Uber Pig pointed out some troubles head WikiWanker Julian Assange is having with the Swedish authorities and some women over sexual assault and molestation charges. ihe rape charges seem to have gone away, but It would be lovely to see any of that stick to the slimy ***. He may have bigger problems with his main malfunction though. The US government has stated that he has committed a crime and seems to be ratcheting up the rhetoric and hopefully some action will come of this. The increasingly confrontational tone could be part of Pentagon efforts to dissuade WikiLeaks from posting online the yet-to-be-published documents in its possession. "It is the view of the Department of Defense that WikiLeaks obtained this material in circumstances that constitute a violation of United States law, and that as long as WikiLeaks holds this material, the violation of the law is ongoing," Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson wrote in a letter this week to a WikiLeaks lawyer. The letter did not spell out what those circumstances were. I vote for orange jumpsuit, some rendition to find out what else they have and then a long stint at Leavenworth. The question now is what law are they talking about and can they make it stick. Here is some lawerly discussion about that. The most relevant law, the Espionage Act, would seem to cover Assange’s alleged conduct. (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,…(b) receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, . . . knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; Obviously, there is an intent issue here (Did Assange obtain the info for the purpose of or with reason to believe it would be used to injure the U.S.?), but I actually don’t think that would be a problem. Wikileaks’ lawyer seems to think that the real problem is Assange’s nationality and the fact that Wikileaks does not have a presence in the U.S. But this is not a problem at all. The Espionage Act has long been held to apply to foreign nationals who commits acts while abroad (see U.S. v. Zehe, 601 F.Supp. 196 (D. Mass 1985).). The only problem seems to be actually capturing Assange. It is worth noting, of course, that abducting Assange, even in violation of the sovereignty of a country where the U.S. has an extradition treaty, would not prevent a U.S. court from trying him. (See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)). And finally, Wikileaks may or may not have a First Amendment defense, and even if it does, the precedent of NY Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), (the Pentagon Papers case) only seems to prevent prior restraint. Post-publication prosecution is probably OK under the First Amendment. So Wikileaks really does have serious legal exposure, and pretty weak legal defenses. I hope they are getting better U.S. legal advice than the WSJ article describes. And if I were Assange’s lawyer, I would advise him to avoid the U.S., and international waters and airspace, for as long as possible. Well that sounds promising. Even if Assange tries to avoid the US, we can certainly find him and arrange for him to be in international waters. Hey maybe we should get him on a cruise off the coast of Somalia. There seems to be concern from a number of sources that prosecuting the WikiWankers could eventually lead to prosecuting journalists who publish classified info. My comment is let's get cracking then. working for the MY Times does not give you a right to destroy important capabilities we need to keep the country safe. Might be time to remind them of that.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/dfxeF7My95g/wikileaks-the-espionage-act.html
Posted
Aug 23 2010, 01:10 AM
by
BLACKFIVE