This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Well we might all be criminals. — Brooklynian

Well we might all be criminals.

armchair_warrior
armchair_warrior
edited November -1 in Brooklyn Politics

Dear Americans: If you are not "authorized" personnel, but you have read, written about, commented upon, tweeted, spread links by "liking" on Facebook, shared by email, or otherwise discussed "classified" information disclosed from WikiLeaks, you could be implicated for crimes under the U.S. Espionage Act -- or so warns a legal expert who said the U.S. Espionage Act could make "felons of us all."

Image credit to Abode of Chaos

As the U.S. Justice Department works on a legal case against WikiLeak's Julian Assange for his role in helping publish 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables, authorities are leaning toward charging Assange with spying under the Espionage Act of 1917. Legal experts warn that if there is an indictment under the Espionage Act, then any citizen who has discussed or accessed "classified" information can be arrested on "national security" grounds.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17521/espionage_act_makes_felons_of_us_all

Comments

  • dailyheights
    dailyheights

    >>spread links by "liking" on Facebook

    For the record, I was the first person to Like this post on Facebook. :)

  • whynot_31
    whynot_31

    That's ok, the paranoid part of me has been waiting for the TSA to show up at my door ever since I discussed them in the "thousands standing around thread"

    http://brooklynian.com/forum/brooklyn-politics/guy-vs-tsa-thousands-standing-around/page/2

  • prodigalson
    prodigalson

    Since the first group of people to discuss these matters was the news media, it will interesting to see how they are prosecuted by the government.

  • boygabriel
    boygabriel

    The government's case against Assange is extremely weak, if it even exists.

    Writes Glen Greenwald:



    the Obama administration faces what it perceives to be a serious dilemma: it is -- as Savage writes -- "under intense pressure to make an example of [Assange] as a deterrent to further mass leaking)," but nothing Assange or WikiLeaks has done actually violates the law. Moreover, as these Columbia Journalism School professors explain in opposing prosecutions, it is impossible to invent theories to indict them without simultaneously criminalizing much of investigative journalism. Thus, claiming that WikiLeaks does not merely receive and publish classify information, but rather actively seeks it and helps the leakers, is the DOJ's attempt to distinguish it from "traditional" journalism. As Savage writes, this theory would mean "the government would not have to confront awkward questions about why it is not also prosecuting traditional news organizations or investigative journalists who also disclose information the government says should be kept secret — including The New York Times."
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel

    Indeed, Bob Woodward's whole purpose in life at this point is to cajole, pressure and even manipulate government officials to disclose classified information to him for him to publish in his books, which he routinely does. Does that make him a criminal "conspirator"? Under the DOJ's theory, it would. All of this underscores one unavoidable fact: there is no way to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks without criminalizing journalism because WikiLeaks is engaged in pure journalistic acts: uncovering and publicizing the secret conduct of the world's most powerful factions. It is that conduct -- and not any supposed crime -- which explains why the DOJ is so desperate to prosecute.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior

    well they have to ply the mouse from my dead cold hands. I prefer old age though.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories