Though it is still relatively early in the joint investigation between the FBI and the Army officials are saying they hope to build a case to prosecute international whistleblower organization WikiLeaks in effect for being an international whistleblower organization.
Officials say it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to bring charges, but that WikiLeaks in general and founder Julian Assange in particular could be charged with “encouraging theft of government property” for soliciting and then releasing classified data.
In 1971 the US Supreme Court ruled that media outlets are allowed to release classified data under the First Amendment to the Constitution. A case against WikiLeaks would therefore seem to be an uphill battle, though it appears officials are trying to sell the notion that WikiLeaks isn’t sufficiently media-like to get freedom of the press.
WikiLeaks has become an increasingly big target for the US since its leak earlier this year of the “Collateral Murder” video showing US troops killing Iraqi civilians, and even moreso after last month’s release of a massive cache of classified military documents in the Afghan War.
The release of the documents was instantly condemned by US officials as a threat to national security, but so far its impact appears to have been primarily to embarrass the military and reduce public support for the Afghan War. Despite claims from the military that Assange “has blood on his hands” officials have not been able to prove anyone was harmed by the release.
But even if they were, the Pentagon’s demands that WikiLeaks “unrelease” the documents appears unrealistic, and after a month available for public download it does not appear anything can make the documents disappear from the public record.
WikiLeaks is also based overseas, and its founder, Julian Assange, has been avoiding traveling to the US specifically out of fear of government reprisals against him. This would mean that silencing them could quickly become an international incident.
The good get prosecuted, and your tax dollars get sent to the evil…. Sick world we live in.
Last time I donate to Antiwar.
I dared to raise questions about 911.
Not only did my questions get censored, the entire thread has disappeared, unless you click under Justin for his latest stuff about lies.
Go Figure…!!! I had something similar happen to me… Harmless post just disappeared… Why NOW why during the fundraiser?? It seems to show hubris and/or self destructive behavior… And look at THIS..!!!
"Along with having no real media, we are burdened with an even more onerous condition: the complete absence of a real antiwar movement. Instead, we have periodic peace crawls dominated by various professional lefties whose main concern is not actually stopping the war but advancing their own little political agendas, whether it be freeing Mumia What’s-his-name, advancing the cause of "the workers," or whatever.
These people are living fossils seeking to reenact the best moments of their lives: the 1960s, when mass demonstrations against the Vietnam war forced the US government to withdraw. Back then, it was fashionable to be a commie, and the only question was what flavor: Maoist, Castroite/Guevarist, Third World Stalinist, or – for lovers of the exotic – Trotskyist. When the New Left crashed and burned, self-destructing in an orgy of sectarianism and violence, the fashionistas moved on to greener pastures and only a few remnants persisted. These were absorbed by the Old Left, whose hollowed-out organizations survive to this day, ghosts from the 1930s who haunt every antiwar conference and event, selling their little newspapers and arguing mostly among themselves"
So, the current peace movement is a burden..?? ["we are burdened with an even more onerous condition: the complete absence of a real antiwar movement."] There WAS an antiwar movement before these wars began, and yes it did have much of the old left of center gravitas of past antiwar efforts, but WHY disparage these antiwar folks… I have been to most, almost all the demonstrations in Washington since 911, and I can tell YOU that the main concern of nearly ALL[95%] of the marchers, onlookers and plain folks gathered there was to [initially] prevent the seeming inevitable attacks on Afghanistan and especially Iraq.. Yes, some of the people there had OTHER grievances….. But WHY attack and smear them..??? and during fundraising too??? INsane…. INnane… and WORST of all, an unforced error….Why not rally our already shamefully limited numbers to be more focused and try harder, more often and more aptly…. The negativity does NOT help the antiwar cause… And by disparaging these mostly dedicated people, I believe that Justin is weakening the very movement he purports to support…. Please Please PLEASE…. Can't WE all get just along…???
The US's treason law begins:
"Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy,…"
And there's the difficulty that starts inherently right there: domestic legislation applicable to US citizens with the potential to apply to foreigners ONLY within the jurisdiction for conduct within the jurisdiction.
Assange can no more be prosecuted for espionage than a Russian intelligence agent be prosecuted while resident in the UK who has received US secrets from a disgruntled US diplomat in Lichenstein. The whole concept of espionage is predicated on prosecuting one's one citizens or foreign nationals within the geographic jurisdiction. To argue otherwise is to argue that US domestic law trumps international law and the sovereign rights of other nations, which is a nonsense.
Assange is not a US citizen; was not within the jurisdiction when the files were uploaded to Wikileaks; had no role in the removal of files from military computers; had no knowledge presumably of the files until after they landed on a server outside the US.
If Assange went to the US he could apparently be held as a material witness for the prosecution of the people who copied and took the files. If he was in the US he could theoretically be charged with conspiracy, but that would likely go nowhere as the common law of conspiracy requires (no surprise) that one person conspires with another (or more) to perpetrate the conduct (and even if the conduct never happens there is still an offence committed.) There would have to be proof that Mr Assange plotted with the leaker(s), communicated with them for a conspiracy charge to stick.
The massive one point difficulty US authorities have is that Mr Assange is not within the jurisdiction and is not likely to go there anytime soon. It is at this point that many non lawyers (or partisan lawyers ie within the Pentagon?) start conflating US domestic law with International law, or extra-territorial judicial powers that nations traditionally can enforce against their own citizens for offences outside the geographic jurisdiction. (Example: In Australia we have anti "sex tours" legislation –sex with minors in another country can be prosecuted back in Australia.)
Given that Mr Assange did not do anything within the jurisdiction of the US, any indictment could try to link him as an accessory with the acts of the leaker but this is highly problematic. An accessory in most legal systems must have some knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. This raises a difficulty that Wikileaks goes to great lengths NOT to know who is the leaker by arranging for anybody to anonymously upload through Tor pipelines for example to their servers. Even if the leaker is identified afterwards, — potential accessory after the fact–this runs up against the common law position expressed by the historic UK jurist Blackstone:
"Therefore, to make an accessory ex post facto, it is in the first place requisite that he knows of the felony committed".
Lack of proof that Wikileaks/Assange knew of the Afghan files leaker before or during or even after the alleged offence was committed will stymie any prosecution, in my considered legal opinion.
There is no US charge that I am aware of "encouraging theft" (ie larceny) but I stand to be corrected. It sounds to me another way of describing conspiracy or being an accessory. If there is such statute law in the US, a successful prosecution would depend on an interpretation of "encouraging". To be successful it would have to encompass a nebulous and indirect encouragement. For example, does a shopkeeper with a $1 Walmart padlock on the door to the warehouse "encourage" larceny? This approaches the realm of that well known (in tort law around the common law world) Judge Cardozo of New York: "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class"
There is also a potential problem in laws against larceny where penalties are proportional to the value stolen. What value can be put on digital data of a non commercial nature that has no ordinary intrinsic value?
As an example from Downunder, a parallel case: Lenah Game Meats v ABC in our highest court, the High Court of Australia, a video of a possum meat processing factory was made as a result of trespass but the national broadcaster was held to have violated no law in broadcasting the tape given to it anonymously. Those images were "stolen" in a similiar semantic sense as the digital images of the Afghan files.
It is my opinion that no matter what charge is formulated based around conspiracy or accessory to treason/larceny, the inescapable fact is of Assange as a non citizen, operating outside the jurisdiction, and this will be extraordinarily difficult to overcome, if at all, if an attempt is made to marry this to a domestic law of the United States.
In other words any charges laid will be for political purposes and will not hold much legal weight.
Peter H Kemp. A Solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW Australia.
I
Mr. Kemp,
Your attention is respectfully directed to Scott Horton's interview of Mr. Daniel Ellsberg, available here: http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/06/09/daniel-ellsbe…
There, you will here a very detailed analysis, By Mr. Ellsberg, of the misapplication of the words "stole", "stolen", "steal", etc. with regard to actions taken by Mr. Ellsberg in the notorious Watergate affair. Mr. Ellsberg describes how the use of these, and related words, is untenable from a purely legal (justiciable) standpoint when prosecuting "leaking". It should be noted that the Watergate affair, and Mr. Ellsbergs actions associated with it, are the closest to a parallel case / acts to be found in this instance.
Thank you for your valuable contribution to this debate.
Thank you. I would have just said, 'Bullshit'. You said so much better.
So, obviously Israel with Mordechai Vanunu gives an example how to deal with Wikileaks activists? Interestingly to know that the current USA, like Israel and the former Soviet Union, does not want the truth to be known!!
W
LMAO, this morning the 'news' is calling Julian Assange a rapist. Any way you look at it, the guy is due for some 'extremely harsh' interrogation 'techniques' – for peace of course.
Update: the rape arrest warrant has been canceled. Obviously a smear tactic, likely originating in the US.
The FedGov must be wasting a lot of salary time trying to gin up a criminal charge against Assange. It doesn't require much thought, however, to come up with quite a few legitimate crimes that the Pentagon jokers and their other cohorts in treason commit on a daily basis.
The FedGov is wasting a lot of salary time trying to gin up a criminal charge against Assange. It doesn't require much thought, however, to come up with quite a few legitimate crimes that the Pentagon jokers and their other cohorts in treason commit on a daily basis.
he should have first mailed a full copy of every thing to israel before he released it then he would be a hero getting the congressional medal of honor
Fortunately for Mr. Assange, he is not under the jurisdiction of the monsters who operate out of the u.s. department of injustice or the pentagon. This, of course, does not mean that the u.s.d.o.j. will not attempt to prosecute (persecute) Mr. Assange under u.s. law. The u.s. will will try to lend and air of credibility and legality to any such arrest and indictment, but the whole world will know that their actions against Mr. Assange are illegal. An apprehension of Mr. Assange overseas would be nothing more than a kidnapping. This would be followed by formal presentation of the indictment (charging) on u.s. soil. This is the manner in which the rogue regime carries out such crimes.
The good part, if one can be said to exist, is that once kidnapped by u.s. officials – even if held at one of the u.s. overseas locations – Mr. Assange would have the option to petition the u.s. district court in d.c. and / or the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus in a fashion similar to that which has been implemented by so many Guantanamo detainees. We can expect the u.s. d.o.j. to drop and change the charges repeatedly an an attempt to thwart their own legal system as has been done with the Gitmo detainees. It's called the Mukasey strategy.
The best avenue to pursue, however, would be to PREEMPTIVELY convert this predicament into an international incident. Mr. Assange should petition now – before the u.s. diabolical scheme is launched – in Iceland for a declaration that Mr. Assange and Wikileaks have not violated any Icelandic or international laws and that MR. Assange and Wikileaks are domiciled in and under the jurisdiction of Iceland.
Iceland can and will implement private law (law pertaining to a single individual or circumstance). This is what was done in the case of u.s. chess champion, Bobby Fischer. Mr. Fischer was NOT granted asylum. He did not meet the requirements for such protection. However, Iceland's Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament), not to be outdone by the vindictive fools in the u.s., enacted a piece of private law. This particular piece of Icelandic law (which you can find on the internet) pertained only to Mr. Fischer and granted Mr. Fischer immediate Icelandic citizenship. All the "years of residence" requirements were set aside, as well as the requirement that Mr. Fischer be present on Icelandic soil. He was still stranded in Japan at the time because the u.s. state department had canceled his passport. Yes; Iceland has been known to frustrate the u.s. when no other nation would. For this reason, Mr. Assange should ally closely with his Icelandic connections and forget about the Aussies. Australia would never presume to act as a nation in the face of the belligerent u.s.
Mr. Assange could also petition the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for a declaration that his and Wikileak's actions are not in violation of Icelandic or international law and that Mr. Assange is not under the jurisdiction of the u.s. Such a petition should also include a request for an injunction barring any nation from acting against Mr. Assange while he is domiciled within the jurisdiction of the ECHR. (Iceland is within said jurisdiction). This preemptive move on the part of Mr. Assange might well go a long way in shutting down the criminals at the pentagon by projecting international legitimacy and legality to Mr. Assange's actions. The fact that the matter will have been prejudged by the ECHR is a powerful deterrent.
Although the Icelandic government claims that it cannot actually protect whistle-blowers, these measures will amount to such protection.
If WikiLeaks is incorporated, then it would have to be charged with any "crime" committed, Assange. The USG has embarked on an extra-territorial New World Order One World System, to avoid the legislative process worldwide. NATO operating in the M.E. is for the purpose of establishing an extra-territorial government there, regionally. All the "free" trade treaties are meant to eliminate representative governance and replaced with administrative extra-territorial governance by the appointed PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS and its enforcement arm the Pentagon/spy agencies. Extraordinary rendition is an example of the NWO.
My post above, apologies in wrong drafting: read "Espionage" for "Treason" laws.
Peter H. Kemp
Question about The declaration of independence which says "..that all Men are created equal, and they are endowed by the Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…" and later "..whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new …" but how could "a people", determine their government had become destructive to its Ends, if making public "destructive of its ends evidence" is allowed to be prohibited or denied by a sitting government? This is a little bit like the problem Martin Luther and the church had several hundred years back? Whatever the outcome it will be interesting.
Freedom will always be deemed illegal by the rulers.
With respect to the forty-minute version of the "Collateral Murder" video, which you have obviously not bothered to analyze, you mistakenly said it shows “US troops killing Iraqi civilians.”
The Apache helicopter pilots were attacking enemy insurgents and two Reuters employees thought to be enemy insurgents.