WikiLeaks

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

If he committed a crime, why didn't they detain him for one?

They did detain him, for 3 hours, got whatever information they could and let him go. Maybe they'll get him again later.

+1

Also, there are pesky things like evidence. Had the authorities had evidence of a crime that directly implicated him, perhaps they would have arrested him. Likely they don't have such evidence, so they sought to get whatever information they could out of him. Also, since they're likely to be more interested in Julian Assange than Jacob Appelbaum, maybe they thought it was better to let Jake go. All speculation, of course.

[bascule]

Re: WikiLeaks

They did detain him, for 3 hours, got whatever information they could and let him go. Maybe they'll get him again later.

This still gets back to my original point that he was treated like a criminal even though ostensibly he committed no crime. He was just partially responsible for things our government doesn't like.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

This still gets back to my original point that he was treated like a criminal even though ostensibly he committed no crime. He was just partially responsible for things our government doesn't like.

A crime was committed (unauthorized release of classified documents), and he is a person of interest by willingly associating himself with Wikileaks. Furthermore, the government has greater powers to detain people at the border than they would otherwise in the country: prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection is permitted if there is "reasonable suspicion of a crime". The evidence of a crime already exists, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they believed he might possess information relevant to the crime.

If he thinks otherwise, he is always welcome to file a lawsuit.

[Thorn]

Re: WikiLeaks

This still gets back to my original point that he was treated like a criminal even though ostensibly he committed no crime. He was just partially responsible for things our government doesn't like.

What's the big deal? He was questioned and released. It happens all the time, It's called investigative custody, and has long been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a necessary component of police work. It depends on the particular jurisdiction, but in many places a suspect may be held up to 48 hours before being charged or released. Three hours is barely adequate to fill out all the paperwork, never mind actually questioning a suspect and making a determination if the person is going to be formally charged.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: WikiLeaks

investigative custody, and has long been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a necessary component of police work

heh... so is that what's supposed to be happening on shows like Law and Order when police are talking to a person of interest and say something like "maybe we better sort this out down town" and sort of take him or her by the shoulder, then cut to a scene in an interview room at the precinct?

because it's common in our house to hear me groan something at the TV like "ugh... why the hell are you going with them if you're not under arrest, you dingbat." how many of those dramatized situations involve people actually being in a custodial situation and how many of them are just suspects going along with someone presenting an air of authority when there is actually no legal requirement that they go to the station?

[Thorn]

Re: WikiLeaks

heh... so is that what's supposed to be happening on shows like Law and Order when police are talking to a person of interest and say something like "maybe we better sort this out down town" and sort of take him or her by the shoulder, then cut to a scene in an interview room at the precinct?

because it's common in our house to hear me groan something at the TV like "ugh... why the hell are you going with them if you're not under arrest, you dingbat." how many of those dramatized situations involve people actually being in a custodial situation and how many of them are just suspects going along with someone presenting an air of authority when there is actually no legal requirement that they go to the station?

TV doesn't have a lot of bearing on real life... Even L&O which takes great pains to get things right, can't explain in one hour complex legal concepts that take years for lawyers to be taught in law school.

A large amount of this depends on the specific jurisdiction, the PD's policies, the policies of the SA/DA who prosecute, prior case law within the jurisdiction, and sometimes even the charges, so it's hard to give a definitive answer that covers all circumstances. In general, you are correct. A citizen who is not a suspect is usually under no specific legal requirement to "go downtown" to answer questions. Human nature being what it is, many people do go along anyway -which may be foolish- but most people are amateurs when dealing with the legal system. They may not know their rights, and they may think they are required to do so. The cops are not under any obligation to tell them they don't have to come along unless the cops are specifically asked.

However, most jurisdictions allow the cops to legally take some people into custody and hold them until the cops sort out the situation or some legal requirement is met. This may be because they have "reasonable suspicion" that a crime was committed by a person, but it does not rise to the level of "Probable Cause" which is required for an arrest. Usually the circumstances are such that additional evidence may be required or a search warrant may be needed, or that they need testimony for the persons involved. This custody will allow the cops to do whatever is needed to establish Probable Cause (or not). The courts generally accept that this is reasonable for proper police functions to work within society.

Even if the cops do have PC to make an arrest, they may still only have the person in investigative custody. For example: Here in Vermont, suspects are usually not arrested in the legal sense for many crimes, but they are usually held in custody pending release after identification and issuance of a Citation to Appear. The suspect may be cuffed, printed and have their mugshot taken, but they are only held temporarily. The "arrest" as such does not take place until they appear before a judge at an arraignment and are formally charged with a crime. A lot of jurisdictions have similar legal setups.

Interestingly, too, I've had street lawyers talk themselves into an full-fledged arrest -including a overnight stay in jail- when they have only been in investigative custody and would have been released. Most often this had occurred because the person had an imperfect idea of how the legal system functions, thought they knew the law better than the officers involved, and thought an ultimatum would force their immediate release. It was usually something like "I know my rights, and you have to either arrest me or let me go. Either arrest me right now or I'm leaving right now." They usually found that this fell into the category of being careful what you wish for.

The bottom line is that if you don't absolutely know what your legal standing is in any situation with the cops, then you should ask. You may be told you are free to leave, or are being temporarily held, or are under arrest. If you are either in custody or under arrest, you should probably seek the advice of an criminal attorney who practices in that jurisdiction, and not make any statements until you get that legal advice.

[streaker69]

Re: WikiLeaks

Even if the cops do have PC to make an arrest, they may still only have the person in investigative custody. For example: Here in Vermont, suspects are usually not arrested in the legal sense for many crimes, but they are usually held in custody pending release after identification and issuance of a Citation to Appear. The suspect may be cuffed, printed and have their mugshot taken, but they are only held temporarily. The "arrest" as such does not take place until they appear before a judge at an arraignment and are formally charged with a crime. A lot of jurisdictions have similar legal setups.

I have a problem with this. If you're not under arrest or being charged with anything, I don't think the police should be printing and mugshots until after you've been formally charged.

[Thorn]

Re: WikiLeaks

I have a problem with this. If you're not under arrest or being charged with anything, I don't think the police should be printing and mugshots until after you've been formally charged.

You're entirely welcome to have a problem with it, but it may still be legal for the police to do so, if it's germane to the investigation. For example, if you're prints are needed for a determining if you have left latent prints on a scene, or your photo is needed for a photo lineup. To be sure, warrants may be needed depending on the circumstances, but those things may be done independent of charges.

[Chris]

Re: WikiLeaks

You're entirely welcome to have a problem with it, but it may still be legal for the police to do so

haha. Quote of the day.

ETA: I would have totally bitch slapped a user for posting that no value crap I just did. I love do as I say not as I do.

[bascule]

Re: WikiLeaks

A crime was committed (unauthorized release of classified documents)

You say that, and yet he was not charged with a crime. If what Wikileaks did was truly a crime, apparently this individual is not considered part and parcel with this crime. He was merely treated like a criminal.

Also, you're dealing with an international issue here. Things aren't necessarily as clear cut legally as you would purport them to be.

What's the big deal? He was questioned and released. It happens all the time, It's called investigative custody, and has long been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a necessary component of police work.

My biggest problem is that our government apparently grilled him with questions which would be self-incriminating. There's a philosophical distinction as to whether the protections the Constitution affords should be applied to everyone or just US citizens, but our government was effectively asking him to provide self-incriminating information, he refused, and as a result he was set free.

Were he an American my opposition may be a bit more clear cut, as the information our government was asking him to provide was unconstitutional, but as a foreigner things are a bit more hazy.

--

Also I have a bit of a personal stake here: I love what Wikileaks is doing and I'm glad one of their members was able to visit America and not be charged with a crime.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

You say that, and yet he was not charged with a crime. If what Wikileaks did was truly a crime, apparently this individual is not considered part and parcel with this crime. He was merely treated like a criminal.

One does not have to be charged with a crime to be a part of an investigation into the causes of a larger crime. And failing to charge that person does not invalidate the case. And you suggest that he was treated like a criminal, why? Because he was detained at the border for three hours? That's hardly being treated like a criminal. As I stated before the government has far greater powers to detain at the border than in other places. I would say he was treated like a person of interest in an investigation into a crime that he *may* have been involved with, by his own admission of associating himself with the organization in question.

Were he an American my opposition may be a bit more clear cut, as the information our government was asking him to provide was unconstitutional, but as a foreigner things are a bit more hazy.

Well, feel free then to ramp up your opposition because Jacob Appelbaum is an American citizen by his own declaration. And your statement, "the information our government was asking him to provide was unconstitutional," makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing wrong or "unconstitutional" with law enforcement asking "self-incriminating" questions. The Constitution does not protect you from being asked self-incriminating questions, it protects you (in some circumstances) from having to answer them.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

In regards to Assange, Sweden reopens WikiLeaks founder rape investigation

[Thorn]

Re: WikiLeaks

You say that, and yet he was not charged with a crime. If what Wikileaks did was truly a crime, apparently this individual is not considered part and parcel with this crime. He was merely treated like a criminal.

Also, you're dealing with an international issue here. Things aren't necessarily as clear cut legally as you would purport them to be.

The release of the information to Wikileaks was a crime by the person or persons who had access to it. That is very clear, and PFC Manning has been charged with that crime.

Whether or not it is illegal for Wikileaks to publish the information outside the US is the crux of the issue. It probably is, at least in the narrow legal sense that if the people who do publish the information may be in legal jeopardy if they come into the US, but are probably OK in other countries. You're correct in that international law makes this less than clear cut. I'm not aware of any international legal requirements that secret information from one country be considered illegal to possess in another. If someone hands me a piece for paper and it is a state secret of Russia, for example, I don't know if there is any legal compulsion for me to consider that to be secret here in the US. But I may be in deep shit if I ever go to Russia.

As to this guy being "treated like a criminal", again, "so what?" People are "treated like criminals" in that they are detained and questioned all the time. Many of those people who are found not to be involved in whatever the crime is, are released after questioning. It's part and parcel of the investigative process.

My biggest problem is that our government apparently grilled him with questions which would be self-incriminating. There's a philosophical distinction as to whether the protections the Constitution affords should be applied to everyone or just US citizens, but our government was effectively asking him to provide self-incriminating information, he refused, and as a result he was set free.

Were he an American my opposition may be a bit more clear cut, as the information our government was asking him to provide was unconstitutional, but as a foreigner things are a bit more hazy.

--

Also I have a bit of a personal stake here: I love what Wikileaks is doing and I'm glad one of their members was able to visit America and not be charged with a crime.

I hate to burst you bubble, Bascule, but cops always ask self-incriminating questions. That is the main purpose of an interrogation, as a direct confession is always the most compelling direct evidence to both courts and juries. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution does provide protection, in that persons being questioned are not required to answer self-incriminating questions, but the questions are not in and of themselves, unconstitutional.

[bascule]

Re: WikiLeaks

All right, point taken, and I take back the "unconstitutional" stuff.

[theprez98]

Re: WikiLeaks

An interesting update on the Wikileaks drama, it looks like a lot of the insiders were not very happy with how things went down. Resignations, suspensions, ugly.