# U.S. looking at charging Assange of Wikileaks under Espionage Act of 1917 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028 "2010-08-03T17:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/1 "2010-08-03T17:25:00Z")
No, really. Story [here.](http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/30/wikileaks-mastermind-julian-assange-evil-genius-or-visionary-ha/) > [@](#): > > Assange, who is reportedly working and living in northern Europe, has said he had no plans to travel to the United States for fear of being detained. U.S. government lawyers are reportedly looking into the possibility of charging WikiLeaks and Assange with a crime, like "inducing or serving as co-conspirators in violations of the Espionage Act, a 1917 law that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of national security information,‘’ according to The New York Times. 1. [The Espionage Act of 1917?!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917) **WHY IS THAT DAMNED THING STILL ON THE BOOKS?!** :mad::mad::mad: It was the basis of [_Schenck v. United States_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) – one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of American civil liberties! It should have been repealed as soon as the war-fever died down! 2. How does it apply, anyway, to [Julian Assange,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange) a foreigner, owing no allegiance of any kind to the U.S., and acting outside U.S. jurisdiction or territory? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/2 "2010-08-03T17:42:18Z")
I, too, have been wondering how we could reasonably claim authority over this guy. I’ll be interested in seeing what our resident lawyers have to say. Note that the article says they are “looking into” whether they can go after him. Maybe that’s what you do to put a little fear in the guy for future actions. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/3 "2010-08-03T17:47:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe that’s what you do to put a little fear in the guy for future actions. That would be my guess. These people are hard to get their hands on but the government has an interest in preventing leaks like the Afghanistan one, so they’ll prosecute the leaker (Bradley Manning) to the fullest extent and threaten to go after others in as many ways as they can. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/4 "2010-08-03T17:48:31Z")
Fear of what? Being chased by the USA? I doubt if that scares him. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/5 "2010-08-03T17:52:09Z")
A recent interview: [http://www.ted.com/talks/julian\_assange\_why\_the\_world\_needs\_wikileaks.html](http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/6 "2010-08-03T17:52:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. How does it apply, anyway, to [Julian Assange,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange) a foreigner, owing no allegiance of any kind to the U.S., and acting outside U.S. jurisdiction or territory? Only US citizens can be charged with espionage? That doesn’t make sense. Presumably they could try the guy in absentia and then ask for extradition from wherever he is (which I suspect would be denied but who knows). At that point the guy just has to stay away from US controlled places. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/7 "2010-08-03T17:59:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Presumably they could try the guy in absentia and then ask for extradition from wherever he is (which I suspect would be denied but who knows). At that point the guy just has to stay away from US controlled places. He can be Roman Polanksi’s new BFF. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/8 "2010-08-03T18:00:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > 1. How does it apply, anyway, to [Julian Assange,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange) a foreigner, owing no allegiance of any kind to the U.S., and acting outside U.S. jurisdiction or territory? > > Only US citizens can be charged with espionage? That doesn’t make sense. The Act is not about espionage, despite the name. > [@](#): > > President Woodrow Wilson and Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory supported passage of the act, but viewed it as a compromise. The President’s Congressional rivals were proposing to remove responsibility for monitoring pro-German activity, whether espionage or some form of disloyalty, from the Department of Justice to the War Department and creating a form of courts-martial of doubtful constitutionality. The resulting Act was far more aggressive and restrictive than they wanted, but it disarmed critics of their conduct of the war on the home front.[2] Officials in the Justice Department who had little enthusiasm for the law nevertheless hoped that even without generating many prosecutions it would help quiet public calls for more government action against those thought to be insufficiently patriotic.[3] > > It made it a crime: > > - To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years. > > - To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. This was punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 fine and up to 20 years in prison. > > The Act also gave the Postmaster General authority to refuse to mail or to impound publications that he determined to be in violation of its prohibitions.[4] > > **Later amendments** > > The law was later extended on May 16, 1918 by the Sedition Act of 1918–actually a set of amendments to the Espionage Act–which prohibited many forms of speech, including “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States…or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy.”[2] > > Because the Sedition Act was an informal name, court cases were brought under the name of the Espionage Act, whether the charges were based on the provisions of the Espionage Act or the provisions of the amendments known informally as the Sedition Act. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/9 "2010-08-03T18:43:34Z")
Man, the Colbert Bump just ain’t what it used to be. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/10 "2010-08-03T20:14:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Act is not about espionage, despite the name. Hold on now. As I look up 18 USC 793, it says (in a heavily edited way): > [@](#): > > (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, or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . (b) copies, takes, makes, or obtains . . . any . . . document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or . . . (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of any document . . . or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates . . . the same to any person not entitled to receive it. . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both By my reading, that seems to be about espionage to me. Collecting or transmitting military information with the intent to injure the United States or for the benefit of a foreign nation seems like the very definition of espionage… what am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/11 "2010-08-03T20:22:03Z")
In addition, there is also 18 USC 798, which states: > [@](#): > > Whoever knowingly and willfully . . . publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. I believe I saw in one of the discussions here a link to a document that talked about whether or not the Taliban could listen in to cell phone signals in Afghanistan. I’d say such a document would have an awful lot to do with the communications intelligence activities of the US or any foreign government. Also seems like a rather specific crime relating to espionage that is not as vague as simply criticizing the US government, as the OP seems to imply that is the only crime under the Espionage Act. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/12 "2010-08-03T22:01:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, really. Not really. The author of the article you linked to asserts that the NY Times reported that Government lawyers were considering charges under the Espionage Act, but she’s misstating the NYT’s reporting. That [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html) actually says that a US official stated off the record that Government lawyers were exploring whether Assange could be subject to criminal charges, and then it separately states that “some lawyers” question whether the Espionage Act might apply. The lawyers speculating about the applicability of the Espionage Act are not the Government lawyers reportedly looking into criminal charges. It does not appear that any Government official has been reported to have raised the Espionage Act in connection with Assange. ---
**Author:** ![bluezooky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@bluezooky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluezooky)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/13 "2010-08-04T08:57:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Presumably they could try the guy in absentia and then ask for extradition from wherever he is (which I suspect would be denied but who knows). At that point the guy just has to stay away from US controlled places. > > He can be Roman Polanksi’s new BFF. As a member of “The Family” I’m sure he had enough of pedo’s but what an interesting guy,obviously a genius, drugged and sexually abused by a weird cult this is what you get, nature or nurture I wonder. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/14 "2010-08-04T09:10:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Presumably they could try the guy in absentia and then ask for extradition from wherever he is (which I suspect would be denied but who knows). I doubt that any country wants its classified materials being leaked to the rest of the world. As such, every nation in the world has a vested interested in playing ball with every other nation in the world when it comes to free-lance spies and activists. Though, then again, there are probably plenty of countries who would be quite happy to protect someone like Assange as they get free material out of him that their own agents would have a harder time of getting since they aren’t Caucasian, English speaking, internet nerds. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/15 "2010-08-04T09:37:20Z")
Most countries will refuse extradition for political crimes. And since the particular crime created by this Act specifically refers to “information to be used to the injury of the Unites States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”, it’s about as political as you can get. No chance of extradition, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/16 "2010-08-04T12:56:01Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Most countries will refuse extradition for political crimes. And since the particular crime created by this Act specifically refers to “information to be used to the injury of the Unites States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”, it’s about as political as you can get. No chance of extradition, I think. Well, take a look at the UK’s Official Secrets Act of 1911: > [@](#): > > If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the Penalties for safety or interests of the State- . . . . > (c) obtains or communicates to any other person any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy ; > he shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not less than three years and not exceeding seven years. Is that a political crime, too? Why is Britain’s law substantively different than the US’s? ---
**Author:** ![G-SE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f0a364/32.png) [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/17 "2010-08-04T13:07:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He can be Roman Polanksi’s new BFF. Well since Wikileaks has [no problem](http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikileaks_tells_Wikinews_why_they_published_Danish_child_porn_censorship_list) publishing a list of links to child pornography websites, I think he’ll be in good company. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/18 "2010-08-04T13:14:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Is that a political crime, too? Why is Britain’s law substantively different than the US’s? Yes, that’s a political crime, too. Who said it was different? Have the British requested extradition of suspected spies? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/19 "2010-08-04T13:37:18Z")
Perhaps you are using the term “political crime” in a slightly different sense than I am. When I think of the term “political crime,” I generally see it as a pejorative term used to describe the prosecution of people who exercise generally recognized rights in a way that a government would prefer them not to: for example, publishing an article criticizing the president of Gondwanaland, and the President throws the person in jail; an opposition candidate daring to run for election for president of a dictatorship; and so on. I would say things like treason, espionage, terrorism, or armed rebellion, are a different kettle of fish even though the state is essentially the victim in such cases. I do not know to what extent that such crimes are considered “political offenses” for the terms of the extradition treaty. Absent specific knowledge of the treaty’s requirements, in terms of my personal views, I would say if a Russian spy broke the Official Secrets Act and fled to the United States, I would have zero problem with the US handing over the spy to the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028/20 "2010-08-04T13:40:46Z")
The point is that whatever Assange may ultimately be accused of isn’t espionage, at least in the traditional sense. He didn’t hand secrets over to the Russians. Actually, he didn’t really hand secrets over to anyone. He simply provided a forum in which somebody else did so. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-looking-at-charging-assange-of-wikileaks-under-espionage-act-of-1917/549028.md?page=2)