![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
evildevil.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOver 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?
Date: 6/12/10 18:04 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 6/12/10 18:06 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 6/12/10 21:38 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 00:54 (UTC)Here, I'll make it easy. Cite the statute and where it applies. What law did they break?
Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 17:50 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 18:06 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 18:07 (UTC)What law did Wikileaks violate? Just name the statute!
Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 18:47 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 19:37 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 20:11 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 21:31 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 22:18 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 20:18 (UTC)Yes, there is a colloquial relationship based on the term "intellectual property", but that relationship is informal, not legally substantive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)
Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 21:31 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 22:09 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 22:14 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 22:17 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 20:51 (UTC)Name the statute. What law did Wikileaks break? And if they broke this imaginary law, did the NYT break it too?
Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 21:31 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 21:54 (UTC)CITE A LAW.
Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 21:57 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 21:59 (UTC)I'd take a look through the rest of the post. At least one other person was making the argument that it was illegal, and he actually did some mucking research, and has come to the conclusion that it is NOT illegal, because there is no law.
Re: Free Press?
Date: 7/12/10 22:00 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
From:Re: Free Press?
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re: Free Press?
Date: 8/12/10 01:31 (UTC)But even if the Justice Department finds him, arrests him and extradites him, its work will be far from over. The U.S. government has never successfully prosecuted a media entity for a leak. It is typically much easier to bring such cases against the government officials who do the leaking, because they sign nondisclosure agreements surrendering many of the legal protections they otherwise would enjoy.
Just recently, the department tried to expand the scope of its leak prosecutions to individuals outside the government, in a test case involving two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel group. I represented one of the lobbyists, who were indicted for leaking information that had been disclosed to them by high-level U.S. officials during discussions about the Middle East. The men were wiretapped for five years. They were investigated for another year. They were then indicted and spent the next three years skirmishing with the prosecution. And then, on the eve of the trial, the Justice Department dropped the charges.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/12/prosecuting_wikileaks_good_luc.html
Re: Free Press?
Date: 8/12/10 01:34 (UTC)"It does not matter if the person that provided the information to wikileaks"
ah, key phrases.