On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 08:17:01 AM PST, Razer <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] >In her letter [PDF], >Chelsea Manning's Letter To Judge On Opposing The Grand Jury
Jim Bell's comment: That is a very well-written document. The U.S. Constitution has a flaw: (actually, many of them, but...) While the Fifth Amendment contains language protecting our right to not testify against ourselves, it fails to have a similar protection against being required to testify against others. Effectively, this means that we are slaves to those who want to prosecute others. There is a Federal law, Misprision of Felony: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." One key word is "conceals". Merely being aware of the commission of a felony does not require a person to report the crime. However, if you take an action to "conceal" it is called a violation of 18 U.S.C. 4. What actions amount to 'concealment' has been and is subject to litigation. I have not had access to a Lexis law library computer system since 2012. But, I am not aware that merely refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury amounts to "misprision of felony". Also, I continue to search for discussions of ' "Assange" "extraterritoriality" ' . But NOT in the sense of the "extraterritoriality" of the Ecuadorian embassy in Longon: Rather, the issue of whether the U.S. Government can apply American law to a person, Assange, who ostensibly would have committed that crime while in the U.K., and not in America. Jim Bell > Manning contended the modern grand jury barely resemble the grand jury, which the framers enshrined in the Constitution. She acknowledges much of her opposition comes from their use against activists but also makes it clear she believes the institution generally undermines due process for all citizens." >Chelsea Manning’s Resistance Brings U.S. Closer To Ending The Grand Jury ----------------------------------The following, from my past research on the issue of Extraterritoriality and Assange: jim bell <[email protected]>To:[email protected],Greg NewbyOct 21 at 11:51 AMOn Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby <[email protected]> wrote: >Spotted in Fox news online, but it looks like this is also on the AP wire https://www.foxnews.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-appears-in-court >Meanwhile, it appears Chelsea Manning is still in jail in Alexandria, for >refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigation against Assange: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning >The Fox article: >WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US >Greg Norman >By Greg Norman | Fox News Jim Bell's comment: (But first, note that the term "extraterritoriality" was commonly used in TWO senses in regards to Assange: First, perhaps the most common usage was the fact that Assange could stay in the Embassy as if it were a different country, not UK. That is NOT the sense I am most interested in, at least in part because nobody seemed to be substantially challenging that issue. The second usage, is the concept that a country can have criminal jurisdiction over acts committed in another nation. Put simply, can the US declare actions by a person outside the US, when there is no clear connection to the US? I very much doubt that, in this case. Below, you can see that I looked at some statutes, and did not find any specific reference to 'extraterritoriality' as part of the statutes which were then cited. This material includes points which included references to US court decisions which declared that unless a statute clearly claims 'extraterritoriality' over acts in other nations, it should be presumed to not apply. Did the US add any charges which DID have extraterritoriality references built into the statutes?) It's frustrating that these news-item references aren't written to include issues such as extraterritoriality included. I will now do a time limited Google-search for 'Assange extraterritoriality' over the last months to find useful references. Nothing. Perhaps a law journal will have addressed this important matter. Let's not forget what I said on April 29, 2019: -----------------------------------------------jim bell <[email protected]>To:CypherPunks Apr 29 at 5:31 PM From: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).) [end of partial quote] There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by including such language within the law itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise." "https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2016/06/us-supreme-court-continues-to-limit-extraterritori http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/rjr-nabisco-and-runaway-canon >From that: "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a majority of four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress intended RICO’s private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising the bar on what Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations clear.[11]" [end of quote] Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=bjil Very interesting: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/some-thoughts-on-the-extradition-of-julian-assange.html >From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only >under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test >of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense shall >be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is >punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer hacking is no >doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of territoriality, >because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the United States. >Another section of Article 2 provides:If the offense has been committed >outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in >accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested >State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its >territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested State do not >provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its territory >in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the Requested State, in >its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all other requirements of >this Treaty are met." Unlike the U.S., however, Britain apparently takes a strict view of territorial jurisdiction. According to The New York Times, Britain has already denied a U.S. extradition request for computer intrusion, on the grounds that the offense was committed on British soil and would therefore have to be tried in the U.K. [end of quote] 18 U.S.C. 641 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 18 U.S.C. 793(c), nor the whole 793, does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 18 U.S.C. 371 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 18 U.S.C. 1030 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers Jim Bell
