The Unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act and why we must protect Julian Assange

[TalkingDog]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/149345/my_parents_were_executed_under_the_unconstitutional_espionage_act_--_here%27s_why_we_must_fight_to_protect_julian_assange/


Many who attacked the law noted that the framers of the Constitution had specifically limited what constituted treason by writing it into the Constituton: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” (Article III, section 3). The framers felt this narrow definition was necessary to prevent treason from becoming what some called “the weapon of a political faction.” Furthermore, in their discussions at the Constitutional Convention they agreed that spoken opposition was protected by the First Amendment and could never be considered treason.

It appears obvious that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional because it does exactly what the Constitution prohibits. It is, in other words, an effort to make an end run around the Treason Clause of the Constitution. Not surprisingly, however, as we’ve seen in times of political stress, the Supreme Court upheld its validity in a 5-4 decision. Although later decisions seemed to criticize and limit its scope, the Espionage Act of 1917 has never been declared unconstitutional. To this day, with a few notable exceptions that include my parents’ case, it has been a dormant sword of Damocles, awaiting the right political moment and an authoritarian Supreme Court to spring to life and slash at dissenters.

It is no accident that Julian Assange may face a “conspiracy” charge just as my parents did. All that is required of the prosecution to prove a conspiracy is to present evidence that two or more people got together and took one act in furtherance of an illegal plan. It could be a phone call or a conversation.

[msongs]

1. he is not a US ctizien, our laws do not apply to him nt

[TalkingDog]

2. I agree. But they are working on a work-around to extradite him.

Once he's here.... well, as they are so fond of suggesting: Possession is 9/10 of the law.

p.s. it really hasn't stopped them from applying other laws to situations in which they shouldn't be applied.

edited for mixed metaphors

[truedelphi]

3. When Ellsberg spoke before a panel in London Oct 23rd 2010,

He was insistent that he had heard that Obama was going to do everything possible to see to it that something like the British Secrets Act be employed to take down Assange, and that if that could be done, then anyone who aided and abetted or even involved themselves with Wikileaks could also face charges.

We are looking at a situation like what occurred back in the teens where anyone who spoke out against WWI was charged and thrown in prison.

If Assange goes down, those of us who have been supportive of him can go down as well.

[jeff47]

5. Not true

US laws apply to anyone doing something in the US.

For example, a German on vacation in New York must obey the speed limit...or in a more extreme case, can't go on a rampage pillaging, raping and murdering.

Asanage can be charged if he is found to have violated US law. Then the problem becomes extraditing him to the US for trial. His non-US status protects him from treason charges, but not charges like espionage and conspiracy.

[truedelphi]

4. Extra Big Kick for this topic.

:kick: