Obama smacked in the mouth

[Gob]

This will cheer Jim up!

The US Army private suspected of giving a mountain of secret data to WikiLeaks, may be crowned a hero in the California city known for hippies and anti-war protests.

Berkeley city council members were to vote on Tuesday on a resolution proclaiming Bradley Manning a hero and urging military officials to release him from custody.

"Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime," read a resolution endorsed by the city's Peace and Justice Commission.

"If Pfc. Bradley Manning is the source who provided WikiLeaks with the 'Collateral Murder' video and/or the 92,000 documents known as 'The Afghan War Diary', (then) he is a hero."

Manning is already seen as a hero by anti-war activists and a villain by government officials outraged over the exposure of classified files.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... 18w2i.html

[Andrew D]

Obviously, evidence not yet disclosed could prove Manning guilty of all sorts of things which the present evidence does not. For all we know, the UK will soon be seeking Manning's extradition for conspiracy to commit regicide.

Her recent comments about what the investigation may or may not reveal notwithstanding, however, loCAtek has already pronounced Manning guilty of treason, as has Lord Jim. But neither of them has produced the evidence necessary to satisfy the constitutional elements of that crime. Yet again:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

(U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3 (emphasis added).)

[T]he crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy-making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength-but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

(Cramer v. U.S., 325 U.S. 1, 29 (1945) (emphases added).)

(And, of course, in order for someone to be proved to have "adher[ed] to [the U.S.'s] Enemies," the identity or identities of that enemy or those enemies must also be proved.)

That is the law, whether I like it or not. That is the law, whether loCAtek likes it or not. That is the law, whether Lord Jim likes it or not.

If loCAtek or Lord Jim can produce evidence which satisfies the constitutional elements of treason, she or he ought to do so. Absent that evidence, accusations that Manning is guilty of "treason" (or is a "traitor") are mere fulminations.

[Lord Jim]

This will cheer Jim up!

Ah yes, good old Berkley....

The one place in the country that can make San Francisco look like a bastion of Conservative Propriety....

[Gob]

Okay..
Maybe this will bring a smile to your face...

Activist US filmmaker Michael Moore says he offered $US20,000 to help WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange post bail in London, and his own website and servers to help WikiLeaks keep disclosing government secrets.

In a statement posted on thedailybeast.com, Moore said a London court was presented with "a document from me stating that I have put up 20,000 dollars ($A20,000) of my own money to help bail Mr Assange out of jail" during Assange's bail hearing on Tuesday.

Accused of sex crimes in Sweden, the 39-year-old Australian-born Assange won bail from a London court but must remain in jail after Swedish prosecutors appealed the decision.

Moore, whose anti-establishment documentaries have also irked US government and corporate leaders, questioned the charges brought against Assange.

"All I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the 'official story,'" he said, adding that guilty or innocent, Assange has the right to defend himself.

Moore also offered "the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mov ... 18xql.html

BTW Jim;

Ah yes, good old Berkley....

In the UK, there is an expression "a burk" or "a berk", when referring to a stupid or ignorant fellow. It's cockney rhyming slang A "Berkley hunt" =.....

[loCAtek]

Never did disagree with the UCMJ

"constitutional elements of treason" not relevant. ... or else he'd never have enlisted.

[Andrew D]

"constitutional elements of treason" not relevant.

That is either a joke or the single stupidest thing about U.S. law that anyone has ever posted here.

Does this:

This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ....

ring any bells at all? (Hint: U.S. Const., Art. VI.)

Everything about U.S. law -- civilian, military, whatever -- is subordinate to the Constitution. (That's what "supreme" means.)

[Sean]

Everything about U.S. law -- civilian, military, whatever -- is subordinate to the Constitution. (That's what "supreme" means.)

Yes but that only applies to the real world Andrew...

[Lord Jim]

Okay..
Maybe this will bring a smile to your face...

I'll tell you what put a smile on my face...

Yesterday I read a quote from scum boy's lawyer that described him as "self deprecating"...



But what will really put a smile on my face is when Asswipeange is finally turning big rocks into little rocks at Leavenworth....

[Big RR]

Has the US even begun to start extradition proceedings?

[Crackpot]

No, but I hear they're preparing to begin to start them.

[Sue U]

But first they have to get ready.

[Big RR]

Maybe they're forming an exploratory committee to examine the getting ready options, followed by a blue ribbon panel to select the best three for study? Hell, they're giving more consideration to this than the government ever gave to commencing actions against Iraq to rid the world of those dangerous WMDs.

And in the meantime, literally millions are dying because of these treasonous disclosures.

[Lord Jim]

This is a complex case with many moving parts and a number of players that also requires international co-ordination with several other governments, (and of course there are also the charges he faces in Sweden)

Pulling something together like this successfully obviously requires some care and time...

You would think a couple of lawyers would realize these things....

Lawyers that weren't being guided by their ideological biases, anyway....

[Big RR]

Formally requesting extradition doesn't require all that much "care and time"; if it's rejected, then the next step might require some thought. My guess is we won't see anything, precisely because it's difficult to make a case against him and the government knows it. Of course, if he could be classified as an enemy combatant and tried in secret by a tribunal without most of the rights we ordinarily give to those being tried in our courts, I'd bet the government would jump at the chance to have him secretly convicted; likewise if they could ship (I don't know what the verb equivalent to rendition is) him to some country to be tortured. But in a public courtroom? don't count on anything.

[Sue U]

This is a complex case with many moving parts and a number of players that also requires international co-ordination with several other governments, (and of course there are also the charges he faces in Sweden)

Pulling something together like this successfully obviously requires some care and time...

You would think a couple of lawyers would realize these things....

Lawyers that weren't being guided by their ideological biases, anyway....

If there were a viable U.S. case against Assange, the government would have been preparing it since the Afghanistan leaks back in June/July. (Manning has been in custody since late May.) You think five or six months isn't enough time to figure out what statutes might apply? If an indictment had been (or is to be) obtained, extradition requests should be made immediately. From the U.S. Attorneys manual:

Some courts have held that the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment or the Speedy Trial Act require the government to make a diligent good-faith effort to bring the defendant to trial promptly; in the context of extradition, this means that the government is obligated to seek the extradition of a fugitive as soon as his or her location becomes known unless the effort would be useless. E.g. United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019 (1989); United States v. Pomeroy, 822 F.2d 718 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walton, 814 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 1987). Consequently, the prosecutor should contact the Office of International Affairs as soon as the whereabouts of a fugitive or the target of an investigation is known. See also USAM 9-15.225.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m00602.htm

[Lord Jim]

I don't see why any of that would apply until he's been indicted.

So long as the dirt bag is in custody somewhere, I see no reason for why we need to proceed with indictment and extradition until all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted.

[Gob]

Shoot the messenger indeed.

[dales]

But what will really put a smile on my face is when Asswipeange is finally turning big rocks into little rocks at Leavenworth....

Jim....

Agreed.

Super Max in Colorado next to the uni-bomber and other miscreants would be my choice.

[Sean]

I'm interested to know what the charge on the extradition request will be. I read somewhere recently ( I'll look it up when I have more time) that espionage is not covered by the extradition treaty between the UK and the US.

[Lord Jim]

I'm interested to know what the charge on the extradition request will be. I read somewhere recently ( I'll look it up when I have more time) that espionage is not covered by the extradition treaty between the UK and the US.

On it's face that would seem to make zero sense....

That would mean hypothetically, that if KGB Col. Kenneth Philby had been vacationing in the US when the Brits found out what he was up to, we would have refused to hold him and extradite him back to the UK.