Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
31. The Congressional Research Service examined Espionage Act grounds for seeking indictment.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 06:51 PM
Aug 2012

And found that there was no instance of the publisher of classified information being charged (as opposed to the person who obtained said information).

As a cyberwar erupts over WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, the question remains as to what the United States can actually do to prosecute the diplomatic cable leakers for endangering national security.

Unfortunately for the hawks, the 1917 Espionage Act is the most recent and most relevant law on the books applying to the WikiLeaks case, reports Steven Aftergood on his FAS Project on Government Secrecy website. The Espionage Act is not just outdated, its applicable statutes (as well as those from other similar laws) may leave the media organization in the clear, according to the latest report from the Congressional Research Service.

"There appears to be no statute that generally proscribes the acquisition or publication of diplomatic cables, although government employees who disclose such information without proper authority may be subject to prosecution," the report's author, Attorney Jennifer K. Elsea, states.

In other words, the alleged illegal downloading of the material by PFC Bradley Manning is covered under the Espionage Act, but not WikiLeaks' (or The New York Times') release of the material.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025040-503543.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

UK would have to agree to the ICJ hearing the matter ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #1
Is That How the ICJ Works? On the Road Aug 2012 #2
Jurisdiction, in practice, is by consent struggle4progress Aug 2012 #7
In practice countries pick and choose when they'll recognize international courts. Posteritatis Aug 2012 #8
But what are the odds the court would even agree to hear the matter? cstanleytech Aug 2012 #3
There is also the issue that... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #5
Define "sufficient legal protections"? Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #12
Have consular authorities actually visited Assange? AntiFascist Aug 2012 #20
He rejected offers of consular assistance Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #23
That would probably be the best solution. Cleita Aug 2012 #4
Assange's legal team might want a quick peek at the Court's website before filing: struggle4progress Aug 2012 #6
This is going to be a case between Equador and the UK. backscatter712 Aug 2012 #11
The Spaniard Garzon is not Ecuador's representative but heads Assange's legal team: struggle4progress Aug 2012 #35
The dispute would be between Ecuador and the UK. JDPriestly Aug 2012 #13
Assange will take UK to ‘World Court’ if not given safe passage to Ecuado struggle4progress Aug 2012 #38
The International Court of Justice is likely to deny hearing Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #9
Assange would argue that the "ordinary crime" alleged against him and the charge JDPriestly Aug 2012 #14
There's no evidence of that Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #18
Wikileaks has evidence... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #15
Which has fuck-all to do with a criminal prosecution in Sweden. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #16
On the contrary... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #24
That's absurd and nonsensical Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #25
I have to disagree with you again... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #26
The Congressional Research Service examined Espionage Act grounds for seeking indictment. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #31
As of May 12, 2011... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #34
"seeking to close gaps in the laws" = ex post facto and thus unconstitutional Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #37
We'll see how this plays out.... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #41
Not really Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #42
"Closing the gaps".... AntiFascist Aug 2012 #43
Your citations of laws dating back to 1917, without mentioning how truedelphi Aug 2012 #46
The Espionage Act of 1917 is the only law that would apply. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #47
The Justice Department? Of the United States of America? truedelphi Aug 2012 #50
About Assange.... mwooldri Aug 2012 #10
Only if Assange promises to go into custody if the Swedish prosecutors decide to arrest him hack89 Aug 2012 #17
And the reason for that tama Aug 2012 #27
If Ecuador and Assange refuse to recognize Sweden's right to arrest Assange if necessary hack89 Aug 2012 #28
"Who gets to decide what is justice?" tama Aug 2012 #33
So you have no practical solution that could solve the present impasse? hack89 Aug 2012 #36
Practical solution that could solve the present impasse tama Aug 2012 #40
Ah!!! The irony: JDPriestly Aug 2012 #19
"A country like Ecuador"... Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #22
Not extraditing tama Aug 2012 #29
"having the matter decided by a court"... Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #32
I have very little of such faith tama Aug 2012 #39
I thought nation states and their laws are very low on your list of priorities hack89 Aug 2012 #44
Nope tama Aug 2012 #45
The ICJ decided in 1950 that diplomatic asylum only applied if both countries had already agreed muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #21
the best of luck to him and his attorneys rachel1 Aug 2012 #30
Sure. Send him. cliss Aug 2012 #48
........ treestar Aug 2012 #49
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Assange could go to inter...»Reply #31