The U.S.'s Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks

MINCINGBEAST

Thursday, December 9, 2010 10:44 PM

That there is no legal case against Assange doesn't mean that the US won't proescute him in the court of public opinion.

Assange, though a douche without rival, is not the villain here. Had Wikileaks conspired with Manning to obtain the information we would have heard about it. Wikileaks only did what the media has had the right to do under long settled American law: broadcasted information.

Had, for example, the NY Times obtained the information first, without Wikileaks as middle man, do you think the uproar would be different?

Note that neither example cited above fully implicates espionage, treason, and hatred of 'Merica. I suspect that a clever young federal attorney somewhere, armed with a copy of the Espionage Act, could make a tenable argument against the parties involved.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:15 PM

What we have to ask ourselves is, which sort of world do we want...one where criticism of government, whistleblowing, a media free to probe and publish about a government even when it is unfavourable, embarressing, or exposes of lies and corruption is acceptable, or the type of world where the above is illegal and you are jailed or executed for any of the above.

The intention of governments, at least in democracies, is that they speak and act on behalf and with the approval of the people who elected them. They rule on behalf of us, the electorate, not over us.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:23 PM

Not sure how it is the the US, but over here, it appears that public opinion across the political spectrum is overwhelming suportive of Julian Assange, and overwhelming underwhelmed at the response of our PM, who couldn't wait to jump into support the US in another example of the shocking obsequiousness that our government shows towards the US government.

Quote:

---

There has been an astonishing response to the open letter on Drum to Prime Minister Gillard about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. In essence, that letter called on the Prime Minister to do the following:

[T]o confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

The Drum has now posted more than 4,500 comments, more than on any other story in its history. Many people have been unable to respond, because the page collapsed under the sheer quantity of traffic. (A similar petition is being hosted here).

We have also been privately receiving a huge number of endorsements, both from high-profile and ordinary Australians, which we have been unable to add.

For instance, Daniel Ellsberg is perhaps the most important whistleblower of the 20th century. In 1971, he leaked what became known as the Pentagon Papers, a series of documents proving that the US government had systematically lied about the Vietnam.

This morning, Daniel Ellsberg voiced his support for the letter to Gillard.

The WikiLeaks story is moving quickly. Assange is now in custody. He has been refused bail, and is contesting his extradition to Sweden. Rumours circulate of a plan afoot to eventually send him to the US, even though it is far from clear what laws he has broken.

After all, the leaked cables have been published in some of the world’s most prestigious newspapers, often featuring there before appearing on WikiLeaks. As Assange pointed out in The Australian yesterday, there seems no reason why the editors of these publications should escape whatever sanctions are levelled at the WikiLeaks team. John Howard, of all people, has made the same point, noting that Assange has merely behaved as any journalist would by publishing documents that came into his possession.

The implications of charges against Assange are thus profound. The Age, for instance, boasts of its exclusive access to ‘hundreds of US State Department cables relating to Australia’. In other words, it is The Age, not WikiLeaks, that is releasing the material. Is anyone going to suggest that The Age editor should be prosecuted?

Well, perhaps they are. In the US, the powerful Senator Joe Lieberman wants the Justice Department to investigate The New York Times, on precisely that basis.

This is dangerous territory that we are entering, and it is no wonder that so many people are concerned. WikiLeaks continues to publish. It is clear that any attempts to prosecute Assange will not solve the much larger problem facing many governments around the world. What is at stake now is more than just the fate of one person. We are talking about a fundamental threat to the whole notion of investigative journalism.

The Australian Government does seem to be softening its position on WikiLeaks. That is to be welcomed. But we remain concerned about Mr Assange’s well-being, both physically and in terms of his ability to receive anything approaching justice.

Naturally, there will be differences of opinion about WikiLeaks’ activities and philosophies. But it should not be controversial to assert that Mr Assange is entitled to procedural fairness and that the Australian Government should do everything to ensure he receives it. It is inspiring to see that so many everyday people agree with this conclusion. As well as the many who are signing petitions, in recent days, thousands of mirror sites have

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME