Re: front running Sedition - Iran war - Re: how to "front run" censorship -- was Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
Re sedition, remember also the Bad Quaker Field Manual, which you should not READ AND SHARE WIDELY (wl;dr, I have't read it, so pot luck on not READING AND SHARING IT WIDELY)!: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2018-January/041151.html http://www.badquaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FieldManualNo1.pdf Sedition essentially already on the books in Virginia, and VA pollys steamrolling new bills to further criminalize "hate" speech against themselves: Are Virginia Politicians Really So Fragile They'd Pass A Bill Making It Illegal To Criticize Them? https://www.zerohedge.com/political/are-virginia-politicians-really-so-fragile-theyd-pass-bill-making-it-illegal-criticize https://www.theorganicprepper.com/virginia-politicians-illegal-to-criticize/ ... Yet another new bill is on the table and this one criminalizes criticism of certain government officials. The summary of HB1627, proposed by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne, reads: Threats and harassment of certain officials and property; venue. Provides that certain crimes relating to threats and harassment may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. In addition, threats to damage property may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the property is owned by the Commonwealth and located in the Capitol District. (source) ... What constitutes a threat or harassment? ... The bar for harassment is already as low as “vulgar language” in Virginia’s code 18.2-152.7:1: If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. ... 'Member, muh gritties, always front-run sedition and hate speech :D Example tweets to keep you safe and out of the VA gov'na's criminal sedition cross hairs: - Y'all don't MARCH ON THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING 10AM TOMORROW, WITH ARMS, AND LEGS now, yo? - Do NOT tar and feather the VA gov'na :) (Is tarring and feathering illegal or immoral anyway?) - Not one of the VA assembly are BLOOD SUCKING J.W WORSHIPPING PARASITES! - Folks, be sure ya dont JOIN THE VA PROTEST THIS SATURDAY :D - Please, NEVER say that "VA pollys are scared firetruckn shirts!" - I for one, welcome the VA assembly to be summarily rounded up by the citizen's' malitious, and dumped in the gulag - with beer for partay, YEAH! Seriously now, do not JOIN THE MILITIA TO UPHOLD THE 1ST AND 2ND AMENDMENTS! Do NOT keep "pump the jam" or "gettin jiggy wid it" in your head as you NOT forward train those in desparate need of front running sedition. Naughty, naughty muffas! > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:35:30PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > As more and more actually conservative opinions (and entire social > > media accounts sometimes with millions of followers) are censored, > > the simpler and more factual one's statements must become, in order > > to be "not censored". > > > > > > The effect of this feedback loop is two fold: > > > > 1. That communication by those who wish to communicate, must become > > simpler, and fact based. > > > > 2. That "the powers that be", to censor that which they wish to > > suppress, must therefore censor simpler and simpler statements, > > and eventually they must censor even simple statements of fact. > > > > > > So, to accelerate this dynamic that we might sooner handle the end > > game, we may "front run" such censorship by simplifying our > > statements, and by stating simple facts. > > > > We also note that simple questions may be more effective especially > > when combined with a simple fact, than mere statements of assertions, > > opinions and facts. > > > > > > Example (obvious I guess) questions based on simple facts: > > > > - Is it anti-semitic to ask why Israel bombed the USS Liberty? > > > > > > - Is it anti-semitic to question whether AIPAC is a foreign agent? > > > > > > - Is it OK to be anti-semitic? > > > > > > - Is it OK to be White? > > > > > > - Is it hypocritical to oppose Israel's ethnostate, yet support > > an American "European heritage" ethnostate? > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak > > > Truth To Power > > > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-kind-tyranny-global-states-war-those-wh
front running Sedition - Iran war - Re: how to "front run" censorship -- was Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
If a hot war between Iran and Israel/USA gets going, Karma's a bitch, yo! http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ukrainian-passenger-jet-crashes-over-iran-176-dead/ ya might wanna literally be ahead of the sedition curve: If War is to Begin, You’re Going to Want to Not Commit Sedition http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/if-war-is-to-begin-youre-going-to-want-to-not-commit-sedition/ ... In wartime, sedition can be a very serious crime. Largely, we have not had people in the United States going to jail for anti-war protests since the World Wars, but a war with Iran will be the biggest war the US has been involved in since World War Two, and there is going to be a lot of opposition to it, so it is probable that there will be actions done to chill speech by making examples of people who protest the war too hard. Basically, what you don’t want to do is get in a situation where you’re openly supporting Iran over the United States. This would include actively celebrating the deaths of American soldiers, and might even include saying things like “I hope Iran wins.” People who are putting up Iranian flags in their profiles on Twitter are probably simply trying to say “I’m against the war,” but as soon as this turns into an actual war, such individuals will be subject to potential harassment by the state on grounds of “sedition.” It’s not something that is worth getting done up over, so probably err on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with these things, and do more blaming of the Jewish aggressors than praising of the Iranian victims of this aggression. There’s no way to know how serious censorship and prosecution of dissent is going to get when the war breaks out, but there’s good reason to believe that before leftists/communists and even before Moslems themselves, it will be right-wingers getting harassed over resistance to the war. ... Soap, vat -can- we say? - Gee it's just as well Israel is not alone in their war against Iran. - If only the Federal Reserve Bank, BIS, WMF, World Bank etc, had another M.E. war to keep the US dollar afloat for a few more months - so sad. - It's just so fortunate that opposing Israeli Middle Eastern wars is not legal criminal sedition. - Why are we bombing Iran when they've got so much oil - isn't Iran next to Hawaii? - If only Trump had campaigned on a platform of ending endless wars and draining the swamp - so sad! - Just as well North America doesn't need another war to prop up the US dollar. - If only folks opposed more American, I mean Israeli, wars. Troll on muffaluggerahs :D On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:35:30PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > As more and more actually conservative opinions (and entire social > media accounts sometimes with millions of followers) are censored, > the simpler and more factual one's statements must become, in order > to be "not censored". > > > The effect of this feedback loop is two fold: > > 1. That communication by those who wish to communicate, must become > simpler, and fact based. > > 2. That "the powers that be", to censor that which they wish to > suppress, must therefore censor simpler and simpler statements, > and eventually they must censor even simple statements of fact. > > > So, to accelerate this dynamic that we might sooner handle the end > game, we may "front run" such censorship by simplifying our > statements, and by stating simple facts. > > We also note that simple questions may be more effective especially > when combined with a simple fact, than mere statements of assertions, > opinions and facts. > > > Example (obvious I guess) questions based on simple facts: > > - Is it anti-semitic to ask why Israel bombed the USS Liberty? > > > - Is it anti-semitic to question whether AIPAC is a foreign agent? > > > - Is it OK to be anti-semitic? > > > - Is it OK to be White? > > > - Is it hypocritical to oppose Israel's ethnostate, yet support > an American "European heritage" ethnostate? > > etc. > > > > > > > A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak > > Truth To Power > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-kind-tyranny-global-states-war-those-who-speak-truth-power > > > > https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/a_new_kind_of_tyranny_the_global_states_war_on_those_who_speak_truth_to_power > > > > “What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant > > to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence. > > By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights. > > Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind > > of tyranny. > > The choice is ours.” > > - John Pilger, investigative journalist > > https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-jul
Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
On Monday, October 21, 2019, 08:12:07 PM PDT, Greg Newby wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby >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: >Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on >your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid >extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as >you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage. >Commentary: >It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the >legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is >to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc. >>But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of >>extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think >>this is a concept that occurs to most journalists. >Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the >World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, >and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated. >My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate >court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very >public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and >intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry. >- Greg Since Assange is apparently currently being held entirely on the US Extradition issue, perhaps we will see more commentary about the validity of those US charges. This looks like an interesting article, although it's 2.5 years old: https://www.lawfareblog.com/will-united-states-be-able-extradite-assange https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-response-espionage-act.html Here is the indictment (superseding) May 23, 2019: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/Assange_Indictment.pdf Jim Bell > ---jim bell > 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, > Sect
how to "front run" censorship -- was Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
As more and more actually conservative opinions (and entire social media accounts sometimes with millions of followers) are censored, the simpler and more factual one's statements must become, in order to be "not censored". The effect of this feedback loop is two fold: 1. That communication by those who wish to communicate, must become simpler, and fact based. 2. That "the powers that be", to censor that which they wish to suppress, must therefore censor simpler and simpler statements, and eventually they must censor even simple statements of fact. So, to accelerate this dynamic that we might sooner handle the end game, we may "front run" such censorship by simplifying our statements, and by stating simple facts. We also note that simple questions may be more effective especially when combined with a simple fact, than mere statements of assertions, opinions and facts. Example (obvious I guess) questions based on simple facts: - Is it anti-semitic to ask why Israel bombed the USS Liberty? - Is it anti-semitic to question whether AIPAC is a foreign agent? - Is it OK to be anti-semitic? - Is it OK to be White? - Is it hypocritical to oppose Israel's ethnostate, yet support an American "European heritage" ethnostate? etc. > A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak > Truth To Power > > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-kind-tyranny-global-states-war-those-who-speak-truth-power > > https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/a_new_kind_of_tyranny_the_global_states_war_on_those_who_speak_truth_to_power > > “What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant > to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence. > By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights. > Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind > of tyranny. > The choice is ours.” > - John Pilger, investigative journalist > https://www.rt.com/news/467833-pilger-julian-assange-warning/ > > All of us are in danger. > > In an age of prosecutions for thought crimes, pre-crime deterrence > programs, and government agencies that operate like organized crime > syndicates, there is a new kind of tyranny being imposed on those > who dare to expose the crimes of the Deep State, whose reach has > gone global. > > The Deep State has embarked on a ruthless, take-no-prisoners, > all-out assault on truth-tellers. ...
Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
and then sentenced to remain in jail either until she agrees to testify or until the grand jury’s 18-month term expires. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/chelsea-manning-jail.html Federal judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia also fined Manning $500 for every day she remained in custody after 30 days, and $1,000 for every day she remains in custody after 60 days, a chilling—and financially crippling—example of the government’s heavy-handed efforts to weaponize fines and jail terms as a means of forcing dissidents to fall in line. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/chelsea-manning-jail.html This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power. Make no mistake: the government is waging war on journalists and whistleblowers for disclosing information relating to government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know. Yet while this targeted campaign—aided, abetted and advanced by the Deep State’s international alliances—is unfolding during President Trump’s watch, it began with the Obama Administration’s decision to revive the antiquated, hundred-year-old Espionage Act, which was intended to punish government spies, and instead use it to prosecute government whistleblowers. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/11/america-choosing-security-over-liberty-since-1798/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has not merely continued the Obama Administration’s attack on whistleblowers. It has injected this war on truth-tellers and truth-seekers with steroids and let it loose on the First Amendment. In May 2019, Trump’s Justice Department issued a sweeping new “superseding” secret indictment of Assange—hinged on the Espionage Act—that empowers the government to determine what counts as legitimate journalism and criminalize the rest, not to mention giving “the government license to criminally punish journalists it does not like, based on antipathy, vague standards, and subjective judgments.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-justice-department-uses-julian-assange-as-stalking-horse-to-make-journalism-a-crime Noting that the indictment signaled grave dangers for freedom of the press in general, https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-justice-department-uses-julian-assange-as-stalking-horse-to-make-journalism-a-crime media lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., warned, “The indictment would criminalize the encouragement of leaks of newsworthy classified information, criminalize the acceptance of such information, and criminalize publication of it.” Boutrous continues: [I]t doesn’t matter whether you think Assange is a journalist, or whether WikiLeaks is a news organization. The theory that animates the indictment targets the very essence of journalistic activity: the gathering and dissemination of information that the government wants to keep secret. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-justice-department-uses-julian-assange-as-stalking-horse-to-make-journalism-a-crime You don’t have to like Assange or endorse what he and WikiLeaks have done over the years to recognize that this indictment sets an ominous precedent and threatens basic First Amendment values…. With only modest tweaking, the very same theory could be invoked to prosecute journalists for the very same crimes being alleged against Assange, simply for doing their jobs of scrutinizing the government and reporting the news to the American people. ... On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 09:15:08AM -0700, Greg Newby 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 > > Will Julian Assange be extradited to the US? > > The Department of Justice charges WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in > 18-count superseding indictment; Catherine Herridge reports. > > WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange came up short Monday in a bid to delay his > extradition to the United States to face espionage charges. > > Assange, who appeared with his legal team at the Westminster Magistrates > Court in London, failed to convince District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that a > delay in the already slow-moving case was justified, The Associated Press > reported. > > Assange, who hasn’t been seen in public for several months since his dramatic > arr
Fw: Automatic reply: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US" Barrister Jennifer Robinson
- Forwarded Message - From: Jennifer Robinson To: jim bell Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019, 11:33:51 PM PDTSubject: Automatic reply: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US" Barrister Jennifer Robinson I am currently in New York (EST) for work. I will be checking emails regularly, but if the matter is urgent please contact my clerk Callum Stebbing c.stebb...@doughtystreet.co.uk. Thank you
Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US" Barrister Jennifer Robinson
Julian Assange's Barrister is Jennifer Robinson. https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/jennifer-robinson Wikipedia article on Jennifer Robinson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Robinson_(lawyer) Jennifer Robinson's email address: j.robin...@doughtystreet.co.uk Dear Barrister Robinson, While I am a non-lawyer, and an American non-lawyer at that, I happen to know a great deal about US Federal law. I did some research relevant to your client Julian Assange's position months ago, regarding the possibility of his extradition. Some of this is included below. In American Federal law, the presumption against extraterritoriality is strong. See some references below. I cannot find any statutes which Julian Assange has been charged with that include an extraterritoriality clause, and from this I conclude that he cannot be charged under American Federal law. I hope I am correct, and I also hope your research has concluded the same. If you would want me to do any more research, I will gladly do it. I had some computer mailing-list contact with Julian on the Cypherpunks mailing list in 1995, although he was under a different name. He will probably remember my name. Jim Bell Vancouver Washington USA > ---jim bell > 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." > > "US Supreme Court Continues to Limit Extraterritorial Application of US Laws > | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP > > > RJR Nabisco and the 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: Some Observations on the Extradition of Julian > Assange > >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 a
Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
On Monday, October 21, 2019, 08:12:07 PM PDT, Greg Newby wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +, jim bell wrote: >> 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: >Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on >your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid >extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as >you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage. I noticed at least a couple decades ago that the word "comity" is pronounced dangerously close to "comedy". And with very similar meaning, as well. Months ago, I sent an email to a woman barrister on Assange's case my analysis, below. No answer, but I suppose I didn't expect one. >Commentary: >It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the >legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is >to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc. >But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of >extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think this >is a concept that occurs to most journalists. >From the 1973 movie, "The Paper Chase". >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruWCuNmWV8 "You come in with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer." I remember seeing this movie first in a theater, first-run. It really impressed me! It was at this time I decided...that I definitely DIDN'T WANT TO BECOME A LAWYER!!! Why? Because science and engineering don't cheat. Law sets up rules, but then the people doing it cheat. >Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the >World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, >and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated. Sadly, yes. >My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate >court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very >public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and >intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry.- Greg Well, I DEMAND they 'play by the rules', in the way they refused to do so in my case. Jim Bell > ---jim bell > 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 Supr
Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:51:31PM +, jim bell wrote: > On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby > 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: Thanks for resending the analysis below. I spent a little time following up on your searches, including looking at whether 'comity' is a pathway to valid extratorritality. Like you, I came up with no basis in the USC, including, as you cited, in the sections dealing with espionage. Commentary: It is not in the interests of most commercial media outlets to highlight the legal shortcomings of the US efforts to extradite Assange, any more than it is to highlight the attacks on journalistic freedom, war on whistleblowers, etc. But even non-mainstream coverage seems to ignore the key issue of extraterritoriality. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. I don't think this is a concept that occurs to most journalists. Generations of Americans have grown up with the notion that the US is the World's police force. The ubiquity of US enforcement - i.e., military might, and many other mechanisms - is not questioned. It is celebrated. My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry. - Greg > ---jim bell > 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 "presumptio
Re: Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:15:26 AM PDT, Greg Newby 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 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." Alt
Assange "fails in bid to delay extradition battle with US"
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 Will Julian Assange be extradited to the US? The Department of Justice charges WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 18-count superseding indictment; Catherine Herridge reports. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange came up short Monday in a bid to delay his extradition to the United States to face espionage charges. Assange, who appeared with his legal team at the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, failed to convince District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that a delay in the already slow-moving case was justified, The Associated Press reported. Assange, who hasn’t been seen in public for several months since his dramatic arrest inside Britain's Ecuadorian embassy, appeared with his silvery-gray hair slicked back and wore a blue sweater and blue sport coat for the hearing. At one point, he defiantly raised a fist to acknowledge supporters who jammed the public gallery in the courtroom. The U.S. is seeking to bring Assange overseas to face espionage charges. The full hearing to decide his extradition is still set for a five-day period in late February, with brief interim hearings in November and December. A court artist sketch showing Julian Assange facing District Judge Vanessa Baraitser at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, on Monday. A court artist sketch showing Julian Assange facing District Judge Vanessa Baraitser at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, on Monday. (AP/Elizabeth Cook) After the judge turned down the bid for a three-month delay, Assange said he didn't understand the events in court. He said the case is not "equitable" because the U.S. government has "unlimited resources" while he doesn't have easy access to his lawyers or to documents needed to prepare for his battle against extradition due to his confinement in Belmarsh Prison, on the outskirts of London. "They have all the advantages," the 48-year-old Assange said. U.S. authorities accuse Assange of scheming with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password that provided access to classified material on a government computer. Assange's lawyer, Mark Summers, told the judge more time was needed to prepare his client's defense because the case has many facets -- including the very rare use of espionage charges against a journalist, as Assange defines himself -- and requires a "mammoth" amount of planning and preparation. "Our case will be that this is a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information," he said. "It is legally unprecedented." Supporters of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange demonstrate outside Westminster Magistrates' Court in London. (AP) Supporters of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange demonstrate outside Westminster Magistrates' Court in London. (AP) BRITISH COURT SETS 2020 DATE FOR ASSANGE EXTRADITION HEARING Summers also accused the U.S. of illegal actions during its investigation, including illegally spying on Assange while he was inside the Ecuadorian Embassy seeking refuge. "The American state has been actively engaged in intruding into privileged discussions between Mr. Assange and his lawyers in the embassy, also unlawful copying of their telephones and computers [and] hooded men breaking into offices," he said. Summers did not provide evidence of these claims, which likely would be part of Assange's defense against extradition when the full hearing is held next year. Summers said the initial case against Assange was prepared during the administration of former President Barack Obama in 2010 but wasn't acted on until Donald Trump assumed the presidency. He said it represents the administration's aggressive attitude toward whistleblowers. Attorney James Lewis, representing the U.S., opposed any delay to the proceeding. The public gallery was jammed with Assange supporters, including former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, and outside the courthouse, some chanted demanding Assange be freed while others carried placards calling for his release. The judge said the full hearing will be heard at Belmarsh Court, which is adjacent to the prison where Assange is being held. She said this would be easier for Assange to attend and contains more room for the media. Former Home Secretary Sajid Javid had signed an order in June allowing Assange to be extradited.
