4 ms·

It strikes me that they try to invoke American law when it's convenient to them, and claim they're outside of the scope of American law when it's convenient to

It strikes me that they try to invoke American law when it's convenient to them, and claim they're outside of the scope of American law when it's convenient to them. Positions that normally receive immunity - lawyers, priests, spouses, psychiatrists - lose that immunity if they participate in crimes. If the State Department believes Assange's lawyers are helping disseminate stolen documents, then they absolutely should be watching them. They're encouraging people to break the law to disrupt American foreign policy. Then they say it's inappropriate for the American government to pay attention to them. You can't really have it both ways like that.

cma 16y ago
>It strikes me that they try to invoke American law when it's convenient to them, and claim they're outside of the scope of American law when it's convenient to them. Are you talking about Americans or the lawyers here? (Plus, I believe she mentioned "UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers", not "America's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers".)
joshes 16y ago
Absurd. You have no proof that his lawyers are encouraging anyone to break the law. You're trying to have it both ways by saying "If the State Department believes..." immediately followed by "They are..." They are defending a client, which, if I am not mistaken, is perfectly within their rights and is part of their job description. It is not the role of the American government to spy on innocent lawyers. And if you believe the American government is not bound by their own rules, you are mistaken.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Am I the only one that finds the reaction on this board very strange, almost funny? Ok. So let's review: third-party organization dumps entire trove of state department secret cables, and anybody is surprised that their lawyers are being watched? It's like living in a strange world where all reason is lost. Look guys, even if wikileaks is totally awesomely great, they are also an enemy of the United States. Their mission, according to Assange, is to attack the nodes of government in a way to keep them from communicating with each other. No matter how nice and reasonable those folks are, they are declaring war on my government. I sure hope we (and others) are watching them. So what the heck do you expect? Something like a TV courtroom drama? This is an act of war by a non-state actor (which is about the most interesting part of the whole story, really). Going on about how terrible it is that their lawyers are being watched is like trying to figure out baseball by studying yodeling. You have the wrong model for the thing you are talking about. Your model will never match up with the reality. Wikileaks looks like it has tapped into a deep paranoia and need to create these huge international spy dramas for many people. If you are getting all emotional about things so far because it's not working like you think it should, I imagine it's only going to get worse for you in the days to come. People are wondrous things.
josephcooney 16y ago
I don't see where they try to invoke American law. They did refer to a document from the United Nations that was "Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders" (which they US could have presumably veto-ed if they had wished). How have Wikileaks lawyers encouraged people to break the law?

cma 16y ago

>It strikes me that they try to invoke American law when it's convenient to them, and claim they're outside of the scope of American law when it's convenient to them. Are you talking about Americans or the lawyers here? (Plus, I believe she mentioned "UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers", not "America's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers".)

joshes 16y ago

Absurd. You have no proof that his lawyers are encouraging anyone to break the law. You're trying to have it both ways by saying "If the State Department believes..." immediately followed by "They are..." They are defending a client, which, if I am not mistaken, is perfectly within their rights and is part of their job description. It is not the role of the American government to spy on innocent lawyers. And if you believe the American government is not bound by their own rules, you are mistaken.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Am I the only one that finds the reaction on this board very strange, almost funny? Ok. So let's review: third-party organization dumps entire trove of state department secret cables, and anybody is surprised that their lawyers are being watched? It's like living in a strange world where all reason is lost. Look guys, even if wikileaks is totally awesomely great, they are also an enemy of the United States. Their mission, according to Assange, is to attack the nodes of government in a way to keep them from communicating with each other. No matter how nice and reasonable those folks are, they are declaring war on my government. I sure hope we (and others) are watching them. So what the heck do you expect? Something like a TV courtroom drama? This is an act of war by a non-state actor (which is about the most interesting part of the whole story, really). Going on about how terrible it is that their lawyers are being watched is like trying to figure out baseball by studying yodeling. You have the wrong model for the thing you are talking about. Your model will never match up with the reality. Wikileaks looks like it has tapped into a deep paranoia and need to create these huge international spy dramas for many people. If you are getting all emotional about things so far because it's not working like you think it should, I imagine it's only going to get worse for you in the days to come. People are wondrous things.

josephcooney 16y ago

I don't see where they try to invoke American law. They did refer to a document from the United Nations that was "Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders" (which they US could have presumably veto-ed if they had wished). How have Wikileaks lawyers encouraged people to break the law?