The Arrest Of Mr. Julian Assange

[BigBallinStalin]

Ask any mainstream media company for them.

Or decrypt the insurance file.

[MeDeFe]

In response to the question about which part of U.S. code regarding sedition Assange may have violated...

Here are the Anti-Subversion laws as they're written in the United States Code. I'm curious which you think Assange has violated?

Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Way to go! Yay for selective reading!

First they'll have to dig up a co-conspirator or two. OK, trumped up charges against a couple more people shouldn't be hard to facilitate. Secondly, it'll have to be shown that Assange and his co-conspirators committed the heinous crime of planning to release to the public material which for the most part should never have been classified in the first place "in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
Otherwise you could have pressed charges against more or less the entire population of the USSR with that law.

As for the part you put in bold... if you are correct in your interpretation of the law, no news outlet should ever be able of publishing classified material, no matter what kind of wrongdoing by officials it might reveal. You should only be allowed to hear and read what state officials deem appropriate. My opinion is that, if that really is your interpretation, you should try living in Iran or China.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's one of the interviews I've found in which I take issue with some of Assange's phraseology in a defense involving freedom of the press. http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2 ... assange/3/ Saying things involving the hope of Wikileaks to "take down" organizations and classifying the U.S. government as a "victim" of their posts, doesn't exactly vibe with my understanding of objective journalism.

In response to the question about which part of U.S. code regarding sedition Assange may have violated...

Here are the Anti-Subversion laws as they're written in the United States Code. I'm curious which you think Assange has violated?

Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I think they're in for a two-fer of seditious conspiracy. I do believe they are willfully hoping to disrupt the execution of the law of the United States by undermining its ability to operate properly. Further, I believe that in providing would-be hackers and information thieves with a conduit for their stolen information and trying to justify the stealing of said information as somehow appropriate or even magnanimous, they are colluding with those people in seizing the rightful property of the United States. While it may be argued that qualifying intelligence information as 'property' is a bit of a stretch, I don't believe it is any more so than the implied stretch in trying to qualify this as 'freedom of the press'.

Why is that such a bad thing? The same thing was done in the Vietnam war as far as an individual leaking info about the Gulf of Tonkin being a false flag op? Why do you want to be left in the dark? Why do you want to be lied to? What's the point? Don't we have the right to know the truth?

'Truth' can be a tricky nut to crack, and I have very serious issues with their representation of the 'truth'. The wholesale publishing of information seems to lack a complete understanding of the importance of editorial control in publishing 'truth'. The fact that no context is given for the information, is particularly troubling. For example, if I show you someone's twitter feed in which they threaten to blow up an airport, you might have a very different understanding of that information if you don't understand the context in which it is explained that he is planning a vacation and is annoyed that the airport is closed. A quote from journalists without borders about wikileaks 'journalism' seems to sum it up well: "indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that WikiLeaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing."

Isn't context derived from the history surrounding the situation of any particular cable? In your example with the guy blowing up the airport, there's nothing in the general knowledge realm that is really well documented about what was going on around him and his scenario. Regarding cables about South Korea, North Korea, the US, and China, people can understand the context of those cables because the history is generally well-known and well-documented.

Speaking of context, is that Journalists without Borders quote directed at Assange? And why does it matter whether or not the people who work for Wikileaks are journalists or not? He left that job of editing and publishing those cables to major media companies...

Lastly, at some point I feel that many of the people that are defending this guy are the same people who believe there should be some implied right to privacy for the citizenry. The wholesale publishing of random information seems to violate that to me. W Don't diplomats and military personnel have some right to privacy with their work emails? I certainly would feel that my right to privacy had been impinged on if all of my work emails were published for the world to peruse. While the defense can be made that most of the publication has reflected the work information of those involved in government service, and therefore there is no implied right to privacy, I'm somewhat inclined to disagree.

Sure, it's a violation of privacy, but so is recording conversations about someone plotting to kill someone... it depends on the justifications for violating one's privacy.

Besides, the need for transparency in some cases can also be used to justify publishing "private" information for society's general well-being.

I further believe that the methodology of Wikileaks presents a very real threat to the right to privacy. According to the interview I've posted, the next 'target' of Wikileaks will be a U.S. bank. Do you believe their lack of editorial process will have the oversight to not publish personal information about the banking records of regular U.S. citizens? Do you think its appropriate to publish the mortgage payment history of a fifth of the population? I guess I'd like to believe that my government would try to intervene.

The editorial process like I mentioned earlier is left for each media company to decide--not wikileaks, so there isn't a lack of an editorial process.

The latter part of that paragraph is misleading. You could say the same of the US Census--about how it publishes private information, and that's bad. Yet you're just ignoring how such information remains anonymous (the same could be done for that alleged banking information release).

Finally, the definition of Freedom of the Press, highlights the ability of the government to classify information as secret or sensitive, and therefore not appropriate for use in public discourse. Wikileaks has clearly violated these terms so I see no defense based on Freedom of the Press unless there is disagreement with the stated definition.

Sorry, that got long. I will summarize... O'doyle rules. Assange sucks.

Not all the information leaked was labeled as secret, and "sensitive" as I think you implied is subjectively defined (to fit one's agenda).


What Wikileaks has done is highly entertaining and is very beneficial to the academic community on understanding international relations from the US perspective. Granted, some people were embarrassed, and that the US government will suffer diplomatically since other diplomats will probably be less likely to be more open,---given all that--- it only shows how the US government should be less antagonistic and work more towards more beneficial and inclusive goals for the international community; otherwise, there's consequences for being a dickhead.

In other words, don't be a bully like O'Doyle because such continued policies will lead to one's eventual downfall.

[saxitoxin]

Here's one of the interviews I've found in which I take issue with some of Assange's phraseology in a defense involving freedom of the press. http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2 ... assange/3/ Saying things involving the hope of Wikileaks to "take down" organizations and classifying the U.S. government as a "victim" of their posts, doesn't exactly vibe with my understanding of objective journalism.

In response to the question about which part of U.S. code regarding sedition Assange may have violated...

Here are the Anti-Subversion laws as they're written in the United States Code. I'm curious which you think Assange has violated?

Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I think they're in for a two-fer of seditious conspiracy. I do believe they are willfully hoping to disrupt the execution of the law of the United States by undermining its ability to operate properly. Further, I believe that in providing would-be hackers and information thieves with a conduit for their stolen information and trying to justify the stealing of said information as somehow appropriate or even magnanimous, they are colluding with those people in seizing the rightful property of the United States. While it may be argued that qualifying intelligence information as 'property' is a bit of a stretch, I don't believe it is any more so than the implied stretch in trying to qualify this as 'freedom of the press'.

It seems there are 3 things that need to proved for your charge of Seditious Conspiracy to stick:

(1) there are two or more of them acting in concert -- seems likely since WL is a multi-membership organization
(2) they discussed their plans while being physically present in a U.S. state or territory, US military installation, DC, occupied territory or a possession -- my understanding is that Assange hasn't been to the U.S. in more than 2 years
(3) they encouraged others to traffic in stolen USG property -- I suppose we can split hairs on this one.

[jcalebmoore]

In response to the question about which part of U.S. code regarding sedition Assange may have violated...

Here are the Anti-Subversion laws as they're written in the United States Code. I'm curious which you think Assange has violated?

Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Way to go! Yay for selective reading!

First they'll have to dig up a co-conspirator or two. OK, trumped up charges against a couple more people shouldn't be hard to facilitate. Secondly, it'll have to be shown that Assange and his co-conspirators committed the heinous crime of releasing to the public material which for the most part should never have been classified in the first place "in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
Otherwise you could have pressed charges against more or less the entire population of the USSR with that law.

As for the part you put in bold... if you are correct in your interpretation of the law, no news outlet should ever be able of publishing classified material, no matter what kind of wrongdoing by officials it might reveal. You should only be allowed to hear and read what state officials deem appropriate. My opinion is that, if that really is your interpretation, you should try living in Iran or China.

Way to go! Yay for being patronizing and rude in spite of lack of comprehension!

The co-conspirator, as clearly elucidated in my post, would be the person providing the leak. Not much of a stretch there since the enlisted man in question is already facing a court-martial. Further if you read the NY Times explanation of why they thought they could publish classify information, they explain that because it had already become a part of public domain, they felt that publishing portions of the leaks was appropriate. Again, this was after editorial oversight.

Maybe I should move to China or Iran though, I thought that was the place where you got ripped for having a dissident opinion. Maybe its filled with respectful moderators that don't take away forums for ripping people only so they can do it themselves. I've got a few choice words I'd have loved to share with you in Flamewars. Too bad the facists here took that away.

[MeDeFe]

The co-conspirator, as clearly elucidated in my post, would be the person providing the leak. Not much of a stretch there since the enlisted man in question is already facing a court-martial. Further if you read the NY Times explanation of why they thought they could publish classify information, they explain that because it had already become a part of public domain, they felt that publishing portions of the leaks was appropriate. Again, this was after editorial oversight.

Maybe I should move to China or Iran though, I thought that was the place where you got ripped for having a dissident opinion. Maybe its filled with respectful moderators that don't take away forums for ripping people only so they can do it themselves. I've got a few choice words I'd have loved to share with you in Flamewars. Too bad the facists here took that away.

So Julian Assange and Bradley Manning conspired together, in territory under US jurisdiction, to "by force seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof"?

[CreepersWiener]

Finally, the definition of Freedom of the Press, highlights the ability of the government to classify information as secret or sensitive, and therefore not appropriate for use in public discourse.

Then why blame Assange? You should be PISSED at the United States Government and the Military Leadership that allowed 400,000 Classified documents to hot foot it out of the Pentagon. Why don't you see reprimand against the Military higher ups that allowed this to happen? Why are we scapegoating the whole incident on Wikileaks? There isn't one thing that the United States government declared untrue or falsified by WikiLeaks. The information is news worthy, Wikileaks is just reporting it.

My truthful opinion is that the CIA wanted these documents leaked and is using Assange as the messenger.

[jcalebmoore]

The co-conspirator, as clearly elucidated in my post, would be the person providing the leak. Not much of a stretch there since the enlisted man in question is already facing a court-martial. Further if you read the NY Times explanation of why they thought they could publish classify information, they explain that because it had already become a part of public domain, they felt that publishing portions of the leaks was appropriate. Again, this was after editorial oversight.

Maybe I should move to China or Iran though, I thought that was the place where you got ripped for having a dissident opinion. Maybe its filled with respectful moderators that don't take away forums for ripping people only so they can do it themselves. I've got a few choice words I'd have loved to share with you in Flamewars. Too bad the facists here took that away.

So Julian Assange and Bradley Manning conspired together, in territory under US jurisdiction, to "by force seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof"?

Sticking wih condescending huh? Cute.

I'm pretty sure I understood the concepts involved, and I guess at the end of the day, the legal semantics are going to have to be sorted out by Eric Holder, but I certainly don't think it's ridicuolous to think that based on my understanding of the facts regarding the actions of Wikileaks, and the pertinent laws, that there might be a legal case. My understanding is that the AG's office is already proceeding to complile a case against Mr. Assange, and I'd bet it's not for sexual misconduct. Would it be a ridiculous stretch to think that Manning's desire for a forum for his stolen information and Wikileaks provision of said forum makes them complicit and therefore in some way conspirators? I don't think so. Is it a ridiculous assertion that the act occurred in territory under U.S. jurisdiction? Given that by definition the embassies of the U.S. on foreign soil are considered U.S. soil under law, and that the initial theft of this information occurred at an embassy. I think that seems reasonable. Is it unreasonable to believe that previous case law in the information age could give us a definition of information being "seized by force" if the information is protected in a relatively secure manner and is taken without permission, instead of it having to literally be pulled from someone's tightly clenched fist? I'm pretty sure that definition exists. Is it super douchey to pretend that I am a moron that can somehow either not read, or not comprehend big words like "force" because I voiced an opinion based on these assumptions? Absolutely.

Listen, if you just wanted to have an intellectual groupthink circle jerk, someone should have named the thread something more appropriate. But acting as if I'm too unenlightened to even be involved in a debate because I've posited a different viewpoint is pretty pathetic. I'm perfectly happy to let you get back to complimenting each other on how erudite and edgy your same opinions are. I was just looking for something to read while I was waiting for a game to start, and thought maybe I had something to contribute.

[jcalebmoore]

Finally, the definition of Freedom of the Press, highlights the ability of the government to classify information as secret or sensitive, and therefore not appropriate for use in public discourse.

Then why blame Assange? You should be PISSED at the United States Government and the Military Leadership that allowed 400,000 Classified documents to hot foot it out of the Pentagon. Why don't you see reprimand against the Military higher ups that allowed this to happen? Why are we scapegoating the whole incident on Wikileaks? There isn't one thing that the United States government declared untrue or falsified by WikiLeaks. The information is news worthy, Wikileaks is just reporting it.

My truthful opinion is that the CIA wanted these documents leaked and is using Assange as the messenger.

I am pissed at the leadership and embassies of not doing a better job of protecting that information. However, I don't have the same level of vitriol for them that I do for the people who stole it, nor for the people that irresponsibly published it for public dissection. If some hacker steals my personal information and then gives it to someone else with the intention of broadcasting it to the rest of the world, yeah I'm pissed at myself for not coming up with better means of protecting myself, but my irresponsibility doesn't seem as caustic as the other two parties' willful wrongdoing.

Just because the information is true, that doesn't change the qualification of this from willful negligence to simple reporting.

[jcalebmoore]

Here's the link regarding the NY Times decisions to publish information from Wikileaks for the record: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world ... aks&st=cse This is how respectable and professional news organizations decide what information to publish, and in what way it should be done. This is a markedly different way of dealing with information than Wikileaks. I do think there are standards that have to be applied to Freedom of the Press that weren't followed thus making this a much more sinister thing than the 'reporting' many of you are trying to label it.

I'll leave it alone now. Just felt I should reply to those who were responding respectfully to my opinions.

[Pedronicus]

The lack of input in this thread by the regular right wing fucktards on this forum is refreshing. Where are you fucking idiots? Come on - Get in here and start spouting your regular shit about how this is endangering the lives of brave soldiers etc etc. etc.

[saxitoxin]

The lack of input in this thread by the regular right wing fucktards on this forum is refreshing. Where are you fucking idiots? Come on - Get in here and start spouting your regular shit about how this is endangering the lives of brave soldiers etc etc. etc.

I think the bulk of the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party - which, I believe, is the only one represented on Conquer Club - has come out in support of WikiLeaks. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Connie Mack have all made fairly strong statements in support of Assange. I recall hearing on the radio the other day whashisname from California doing the same but his name escapes me at the moment.

In fact, it seems the congressional split in support vs. opposition for WikiLeaks isn't by party but by seniority. The Democrat and Republican leadership are doing the blustering anti-WikiLeaks chest-thumping while the Democrat and Republican equivalent of backbenchers (on the Democrat side including Kucinich, McDermott, et. al.) have been outspoken in their support - or at least absence of opposition - of WL.

at the end of the day, the legal semantics are going to have to be sorted out by Eric Holder

Not a jury?

[jcalebmoore]

at the end of the day, the legal semantics are going to have to be sorted out by Eric Holder

Not a jury?

On wether or not the case is worthy of trying under the parameters of sedition...? No. The Attorney General is responsible for that decision.

[saxitoxin]

at the end of the day, the legal semantics are going to have to be sorted out by Eric Holder

Not a jury?

On wether or not the case is worthy of trying under the parameters of sedition...? No. The Attorney General is responsible for that decision.

Not a Grand Jury?

If it's up to Obama's hatchetman Eric Holder there's no motivation not to try the case. He might as well just throw whatever he's got against the wall to see if it sticks. Worst case scenario he'll bankrupt Assange through legal fees.

Hopefully Obama doesn't assume emergency powers to suspend the ancient and lawful Grand Jury process. But I wouldn't hold my breath based on his recent behaviour vis a vis WikiLeaks. After all, isn't the fact the Grand Juries haven't yet been abolished in the U.S. what's supposed to make its legal system superior to the other common law nations like Britain, Canada, et. al.?

[jcalebmoore]

at the end of the day, the legal semantics are going to have to be sorted out by Eric Holder

Not a jury?

On wether or not the case is worthy of trying under the parameters of sedition...? No. The Attorney General is responsible for that decision.

Not a Grand Jury?

Unless something has changed drastically, I believe it is within the purview of the AG to decide whether or not there is a case to be made that is worth charging anyone from Wikileaks for. Certainly the conviction based on these charges would be left to another body, but the conversation has been regarding whether or not he could be tried for sedition.

[saxitoxin]

at the end of the day, the legal semantics are going to have to be sorted out by Eric Holder

Not a jury?

On wether or not the case is worthy of trying under the parameters of sedition...? No. The Attorney General is responsible for that decision.

Not a Grand Jury?

Unless something has changed drastically, I believe it is within the purview of the AG to decide whether or not there is a case to be made that is worth charging anyone from Wikileaks for. Certainly the conviction based on these charges would be left to another body, but the conversation has been regarding whether or not he could be tried for sedition.

Maybe Obama has already suspended the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution. I can't keep track of all the dictatorial powers The Great Slug has assumed as of late.

Article Five of the Bill of Rights

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[jcalebmoore]

The attorney general decides whether or not to prosecute before the Supreme Court. If the Attorney General doesn't prosecute the Supreme Court has nothing to hear. I can give you a link to the Judiciary Act of 1789 if you'd like, but basically the AG represents the U.S. before the Court. If the U.S. isn't represented, there isn't a case.

[saxitoxin]

The attorney general decides whether or not to prosecute before the Supreme Court. If the Attorney General doesn't prosecute the Supreme Court has nothing to hear. I can give you a link to the Judiciary Act of 1789 if you'd like, but basically the AG represents the U.S. before the Court. If the U.S. isn't represented, there isn't a case.

Well, not to split hairs but it's the Solicitor-General who decides whether to bring a case before the Supreme Court, not the Attorney-General.

However, I'm not sure where the Supreme Court got involved in this discussion. It's not a trial court.

[jcalebmoore]

The attorney general decides whether or not to prosecute before the Supreme Court. If the Attorney General doesn't prosecute the Supreme Court has nothing to hear. I can give you a link to the Judiciary Act of 1789 if you'd like, but basically the AG represents the U.S. before the Court. If the U.S. isn't represented, there isn't a case.

Well, not to split hairs but it's the Solicitor-General who decides whether to bring a case before the Supreme Court, not the Attorney-General.

However, I'm not sure where the Supreme Court got involved in this discussion. It's not a trial court.

This really has gotten semantic...

Technically you're right. The Solicitor General does bring cases to the court. However, he ulitmately is the fourth ranking officer within the Department of Justice and therefore is subject to the Attorney General. The general point I was making was that the ultimately the Department of Justice directed by Holder (but to be completely exhaustive, under direction of the office of President) will determine what if anything Assange will be tried with. I was basically just referencing the fact that there has already been some debate about whether this constitutes sedition, espionage, an act of war or what, and was saying that decision would ultimately be left to the DOJ.

http://newsone.com/nation/washington-wa ... stigation/
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/wikilea ... son/87163/

Here's a link defining the role of Solicitor General within the government:

http://www.answers.com/topic/solicitor-general

I'm not exactly sure what type of body would see the case, and again, that would depend on what he is charged with. In an extreme circumstance he could possibly be brought before a tribunal. I personally think that would be crazy, but it certainly doesn't seem impossible.

[saxitoxin]

The attorney general decides whether or not to prosecute before the Supreme Court. If the Attorney General doesn't prosecute the Supreme Court has nothing to hear. I can give you a link to the Judiciary Act of 1789 if you'd like, but basically the AG represents the U.S. before the Court. If the U.S. isn't represented, there isn't a case.

Well, not to split hairs but it's the Solicitor-General who decides whether to bring a case before the Supreme Court, not the Attorney-General.

However, I'm not sure where the Supreme Court got involved in this discussion. It's not a trial court.

This really has gotten semantic...

Technically you're right. The Solicitor General does bring cases to the court. However, he ulitmately is the fourth ranking officer within the Department of Justice and therefore is subject to the Attorney General. The general point I was making was that the ultimately the Department of Justice directed by Holder (but to be completely exhaustive, under direction of the office of President) will determine what if anything Assange will be tried with. I was basically just referencing the fact that there has already been some debate about whether this constitutes sedition, espionage, an act of war or what, and was saying that decision would ultimately be left to the DOJ.

http://newsone.com/nation/washington-wa ... stigation/
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/wikilea ... son/87163/

Here's a link defining the role of Solicitor General within the government:

http://www.answers.com/topic/solicitor-general

I'm not exactly sure what type of body would see the case, and again, that would depend on what he is charged with.

Thanks for helping me through this; not being an American myself all of this is new and dazzling to me. At what point does the Grand Jury process get suspended and Minister of Truth Roland Freisler Eric Holder become the living embodiment of the law, able to issue indictments at-will, as you also indicated?


"GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!"

[jcalebmoore]

Thanks for helping me through this; not being an American myself all of this is new and dazzling to me. At what point does the Grand Jury process get suspended and Minister of Truth Roland Freisler Eric Holder become the living embodiment of the law, able to issue indictments at-will, as you also indicated?

The Grand Jury still issues indictments, but before that would ever happen, someone must issue a complaint against the defendant. The DOJ is the issuing body for complaints on behalf of the U.S. government. Here's a copy of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure if you want more details:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/#chapter_iii

Eric Holder cannot convict, or indict, but can simply decide to file a grievance on behalf of the U.S. governemnt. The DOJ simply determines what the government's stance will be in prosecuting a crime. I think the Freisler comparison may be a bit extreme.

I really don't know how this thread got derailed into the minutiae of the U.S. legal system. There were actually some really good points brought up that would be much more interesting in my opinion.

[saxitoxin]

Thanks for helping me through this; not being an American myself all of this is new and dazzling to me. At what point does the Grand Jury process get suspended and Minister of Truth Roland Freisler Eric Holder become the living embodiment of the law, able to issue indictments at-will, as you also indicated?

The Grand Jury still issues indictments, but before that would ever happen, someone must issue a complaint against the defendant. The DOJ is the issuing body for complaints on behalf of the U.S. government. Here's a copy of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure if you want more details:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/#chapter_iii

Eric Holder cannot convict, or indict, but can simply decide to file a grievance on behalf of the U.S. governemnt. The DOJ simply determines what the government's stance will be in prosecuting a crime.

You'll, of course, understand our confusion since you said Eric Holder rules -

On wether or not the case is worthy of trying [sic]

(AKA "indictment")

However, it sounds like you've embarked on a voyage of discovery and learning since then, for which I am pleased.

[jcalebmoore]

Thanks for helping me through this; not being an American myself all of this is new and dazzling to me. At what point does the Grand Jury process get suspended and Minister of Truth Roland Freisler Eric Holder become the living embodiment of the law, able to issue indictments at-will, as you also indicated?

The Grand Jury still issues indictments, but before that would ever happen, someone must issue a complaint against the defendant. The DOJ is the issuing body for complaints on behalf of the U.S. government. Here's a copy of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure if you want more details:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/#chapter_iii

Eric Holder cannot convict, or indict, but can simply decide to file a grievance on behalf of the U.S. governemnt. The DOJ simply determines what the government's stance will be in prosecuting a crime.

You'll, of course, understand our confusion since you said Eric Holder rules -

On wether or not the case is worthy of trying [sic]

(AKA "indictment")

However, it sounds like you've embarked on a voyage of discovery and learning since then, for which I am pleased.

I get it now.

Before he can be 'tried', there must be 'prosecution', so therefore he will still be determining the course of action before a Grand Jury comes into the equation, so technically he determines whether or not he ever could possibly be tried which again speaks to the original statement that he will be the person determining if any possibility of a case moves forward. Again, this was the trivial logic-based semantic nonsense I was trying to get away from. It would be a little silly and trivial to point out that technically, in a physical sense, the secretary that works in the offices of the DOJ really brings cases to the Supreme Court. It was pointless, so I didn't mention it. I sincerely doubt that everyone was so terribly confused about the role of the Attorney General in the legal process. In fact, I'd even posit that you knew exacltly the point I was making, and decided to descend the entire conversation into nonsense. I mistook your questions as sincere, and mistakenly tailored my responses as such. I see however, that all you care about is somehow proving your 'rightness' in this, and again not having a substantive discussion, and that your questions were not meant to gain further understanding of any part of my opinion, but rather to make me look stupid. I am relieved that you did devolve into the douchey condescension which is so often associated with the people who so desperately want to be right, regardless of wether or not they add anything meaningful to a conversation, which none of this ridiculous departure has. Thanks for wasting my time with this charade. I hope it made you feel incredibly smart and able.

"Voyage of discovery and learning"... you crack me up. That has to be at least in the top 10 smarmiest muppet phrases of all time.

[saxitoxin]

Again, this was the trivial logic-based semantic nonsense I was trying to get away from.

Were you?
|
\/

• seems to fall well within the definition of sedition. Here's the definition of sedition:

your questions were not meant to gain further understanding of any part of my opinion, but rather to make me look stupid

If I can read between the lines for a moment, it sounds like you were looking to have a monologue, versus a discussion.

[oVo]

Sex accusers boasted about their 'conquest' of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange