http://evildevil.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
evildevil.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-12-04 04:24 pm
evildevil.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-12-04 04:24 pm
Entry tags:
The US Government Vs Wikileaks
Over the days there has been a lot of outcry against Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Many are calling him a traitor that should be prosecuted or executed. The problem with this issue is that Julian Assange cannot be considered a traitor if he is not an US citizen. That would be like North Korea calling President Obama a traitor for releasing nude pictures of Kim Jon Il on the internet (great, now I am going to have nightmares).
The problem is that there are issues regarding the prosecution of Julian Assange for his actions and he is outside the reach of US law. Even if we wanted him dead (and I do not support this idea) it would only result in an International backlash. After all who wants to read "US Government Authorizes Assassination of Foreign Citizen on Foreign Soil" on the headlines? (Besides the fact that it will probably violate international treaties, lets face it, he will become a martyr) Not to mention the last thing President Obama wants is to be tied to an Assassination Squad (probably inherited it from Dick Cheney) that can kill anyone who disrespects him; the last thing he needs is to add more fuel to the fire of conspiracy theories against him. Of course, I am taking these cries of Julian Assange's assassination as more bark than bite.
Joe Lieberman is attempting to introduce a new legislation to be used against Wikileaks, the problem with this move is that it wont punish Wikileaks' past crimes, to do so would be unconstitutional. New laws cant penalize past criminal conducts, the Constitution clearly bans ex post facto laws. This move is either a political attempt to look good (after looking at his poll numbers this shouldnt be a surprise) or an attempt to prevent future "cyber crimes" against individuals who release sensitive information that is harming to the safety of the public (must be nice for Scooter Libby and company to live in the land of hypocrisy, where the real criminals are anyone but the government).
Even if this law were to pass, I just dont see how can they stop Wikileaks:
It is not clear whether WikiLeaks — a confederation of open-government advocates who solicit secret documents for publication — could be subject to a federal subpoena. Federal courts most likely do not have jurisdiction over it or a means to serve it with such a subpoena.
But leaving that issue aside, what is there to stop the government from prosecuting the New York Times or any media organization that "conspired" to release the leaked documents? After all, they also helped Wikileaks in spreading the information to the masses, making them no less different than Wikileaks on their part. And what about bloggers and online media outlets or social networks like facebook? Would they also be prosecuted for spreading the information? Will the government shut down the internet just so they can stop the spread of electronic information? It soon becomes an issue of Freedom of Speech.
The only law that the US can use against Julian Assange is the World War I-era spy law, the Espionage Act of 1917, and this is a law that was created before the internet and the electronic age. The law has several holes that would make it difficult to successfully use against Julian Assange. The Espionage Act of 1917 would successfully prosecute Bradley Manning, the 22 year old private in the US army. Since the law makes it clear regarding the issue of those responsible for providing leaked information. But it becomes murky on Assange's case. It will be the burden of the government to prove that Assange encouraged and conspired with Bradley Manning to produce and pass the documents to Wikileaks.
The fact that the government is more concerned with prosecuting whistle-blowers releasing their dirty secrets for the world to see over the issue that the government has no problem in violating our civil liberties to learn our own private secrets in the name of National Security says a lot about their view of the world and their priorities.
To Tell the Truth
Guest commentary: WikiLeaks Founder Lurks Beyond Reach of U.S. Law
World Debates Ethics, Legality of Latest WikiLeaks Release
Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation
Just who would the Media Shield amendment shield?
After Afghan War Leaks, Revisions in a Shield Bill
NSA enjoys eavesdropping on US soldiers' phone sex calls
Internet 'Kill Switch' Approved By Senate Homeland Security Committee
Scooter Libby hired by WikiLeaks (Joke)
The problem is that there are issues regarding the prosecution of Julian Assange for his actions and he is outside the reach of US law. Even if we wanted him dead (and I do not support this idea) it would only result in an International backlash. After all who wants to read "US Government Authorizes Assassination of Foreign Citizen on Foreign Soil" on the headlines? (Besides the fact that it will probably violate international treaties, lets face it, he will become a martyr) Not to mention the last thing President Obama wants is to be tied to an Assassination Squad (probably inherited it from Dick Cheney) that can kill anyone who disrespects him; the last thing he needs is to add more fuel to the fire of conspiracy theories against him. Of course, I am taking these cries of Julian Assange's assassination as more bark than bite.
Joe Lieberman is attempting to introduce a new legislation to be used against Wikileaks, the problem with this move is that it wont punish Wikileaks' past crimes, to do so would be unconstitutional. New laws cant penalize past criminal conducts, the Constitution clearly bans ex post facto laws. This move is either a political attempt to look good (after looking at his poll numbers this shouldnt be a surprise) or an attempt to prevent future "cyber crimes" against individuals who release sensitive information that is harming to the safety of the public (must be nice for Scooter Libby and company to live in the land of hypocrisy, where the real criminals are anyone but the government).
Even if this law were to pass, I just dont see how can they stop Wikileaks:
It is not clear whether WikiLeaks — a confederation of open-government advocates who solicit secret documents for publication — could be subject to a federal subpoena. Federal courts most likely do not have jurisdiction over it or a means to serve it with such a subpoena.
But leaving that issue aside, what is there to stop the government from prosecuting the New York Times or any media organization that "conspired" to release the leaked documents? After all, they also helped Wikileaks in spreading the information to the masses, making them no less different than Wikileaks on their part. And what about bloggers and online media outlets or social networks like facebook? Would they also be prosecuted for spreading the information? Will the government shut down the internet just so they can stop the spread of electronic information? It soon becomes an issue of Freedom of Speech.
The only law that the US can use against Julian Assange is the World War I-era spy law, the Espionage Act of 1917, and this is a law that was created before the internet and the electronic age. The law has several holes that would make it difficult to successfully use against Julian Assange. The Espionage Act of 1917 would successfully prosecute Bradley Manning, the 22 year old private in the US army. Since the law makes it clear regarding the issue of those responsible for providing leaked information. But it becomes murky on Assange's case. It will be the burden of the government to prove that Assange encouraged and conspired with Bradley Manning to produce and pass the documents to Wikileaks.
The fact that the government is more concerned with prosecuting whistle-blowers releasing their dirty secrets for the world to see over the issue that the government has no problem in violating our civil liberties to learn our own private secrets in the name of National Security says a lot about their view of the world and their priorities.
To Tell the Truth
Guest commentary: WikiLeaks Founder Lurks Beyond Reach of U.S. Law
World Debates Ethics, Legality of Latest WikiLeaks Release
Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation
Just who would the Media Shield amendment shield?
After Afghan War Leaks, Revisions in a Shield Bill
NSA enjoys eavesdropping on US soldiers' phone sex calls
Internet 'Kill Switch' Approved By Senate Homeland Security Committee
Scooter Libby hired by WikiLeaks (Joke)
Re: Free Press?
What stolen documents?
You must mean the documents copied illegally by Private Manning, which were then legally copied and legally published by Wikileaks.
I note at this point that, as per our previous conversation, you have not yet identified any laws which make wikileaks copying or publishing these documents illegal.
Re: Free Press?
The U.S. Attorney General has plenty of resources
We both know you have no idea what law might make this a crime, you have simply asserted that such a law surely MUST exist, somewhere, because you're sure that there must be ~something~.
No physical documents were stolen. Certainly no physical documents were received by wikileaks.
That means the only breach of law - "theft" or "stealing" - that could possibly be defined would be in the copying (and/or publishing). The copying occured outside U.S. jurisdiction. The information copied has no special legal standing or recognition except under U.S. law.
No-one in the rest of the war gives a legal hoot if the U.S. thinks the "stolen documents" are the distilled genius of a thousand savants.
It has no protection in international or the relevant national laws, the same way as documents illegally copied in the UK (or Russia, Iran, or Pakistan etc) taken from the UK government (or those other respective government) by the CIA has no special legal standing or protection in the United States, or indeed anywhere outside of the UK (or whereever).
After 8 days so far of frantic scrambling (just on this particular leak!), no-one, not the U.S. Attorney General, not Hillary Clinton, no-one, has identified any statue, law or treaty, that makes Wikileaks receiving copies of the documents and publishing it a crime that could be prosecuted or for which an extradition request could be made on. Nor did they months ago when Wikileaks leaked other classified U.S. material they received.
The U.S. government, Clinton, the U.S. Attorney General, everyone, is livid and absolutely desperate to be seen to be shutting wikileaks and Assange down, yet are restricted to make vague posturing gestures about how they are "gonna get him".
They are instituting new laws to cover up the "legal gaps", which is unfortunately not going to doing anything about the fact that U.S. laws and concepts of the ownership of copied data, have no jurisdiction in the rest of the world, simply because the U.S. government wishes it were so.
Why do you think that is?
Is it because with all their thousands of legal experts, vast resources and days, weeks or months spent, they have finally managed to find something on which to get Assange and wikileaks? To demonstrate that the data they copied, was copied illegally under some international law or local law which they were subject to when they copied it?
Are they even now, holding back some secret legal weapon they can deploy perhaps?
Or do they have nothing?
You tell me? Perhaps we can come to a consensus after all.