This is what it boils down to. The question is whether Wikileaks is to be treated as a “news organization” or something else. It’s sort of uncharted territory.
Well, to actually answer your question, the relevant bit of law here is the Espionage Act of 1917.
Contrary to most of the above discussion about “interfering with our ability to conduct wartime operations,” the difference between secret and top secret documents, the question of Assange’s nationality, what Dick Cheney did or did not do, and a lot else. None of that discussion actually bears upon the question of whether Assange violated the Espionage Act.
Very generally, the Espionage Act prohibits rather specific actions. For example, the general prohibition on collecting sensitive defense information is really only prohibited if it is done with the intent to injure the United States or to benefit a foreign nation. There are other provisions which do not require such strict intent to injure the United States, but the type of information that is protected by this part of the law is generally related only to codes, cyphers, and other communications intelligence.
Now, since there is no criminal penalty for just generally releasing classified information without regard to intent, it is a bit of a question whether Assange’s acts fall under the more specific requirements of the Espionage Act.
There are two other issues complicating the matter: one, that there may be an issue with extraterritorial application of the Espionage Act (to what extent the US has jurisdiction to prosecute someone for a possible crime that may not have been committed on US soil); and two, whether Assange’s acts would be protected by the First Amendment.
Keeping with the spirit of GQ, the answers to those last two questions are not quite clear (to say nothing of whether Assange’s actions actually violated the Espionage Act).
To read further discussion on the legal questions, here is one thoughtful article that comes down on the not guilty side:
And one more general news article:
I have absolutely no evidence for this, but if they **do **know where he is, there may be issues over the potential extradition process. This has caused problems for politicians here in the UK because of the (to some) asymmetry of the process (a UK citizen living and working in the UK can be extradited to the US, the reverse is not true).
Julian Assange a citizen of the UK? He was born in Queensland, Australia, but he might have dual citizenship?
Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to imply that he was a UK citizen, just that right now the cops might be being directed not to arrest the guy in case we get mired in another court case about extradition to the US. I only mentioned the UK citizen/worker issue as an example of the alleged one-sidedness of the process.
Nobody is trying to extradite him to the US though. It’s to Sweden they’re trying to extradite him, which has issued a European arrest warrant. However, the UK can’t extradite him as it would be illegal to do so; Sweden has yet to file charges. He’s only wanted as a “witness” in perhaps the most dubious rape case ever.
From what I’ve read, legal experts in the US think there’s absolutely no hope of Assange being convicted under the Espionage Act. Further, the New York Times has been a partner in all of this. Why is the focus on Assange, a foreign national who has no allegiance to the US, instead of the domestic news sources who are reporting on the leak?
The Wall Street Journal has been in on it too. Why don’t they go after Rupert Murdoch.
I assume by ‘our’ you meant belonging to U.S. Citizens, more or less. OK, I’m a U.S. Citizen, and since this is GQ, I will merely say that it is entirely your opinion that Assange is working against our interest. Opinions shouldn’t be put forth as facts in General Questions.
See, I have a very strong interest in not having my friends die in wars started because our government lied to us, wheras I have very little to gain from a government that can cover up and hide any mistakes or outright corruption. So exposing when the government lies is therefore very much working in my interest as a citizen and as a taxpayer.
There’s also the question of what they could possibly gain from prosecuting, or even jailing, Assange. First, he’s obviously the group’s designated front man, which means he and the group agreed that he’d be the one to go down if anyone actually had to. This implies, or I’m pretty sure it implies, some things about how much he actually knows about the operations of WikiLeaks. Second, WikiLeaks isn’t that special. The technology they use is, in large part, available to all. The concept of what they do (funnel leaks from insiders to the world) is not exactly tough to grasp, and the technology makes it fairly inexpensive to replicate. In fact, this is apparently happening, due in part to former WikiLeaks people being dissatisfied with Assange.
Well, we’re in agreement. Let’s say I’m fine with having the lies exposed, but not the non lies. If provide a list of the two that would be very helpful on how the government should proceed.
Also, surely you know that sometimes lies and secrets are a good thing, right? During the build up to D-Day, the U.S. kept the plans for Operation Overlord secret, and “let leak” plans to build up forces in Scandinavia for what seemed to be an assault on Germans from the north. Those reports were all lies. should they have been revealed. Should the secret of D-Day been leaked?
Let us know when Wikileaks blows the cover of a new invasion of mainland Europe. By all accounts the lag time between receiving a leak and releasing it is on the order of a few months, at least.
This also points to another reason not to try to take down Wikileaks. So far, they’ve been pretty good at stripping leaks of personal and other sensitive data, Pentagon FUD nonwithstanding. Whichever dozen or so organizations that spring up in their place probably won’t be as diligent.
Sorry, forgot to provide a cite (as much as a newspaper article can be a cite, it was The Independent FWIW). Here is an article from the Daily Mail. Taken from that article:
But the risk of war is reduced by nations having an alternative to war available, namely diplomacy. Assange has made the practice of diplomacy more difficult, and this is unlikely to serve the cause of peace, it seems to me.
For instance, by exposing how much Saudi policy as to Iran is congruent with Israel’s, he has arguably increased the likelihood of war over Iran. Similarly, by exposing China’s increasing equivocation over North Korea, he has threatened to destabilize that situation. There’s not necessarily any correlation between transparency and non-violence.
What has Assange done that the NYT and WSJ didn’t do, and how do you get around the First Amendment right to a free press?
Assange may have participated in, abetted, encouraged, etc., Manning’s conduct, which arguably may make a difference under S.Ct. precedent. Slate has an article exploring the argument that Assange’s activities may not be protected by the 1st amendment.
Well, only if your diplomacy is based on lies, then you have to worry about the lies being exposed. If your diplomats upheld American principles and simply told the truth, both publicly and in their diplomatic cables, there would be no such ‘leaks’.
With regard to this, as the site was until yesterday 12/02/10 posted on US servers, would the crime (alleged) have taken place on US soil if posted from elsewhere on the planet?