Sotomayor predicts WikiLeaks case in Supreme Court

[Redress]

I missed this article in time to post it in BN, but I think there is some good stuff in it: Sotomayor predicts WikiLeaks case in Supreme Court - Yahoo! News

Sotomayor said Thursday that the "incident, and others, are going to provoke legislation that's already being discussed in Congress, and so some of it is going to come up before (the Supreme Court)."

Legislation involving anything that touches on free speech always scares me, but there is simply no excuse for things like the WikiLeaks scandal, and something does need to be done. Sotomayor did not indicate in any way where she falls on the question.

She talked on a couple other issues as well:

"I haven't really examined the Arizona law in detail ... so I haven't formed an opinion yet, and I wouldn't until I heard the case," Sotomayor told a Latino boy who asked the question.

I find it hard to believe she has not looked into this at least a bit, but find her neutrality interesting considering her heritage.

"Waiting for the courts to resolve these issues is not what all of you should be doing," Sotomayor said, adding that they have to "work hard at either passing laws that you think do the right thing, or changing those laws which you think do the wrong thing."

I really do like this statement.

 

[MaggieD]

I missed this article in time to post it in BN, but I think there is some good stuff in it: Sotomayor predicts WikiLeaks case in Supreme Court - Yahoo! News



Legislation involving anything that touches on free speech always scares me, but there is simply no excuse for things like the WikiLeaks scandal, and something does need to be done. Sotomayor did not indicate in any way where she falls on the question.

She talked on a couple other issues as well:



I find it hard to believe she has not looked into this at least a bit, but find her neutrality interesting considering her heritage.



I really do like this statement.

Sotomayor may surprise many of us. People have been known to rise to the occasion. As to WikiLeaks, if Wiki obtained that information illegally, I cannot understand why they couldn't be charged with treason. If they obtained it legally, then heads somewhere ought to roll.

 

[Redress]

Sotomayor may surprise many of us. People have been known to rise to the occasion. As to WikiLeaks, if Wiki obtained that information illegally, I cannot understand why they couldn't be charged with treason. If they obtained it legally, then heads somewhere ought to roll.

WikiLeaks is not in America, and it's owner is not American, so treason is out of the question. I would love it if there is still a way to go after them though.

 

[Deuce]

WikiLeaks is not in America, and it's owner is not American, so treason is out of the question. I would love it if there is still a way to go after them though.

Yeah, it's not treason when it's not your own country

Espionage would be a stretch. The guy was just given this stuff by someone who had legal access to it, from what I understand. (although obviously not the legal authority to distribute it like that) He didn't solicit it or pay for it. Really, what crime could he be charged with?

 

[Orion]

To me this falls under military jurisdiction and so they should focus on military security issues. I don't see why the courts or legislature are getting involved, even though they are probably salivating at the opportunity to limit free speech. This has nothing to do with the civil realm especially since the scandal takes place outside of U.S. law.

The information was obtained in a legit manner - no espionage necessary - and I completely support its release according to free speech rules. If you don't want that info getting out next time, have better security. Now let's see what the info reveals about the reality of the war.

 

[Renae]

The person, or persons who leaked this stuff, should be tried for Treason, and then executed for the crime.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The person, or persons who leaked this stuff, should be tried for Treason, and then executed for the crime.

Just how do you try a foreigner for treason?

 

[Wiseone]

The person, or persons who leaked this stuff, should be tried for Treason, and then executed for the crime.

Well the founder isn't even a US citizen so thats out of the question. And treason is defined in the Consitution as:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Since war has never been declared than there is no war, there's nothing to suggest that the leaker is adhering to our enemies or giving them aid and comfort, so treason is out.

 

[digsbe]

I think MrV meant those US citizens who leaked the info should be tried for treason. We need to try the leader too for anything we can. To be honest I think it's wrong that he has legal immunity because of his citizenship status.

 

[tacomancer]

I think MrV meant those US citizens who leaked the info should be tried for treason. We need to try the leader too for anything we can. To be honest I think it's wrong that he has legal immunity because of his citizenship status.

If noncitizens did not have legal immunity, than every other country would have a right to mess with our people on similar grounds. That would be a huge can of worms.

For example, if such a practice was common, Iran could go after the owners of twitter for assisting in the various demonstrations last year.

 

[digsbe]

If noncitizens did not have legal immunity, than every other country would have a right to mess with our people on similar grounds. That would be a huge can of worms.

For example, if such a practice was common, Iran could go after the owners of twitter for assisting in the various demonstrations last year.

True, I guess it just steams me a little to see this guy harming our nation and not being able to be tried because he is foreign. I have to agree with you, but I do think in this specific wikileaks case that the law (this time) promotes an injustice.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

So receiving stolen information is a "legit manner" now? :roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

I also like that Sotomayor quote. Too many people just assume they can pass whatever laws they like and let the courts sort it out. It doesn't really help anyone.

As to wikileaks: Because wikileaks operates in secrecy, we actually have no idea of what they did in order to get this information. It's actually quite possible that they solicited the information in question, offered potential contacts assistance in obtaining the information, or otherwise facilitated the theft of this information. If an investigation discovers that they did do those things, then the individuals involved could be charged with a number of crimes regardless of their citizenship.

As an aside, this Assange guy is a total joke - he acts like he's managing to stay one step ahead of the CIA like he's some pasty hipster Jason Bourne. In reality, unless the guy is traveling on expertly forged passports and living off the grid (which is unlikely for someone who so desperately craves the limelight), I'd wager that we know where he is 24/7.

 

[Redress]

Just how do you try a foreigner for treason?

MrV is referring to the guy who gave Assange the information.