Try again please
Even if the government’s perfidy hadn’t been revealed, both men knew the consequences of what was at stake.
I can’t say what I would have done if I was part of the jury, because I’d have stuck to the aforementioned answer and as a result, I’d have gotten struck from it.
How about: Yes, conditionally.
If he will be treated according to the rule of law, be given a fair trial, and not subjected to, how you say, “enhanced interrogation” or “harsh treatment”, and not subject to the death penalty or other cruel and unusual treatment as defined by the country from which he is to be extradited and required by said country’s treaty obligations, then yes.
Otherwise, no.
Personally, I have very little confidence that those entirely reasonable conditions will be met.
previously
How much time do I have to explain the waterboarding part?
I’ve to head to the ‘salt mine’ in a few.
What, you mean it wasn’t a violation of the Espionage Act? On what basis? I described the basis on which it was.
Sure, but that’s not really the issue. My point is that (1) their conduct was, in fact, a violation of the Act on its terms, and (2) it was the government’s misconduct that led to the dismissal of the charges. Neither case got to the jury.
Look, I really have to go. I can spend a little time tonight, but not much. If you refuse to look up the statute yourself, I can probably do it for you then.
It sure looks to me like there are strong analogies between Ellsberg and Manning. Ellsberg sure thinks so. You’re throwing up a lot of extraneous detail, and it’s getting harder and harder for me to think it’s not simply a way of throwing sand in the gears.
All of that is in the letter that was sent to the Ecuadorian government.
They asked the same thing of State.
It’s the British government that’s at issue now, not the Ecuadoran (or Ecuadorian). They have specific obligations, especially regarding the death penalty, when it comes to extradition.
I’m sure the USG claimed that everything would be hunky-dory if Ecuador, or England, would just pretty please hand him over. My point is that our track record of late puts such assurances into question.
Huh? I mentioned that I had a problem with war crimes, coverup of same, etc. You then brought up the Philippine occupation, asking when I wanted to talk about it (paraphrasing here). I said sure, we can talk about that if you want, along with a number of other unsavory operations. If you failed to notice it, that was my snark response to your snark response about the Philippines. I then also pointed out that it was Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam that were directly relevant.
IOW:
War crimes and coverup: Relevant. Both in relation to Vietnam (Ellsberg, Russo) and Iraq/Afghanistan (Manning, Assange).
Philippines: Not really relevant. You brought that up. Only relevance is in the larger context of international/war crimes (which may not have been technically/legally true at the time of the Philippine occupation, but whatevs.)
My examples (Iran, Guatemala): Equally irrelevant. Raised in response to the equally-irrelevant citation of the Philippines.
So really not sure what your “previously” is trying to get at.
previously
How was this a violation of the Espionage Act?
Yes, it is
Strike this part and those two are going to jail. Whether their hearts were in the right place or not, aid to the enemy (even if its something that’s not even close to what Manning did) is a big ole nope.
Not really.
You asked me if I thought either man should be headed to jail. I told you nope and said why later.
You used that as a device to further this notion that password cracking is the same as what DE (I’ve misspelled that man’s last name way too many times), when it’s quite clear that both cases are similar and different.
I can scroll back to what you said earlier.
I still have time on my hands.
Not really.
The password cracking thing seems a thin reed to lean on.
The meat of the issue is the same in both cases: Publication of government secrets.
Ellsberg and Russo used the tech of the time: a photocopier.
Manning and Assange used the tech of the time: a computer.
You seem to be suggesting that if the photocopier had been password-protected, that would have been Totally Different.
I made this point when I suggested the various hypotheticals to you. So let’s narrow this down: If Daniel Ellsberg had had to crack a computer password to gain access to the Pentagon Papers, should he have been convicted?
Yes or no.
Or, if you wish, more detail, if it doesn’t admit of an easy yes or no answer.
???
unless this conversation is about just your views.
Not following your shorthand. Unless waterboarding was used in the Philippine occupation? If so that’s a new detail to me, and I’d have to scroll back to determine its relevance in context.
The big issue, still, is exposure of government secrets, when those secrets are about government malfeasance, be it war crimes, lying, coverups, etc.
Of course it isn’t. And it’s not particularly good faith to insinuate that I think it is.
It’s a hypothetical. One of several. I made that VERY clear. And I spelled out the terms, also very clearly.
k (that’s something that I use a lot of too. I’m not sure as to why though.)
k
Though copiers do have passwords, my answer to this is nope.
It wouldn’t have been ‘totally different’.
do I need to explain why?
Nope.
That’s an assumption and a rather bad one.
are you sure? I mean, do you really, really believe that?
I’m still here…
It was a covered up war crime.
Should any government have any official secrets?
Should they give up the right to protect em?
Nope.
I specifically set it up as a hypothetical. One of several. Right here.
Hypotheticals – at least they were posed to me, and I had 3 years of 'em in law school – are almost by definition counterfactuals. They are phrased as “What if” or “Assume that” or similar language – the exact same language I used. Then the prof sets up some facts that are at variance with the actual case under discussion.
Same here. What if Ellsberg was using the same tech in 1971 that we have now? What if the Pentagon Papers had been on a password-protected computer? What if Ellsberg had a password but wasn’t authorized to access the Papers? What if he was authorized to access, but not to disclose? (This actually was the case as I remember it, although he may not have been authorized to see the whole doc.) What if he wasn’t authorized, and didn’t have a password, but there was a nearby workstation/terminal that was mistakenly left logged in? Etc.
All of these explore different ramifications of the case, and explore where we see the Ellsberg and Manning/Assange cases as similar and different.
So no, it’s neither an assumption in the usual sense (I’m making the assumption explicit, and “what if” language is just as good) and it’s not a bad one either.
So to be clear: there wasn’t an attempt to crack the password, but it was more so, someone not turning off their workstation, yes?
Well, I have more time than I thought.
Please respond to one comment with one comment. It doesn’t really make much sense to break this up into multiple tiny comments.
Yes, I do. It reads like a personal attack and a distraction from the issues at hand. I’ll gladly apologize if I’m wrong. I considered the Philippines irrelevant or, at best, distantly because it was distant in time and part of a much larger picture. You have never directly explained its relevance. I’m having to draw an inference that the waterboarding issue is the connection, but even that was explained after the fact and not by making the connection explicit.
The meat of the issue, as I see it, is still exposure of government malfeasance that the government wants kept secret. That’s the primary connection between Ellsberg and Manning/Assange. As I have pointed out, with multiple direct quotes, Ellsberg agrees. If you think that’s not the issue, it’s long past time for you to say so, and yes, to explain why. Bear in mind that I’m not a mind reader and perhaps not as smart as you think, so I’d appreciate an actual explanation in complete sentences rather than short phrases and the juxtaposition of texts, with merely an invitation to the reader to draw some unstated inferences.