# WikiLeaks actions legal? How can this be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 12, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511 "2010-09-12T15:08:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/1 "2010-09-12T15:08:37Z")
There has been a lot in the news over the last couple of months about the WikiLeaks site publishing classified documents. [Here is one recent article](http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1915588/nato_chief_wikileaks_papers_may_endanger_troops/). People with security clearances can get in big trouble for passing these documents along to someone who does not have the appropriate clearance and need-to-know. But why isn’t it illegal to _posses_ such documents without the property authority? And further, why isn’t it illegal to _publish_ it? It doesn’t make sense that they can shut down a Craigslist category for a little sex (yes, I understand this was a voluntary action, but under a huge amount of pressure) but the government cannot enjoin a web site from publishing classified documents the publication of which could endanger lives. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/2 "2010-09-12T15:17:25Z")
Falls under the first amendment I should think. I could see how it would be extended to protect someone who was in possession of classified material as well. It would be bad trouble to be caught breaking in to get it, or leaking it yourself, but just having it can’t be a crime. You’d have to show that the person performed a criminal act to acquire it directly. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/3 "2010-09-12T15:24:17Z")
You are making the Fallacy that America has jurisdiction outside its borders, or you are making a fallacy that the servers have to be inside the USA. Neither is true in this case. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/4 "2010-09-12T20:23:55Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > …just having it can’t be a crime. It may not be a crime in fact today, but I don’t see why it isn’t. Possession of stolen property is a crime, for example. Why hasn’t it been made a federal crime to possess classified documents without authorization? **FuzzyOgre** , this is a good point, and I do not know where WikiLeaks operates. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/5 "2010-09-12T20:34:12Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Falls under the first amendment I should think. The first amendment does not allow you to publish classified material. WikiLeaks’ organization and servers are located outside the United States. [PFC. Bradley Manning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning) has been charged with supplying classified material to WikiLeaks, and is probably severely boned. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/6 "2010-09-12T20:35:10Z")
From the [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks) > [@](#): > > WikiLeaks describes itself as “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking”. WikiLeaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing “highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services.” PRQ is said to have “almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs.” The servers are spread around the world with the central server located in Sweden.[50] Julian Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other countries) “specifically because those nations offer legal protection to the disclosures made on the site”. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/7 "2010-09-12T22:03:10Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > > > Falls under the first amendment I should think. > > The first amendment does not allow you to publish classified material. WikiLeaks’ organization and servers are located outside the United States. > > [PFC. Bradley Manning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning) has been charged with supplying classified material to WikiLeaks, and is probably severely boned. He faces a max prison sentence of 54 years, if convicted. Severely boned is an understatement. What’s happening to him these days? Last I heard, he was being taken to solitary confinement - that was back in the end of July. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/8 "2010-09-12T22:20:03Z")
> [@Gukumatz](#): > > …He faces a max prison sentence of 54 years, if convicted. Severely boned is an understatement. What’s happening to him these days? Last I heard, he was being taken to solitary confinement - that was back in the end of July. That’s less severe than I thought. Isn’t espionage punishable _by death_ under the UCMJ? Not that I think he’d every actually be executed, but yeah, he’s in deep shit. As to the OP, it sounds like it’s up to the Swedes to deal with WikiLeaks and they have no interest in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/9 "2010-09-12T22:28:07Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > > [@Gukumatz](#): > > > > …He faces a max prison sentence of 54 years, if convicted. Severely boned is an understatement. What’s happening to him these days? Last I heard, he was being taken to solitary confinement - that was back in the end of July. > > That’s less severe than I thought. Isn’t espionage punishable _by death_ under the UCMJ? Not that I think he’d every actually be executed, but yeah, he’s in deep shit. He hasn’t been charged with espionage. (I think that requires deliberately transmitting information to an enemy; leaking documents wouldn’t count.) ---
**Author:** ![ChrisBooth12](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@ChrisBooth12](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChrisBooth12)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/10 "2010-09-12T23:55:04Z")
I really hope something unfortunate doesn’t happen to their servers, it would be almost to convientent ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/11 "2010-09-13T00:20:35Z")
From [Glen Greenwald](http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/24/wikileaks/index.html) re: the Espionage Act of 1917: > [@](#): > > [T]he U.S. – unlike many other countries – does not have a general criminal prohibition on disclosing state secrets. It is, of course, illegal for those with an affirmative duty to safeguard secrets (such as government and military employees) to leak certain categories of classified information, but it is generally not illegal for non-governmental third parties – such as media outlets or private citizens – to publish that information. That’s why it’s extremely difficult to prosecute newspapers for publishing classified information – such as when The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers or the story of Bush’s illegal NSA spying program, or when Dana Priest exposed the CIA’s network of secret black sites. > [@](#): > > There are legal theories under the Espionage Act of 1917 which, in some very narrow cases, can make it plausible to prosecute even non-governmental actors for publishing information, but doing so is very difficult. The Bush DOJ tried and failed to invoke those theories to prosecute two AIPAC officials – private American citizens – who were accused of receiving classified information from a DoD official and then transmitting it to the Israeli Government and to various journalists. The Pentagon official who leaked the classified information to AIPAC (Larry Franklin) was rather easily convicted – because the criminal laws clearly applied to him as a government employee. But it was far from clear that the AIPAC officials, as private citizens, had broken any laws. > > Indeed, it took an exotic interpretation of the Espionage Act even to prosecute them at all. As The Post put it when the case was finally dismissed: they “were the first civilians not employed by the government charged under the 1917 espionage statute.” And regarding 18 USC 1978: > [@](#): > > This statute does not criminalize the disclosure of classified information in general, but only a few, very narrow categories of information (i.e., cryptography, signals communication intelligence, or interception of foreign governments’ communications) which plainly do not encompass the leak of the Afghan war documents. There’s opinion and commentary in the post about his thoughts on the state of the law. The quotes I posted here are limited to factual assertions about the state of the law itself, since this is GQ. ---
**Author:** ![gladtobeblazed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85f322/32.png) [@gladtobeblazed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gladtobeblazed)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/12 "2010-09-13T00:44:52Z")
> [@ChrisBooth12](#): > > I really hope something unfortunate doesn’t happen to their servers, it would be almost to convientent I thought Wikileaks were using Tor hidden services and Freenet. I could be wrong though. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/13 "2010-09-13T00:59:28Z")
> [@gladtobeblazed](#): > > > [@ChrisBooth12](#): > > > > I really hope something unfortunate doesn’t happen to their servers, it would be almost to convientent > > I thought Wikileaks were using Tor hidden services and Freenet. I could be wrong though. They also have a standard website at [wikileaks.org](http://wikileaks.org). ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/14 "2010-09-13T03:00:45Z")
> [@FuzzyOgre](#): > > You are making the Fallacy that America has jurisdiction outside its borders, or you are making a fallacy that the servers have to be inside the USA. > > Neither is true in this case. America does have jurisdiction outside its borders. If a US law explicitly gives a court jurisdiction on foreign soil then the US effectively has jurisdiction. If a law isn’t explicit then jurisdiction can be established through principles of international law. One of which is that the US has jurisdiction over actions that harm the US. This doesn’t mean that the US will exercise such jurisdiction, but our courts can prosecute foreigners for acts on foreign soil if they want. Whether we do that or not depends on how willing we are to upset another country. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/15 "2010-09-13T03:34:02Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > …This doesn’t mean that the US will exercise such jurisdiction, but our courts can prosecute foreigners for acts on foreign soil if they want. Whether we do that or not depends on how willing we are to upset another country. Well there’s also the little matter of getting said foreigner from foreign soil to American soil. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/16 "2010-09-13T04:10:25Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > > [@Lakai](#): > > > > …This doesn’t mean that the US will exercise such jurisdiction, but our courts can prosecute foreigners for acts on foreign soil if they want. Whether we do that or not depends on how willing we are to upset another country. > > Well there’s also the little matter of getting said foreigner from foreign soil to American soil. True, but the US hasn’t even tried to extradite the wikileaks guy. And in general, I don’t think the US gov’t goes after publishers of leaked classified info (as opposed to the people whom, like Manning, did the actual leaking). And the courts have found that there is a first amendment [to publish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States) classified info, though in that case the issue was an executive order to stop publishing rather then criminal charges. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/17 "2010-09-13T05:06:47Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > …As to the OP, it sounds like it’s up to the Swedes to deal with WikiLeaks and they have no interest in doing so. That’s it. I’m done buying cheap-but-cleverly-designed housewares. But that means that my Allen Wrench collection will stop growing. Hey, new one with every bookshelf or end table… I was up to 233. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/18 "2010-09-14T12:47:16Z")
> [@digs](#): > > > [@alphaboi867](#): > > > > …As to the OP, it sounds like it’s up to the Swedes to deal with WikiLeaks and they have no interest in doing so. > > That’s it. I’m done buying cheap-but-cleverly-designed housewares. > > But that means that my Allen Wrench collection will stop growing. Hey, new one with every bookshelf or end table… I was up to 233. you can keep growing your Allen wrench collection. The Swedes have charged him with a sex crime. Not that it is stopping him, but it might be interpreted as a warning to others. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/19 "2010-09-14T13:17:07Z")
Just adding this because I find it interesting and semi-relevant. Even though the information has been leaked to the entire world, it is still considered Classified by the US Government. Therefore, it is still unlawful for service members or government contractors possessing a security clearance to transmit the information over unsecured networks or process the information on unsecured computers. So, technically, I can go to jail for simply possessing the wikileaks documents on my computer or a thumb drive. Even simply downloading the information from the Wikileaks site onto a government computer with Classified Accreditation would be illegal since the network connecting Wikileaks to the computer is not a Secure Classified network. Needless to say, I haven’t read any of it. I’ll just have to wait until some civilian I know downloads it onto their computer and lets me read it. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511/20 "2010-09-14T13:23:55Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > True, but the US hasn’t even tried to extradite the wikileaks guy. I know that a [British nerd is facing a Kafaesque nightmare](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7839338.stm) due to the previous British government’s pussified capitulation to an [asymmetric extradition treaty](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11226673) with the US, for crimes commited from the UK on US government systems… but would the fact that a Swedish server is visible in the US actually be a crime, or even one that could trigger an extradition request? Who would you extradite - the guy whose idea it was (Australia) or the person who runs the server (Sweden)? What treaties are there between those countries and the US? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-actions-legal-how-can-this-be/553511.md?page=2)