![[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)
Free Press?
Date: 4/12/10 23:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/12/10 23:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/12/10 23:46 (UTC)I also do not understand going over wikileaks. They did not steal the documents, so they are not accountable in that way like perhaps Bradley Manning is. They simply obtained them, read them, and then published them - something which the New York Times has also done. Yet I see no backlash against the newspapers. It simply isn't logically to so harshly attack Wikileaks unless you are equally attacking The Guardian, NYT, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 4/12/10 23:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/12/10 23:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/12/10 23:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/12/10 23:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 00:21 (UTC)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303267.html
Note, it is not illegal to release classified documents.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 00:48 (UTC)Yeah, this. I read an opinion piece yesterday by the horrible Michael Reagan shrieking Assange should be charged with treason and then hanged. Two blood vessels in my forehead burst. "He's not American!" I screamed. I screamed it so hard I ruptured a disk in my neck. Now I can't turn my head and my left arm is drawn into a claw.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 00:53 (UTC)Yeah, stupid me. I always thought diplomacy was dignified and reserved... stuffy, even. Now I see it's done at the level of junior high schoolgirls dishing on one another.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:02 (UTC)We need democratic governments answerable to the people that hire them. Secrecy should be the exception, not the rule. That means no classified secrets unless they genuinely warrant being kept secret. This can be determined in a court of law closed to the public.
I kept hearing that these Wikileaks releases could endanger lives of soldiers. Nothing I've read remotely fits that description. At worse i might endanger a marriage and a divorce results. But overall the warnings have sounded like deliberate lies to save their own butts.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:33 (UTC)Assuming that you have not read all of the thousands of messages, I would imagine the ones that might endanger someone have not been published, due at least partly to the better discretion of responsible media.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:39 (UTC)Make that "anti-government".
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:47 (UTC)Bah-humbug. Find some real heroes for once.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 01:53 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 5/12/10 02:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 02:06 (UTC)Re: Free Press?
Date: 5/12/10 02:10 (UTC)Except I can understand why the brick wall never explains itself.
Re: Free Press?
Date: 5/12/10 02:11 (UTC)To answer your question, how does Wikileaks qualify as "the press?" All they're doing is posting stolen documents.
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/10 02:12 (UTC)