, if you have a server abroad to try to take it out of UK jurisdiction but it's read by UK readers then you fall under UK law for publishing to those readers.

The internet isn't as lawless as some people would like.

So I guess he'll be charged by all these countries and have extradition orders against him from all over the world. Strange because none have been made at all. Not even from the US. And as I said he hasn't broken any Australian laws and our laws are based on other western countries.

[ckn]

So I guess he'll be charged by all these countries and have extradition orders against him from all over the world. Strange because none have been made at all. Not even from the US. And as I said he hasn't broken any Australian laws and our laws are based on other western countries.

As I mentioned, they can if they so choose. This is how they deal with child pornographers who do everything in "safety" through third party countries who hold the servers, etc.

You'll probably find that the US laws around classified documents is the same as other countries', i.e. nationality or where it's published is irrelevant, if you knowingly publish documents that are classified under the state secret laws then you've committed a crime.

Also, all of the recent leaks have been US documents, why would the Aussies and Aussie laws have anything to do with it?

[Wolford6]

I think Wikileaks has performed a valuable service for the public. Unfortunately, Assange has made himself an easy target for the USA and UK by seemingly being an arrogant priapic creep in his private life.

[Johnoco]

His lawyers were complaining to the guardian about things they had printed about the case. Stuff they wanted keeping quiet. Hmmm

[Northern Sol]

Again you miss the point. Other people, acting in my name, shouldn't be allowed to determine what I should and shouldn't be allowed to know.

Then campaign on the issue, get elected and try "open government". However, back in the real world the government finds it necessary to keep the minutiae of diplomacy secret. That you don't agree with this not really a reason for them to stop doing it. You think they shouldn't be allowed to keep secrets but the law says that they are.

The reason the do so is that it is necessary to keep some information secret in order to achieve the goals that they have set out. Nobody wins at poker by playing with their cards in full view of the other players.

You are confusing the public and private spheres - I don't operate my bank account or email on your behalf.

No confusion at all. You've just agreed that freedom of information isn't absolute but can be curtailed where individual liberty is at stake.

Edited by Northern Sol, 19 December 2010 - 07:09 PM.

[JohnM]

The Grauniad disappears up its Leftist orifice as it decides ‘all men are rapists’ trumps ‘all Americans are war criminals’.

read about the story

[shrek]

My word he's boring.

I came to the same conclusion, however, he does seem to have a certain way with the ladies, by all accounts he can light up a room - one can only presume after a glass or two of dutch courage he comes out of his shell!

You'll probably find that the US laws around classified documents is the same as other countries', i.e. nationality or where it's published is irrelevant, if you knowingly publish documents that are classified under the state secret laws then you've committed a crime.

I don't doubt your right, but they do seem to be struggling to come up with anything that they are confident will stick, especially given he's in the UK, which on past histroy does seem to rule in favour of the Yanks in high profile cases on extradtition.

His lawyers were complaining to the guardian about things they had printed about the case. Stuff they wanted keeping quiet. Hmmm

I bet there's a few raised a smile at that!

[Millman]

The Grauniad disappears up its Leftist orifice as it decides ‘all men are rapists’ trumps ‘all Americans are war criminals’.

read about the story

Another well balanced bit of journalism from the Mail.

[ckn]

I don't doubt your right, but they do seem to be struggling to come up with anything that they are confident will stick, especially given he's in the UK, which on past histroy does seem to rule in favour of the Yanks in high profile cases on extradtition.

The current extradition law between the UK and US is that if someone in the UK is accused of any crime in the US, even the most trivial of offences, then the UK has to hand them over on demand. The US never got around to implementing their part that mirrors our obligations because of their pesky Constitution that actually gives people rights.

[JohnM]

Another well balanced bit of journalism from the Mail.

Yup. Between them, the Grauniad and The Mail present a unique view of the world!

[Northern Sol]

I did find it funny that Julian Assange complained about details of his case being leaked to the media.

[Jasper]

I did find it funny that Julian Assange complained about details of his case being leaked to the media.

Must admit to a chuckle myself when they reported that on the news this morning.