War on WikiLeaks reveals need for law reform

[Joanne98]

The global war on WikiLeaks and the demonisation of Julian Assange is troubling because governments are playing so fast and loose with accusations of criminal wrongdoing.

In so doing, governments have failed to make sense of gaps in the law and the need for law reform to adequately protect sensitive information.

As I have written elsewhere, it is hard to see how Julian Assange or WikiLeaks has broken any Australian law. It is even doubtful whether United States laws have been broken, although at best there may be an action for breach of copyright in US government documents.

While it is a crime for US government employees to unlawfully disclose confidential information, there would only be a case against WikiLeaks if it had induced or solicited another person to leak material. That might distinguish the conduct of WikiLeaks from other media (from the New York Times to the BBC) that have simply republished documents.

So far, however, the US has not provided any evidence of such conduct. Even then, it might be necessary to consider whether it was legitimate media reporting in the public interest. Different countries take different legal approaches to that issue.

It is also doubtful whether the US crime of espionage has been committed, since (as in Australia) it requires intent to injure that country or to advantage a foreign government.

Even if the elements of espionage existed, the Australian Government's pledge to cooperate with US law enforcement would face high legal hurdles. There is a very old common law rule which bars the extradition of "political offenders". In its modern form, Article VII of the bilateral extradition treaty between Australia and the United States requires that extradition "shall not be granted" where an offence is of a "political character".

Espionage is a classic example of a political offence. The exception originated in 19th-century European democracies, when most of the world was not democratic. The purpose of the rule was to prevent one country (such as Australia) interfering in the domestic politics of another state (such as the United States), by taking the side of the foreign government on fundamentally political matters.

In other words, why should Australian law cooperate in the repression of espionage against any foreign government, whether the United States – or North Korea? What interest does Australia have in utilising its own legal system to safeguard the secrets of foreign governments? Espionage is the wrong kind of legal lens to focus on WikiLeaks.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41874.html

[squirrelintheattic]

1. Governments need to obey the law

Whoever released classified government documents committed a criminal offense. In the United States, it was probably not espionage, it was almost certainly a case of whistle-blowing with regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fulminating against Iran. (In my opinion, this person should be protected by the whistle-blower protection act. But that is only my opinion, and I am not a lawyer.)

In the United States, it is not against the law to publish classified documents -- that is protected under "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The New York Times did not get into trouble for publishing the same documents that Wikileaks put up on their website. No one pulled Der Spiegel's bank account. The editor of The Guardian is not being hunted by the police.

Amazon cannot be forced to take down a website if it doesn't want to. But any company that has to deal with the FEC needs a license to operate. And Amazon might want favorable recognition by the government considering the all the various business ventures it's getting into. Making enemies in the government might make things difficult for them. (Of course, pissing off their customers might make things difficult, too. But it's harder to organize a boycott publicly than it is for the government to do something underhandedly in secret -- and no one would ever be able to prove it. That's why we need Wikileaks.)

Wikileaks has not done anything illegal. It's highly unlikely that Assange has done anything illegal. He is being persecuted for embarrassing powerful people, not because he's done anything illegal. The idea is to stop him and frighten everyone else so that this doesn't happen again. The idea is to direct attention away from the U.S. government and other governments and turn it into a morality story about Julian Assange.

Julian Assange is not the problem. Lying governments are the problem. Keep your eye on the ball. Don't let them distract you.

[Matilda]

2. It would seem that the U.S. authorities know they're on shaky ground,

else why would they have pressured Sweden to issue a warrant on a sexual assault case? I can't believe that such
a charge in any other instance would involve Interpol and extradition orders.

It's sickening that governments everywhere, not least the Australian government, are in lockstep behind the U.S.

And the media have asked no tough questions of the politicians about torture, nor about the abuse of power.

[bemildred]

3. The Swedes are not the only one's making it up as they go along.

The real question is why, with all the money we piss away on "defense" and "security" and the like, was this allowed to happen? This is not a small leak or an accident or oversight. The feckless incompetence which it speaks to ought not be overlooked, but it will be anyway, because important asses are on the line. Have you noticed the hysterical whining and posturing coming from Holder? That is no accident.

[NorthCarolina]

4. I have my copy of insurance.aes256.

Do you?
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance

And the program needed to decrypt the file if Wikileaks releases the pass phrase.
http://www.aescrypt.com/

[SnakeEyes]

5. I don't

I'd prefer not to have received, participated in the transfer of, been in possession of, or helped facilitate the dissemination of, copies of known-stolen classified government property.