What should Julian Assange be charged with?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Inks, I"m being serious here, why isn't Gibbs or Obama himself calling for his arrest and deportation to the U.S.?  Or did they and I missed it?

The Justice Department is still in an ongoing investigation... I think it'd be premature for the administration to announce their intent before they have conclusively decided what he'll be charged with.

[Grumps]

Inks, I"m being serious here, why isn't Gibbs or Obama himself calling for his arrest and deportation to the U.S.?  Or did they and I missed it?

The Justice Department is still in an ongoing investigation... I think it'd be premature for the administration to announce their intent before they have conclusively decided what he'll be charged with.

But you guys have conclusively decided what he should be charged with.

I have too.....nothing.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Inks, I"m being serious here, why isn't Gibbs or Obama himself calling for his arrest and deportation to the U.S.?  Or did they and I missed it?

The Justice Department is still in an ongoing investigation... I think it'd be premature for the administration to announce their intent before they have conclusively decided what he'll be charged with.

But you guys have conclusively decided what he should be charged with.

I have too.....nothing.

Not at all.  I'm merely offering a suggestion of what he should be charged with.  I'm doing that based on the limited knowledge I have of the situation.

In the least, I think it's pretty clear that he has violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 (e).

The press release from the White House that you linked to cleraly states that "such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government."

If President Obama (and ultimately Eric Holder) believe that, then they believe that he has violated clause (e), and the next logical step would be for them to prosecute Assange.

I'm curious, why is it that you think what Assange has done does not violate clause (e)?

[Χahar]

I'm pretty sure this is legal under Swedish law (as it should be).

[Swedish Cheese]

Well the Swedish State is probably going charge him with rape, when they get their hands on him again. Wether that is justified though I can't say, as Mr Assange has yet to leak any information about the investigation about him.

I'm pretty sure this is legal under Swedish law (as it should be)

It is. Our constitution is pretty clear that what Mr Assange is doing counts as Freedom of Speech. The crime is commited  by the people who leak the information to him.   

[So the Heroes Fall]

It is. Our constitution is pretty clear that what Mr Assange is doing counts as Freedom of Speech. The crime is commited  by the people who leak the information to him.

Which is also true under US law. See the publishing of the Pentagon Papers or Bob Novak exposing Valerie Plame. Neither the NY Times or Novak broke any laws.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

It is. Our constitution is pretty clear that what Mr Assange is doing counts as Freedom of Speech. The crime is commited  by the people who leak the information to him.

Which is also true under US law. See the publishing of the Pentagon Papers or Bob Novak exposing Valerie Plame. Neither the NY Times or Novak broke any laws.

How does what Assange did not fall under the statute that I cited?

[So the Heroes Fall]

He's never done anything with the intent to harm the US. He hasn't harmed anyone who didn't deserve it so I don't get why people whine about him.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

He's never done anything with the intent to harm the US. He hasn't harmed anyone who didn't deserve it so I don't get why people whine about him.

Again... under the statute I cited, intent does not matter.

[Grumps]

It is. Our constitution is pretty clear that what Mr Assange is doing counts as Freedom of Speech. The crime is commited  by the people who leak the information to him.

Which is also true under US law. See the publishing of the Pentagon Papers or Bob Novak exposing Valerie Plame. Neither the NY Times or Novak broke any laws.

How does what Assange did not fall under the statute that I cited?

Let's just stipulate that it does, to make you guys happy and let's call him a spy............so what?  Under the statute, every spy overseas from every foreign country could be charged, because every country friend and foe is spying on us and obtaining documents......it's just the grand scale of his document dump and the others that gauls some here.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

And every spy should be charged (although they'd be charged under more serious statutes, since the intent there is clear).  It's just that most people who violate the law aren't stupid enough to put their name and face out there saying, "Look what I did!"

[Sewer]

Nothing.

[So the Heroes Fall]

The Israeli government and many of its agents have stolen and misused far more important information far more frequently.

[Grumps]

And every spy should be charged (although they'd be charged under more serious statutes, since the intent there is clear).  It's just that most people who violate the law aren't stupid enough to put their name and face out there saying, "Look what I did!"

Shoot the messenger, eh?  I love how the venom isn't flowing toward the person or persons who gave him all of this stuff.....

He may go down as the greatest whistleblower in history.....I don't think he has any vendetta against the U.S......hell he'd jump at the chance to publish this stuff about any country.....

Intent to inure is very vague, Inks.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The guy who leaked this information should be charged... I've always said that, and I continue to say it now.

What he and Assange did here does not rise to the level where the intent was clearly to damage the U.S.  I've never said that proof of intent was there.

But, there are times when the intent is clear (during the 30s, if a German spy was caught, for instance).

[Sibboleth]

And every spy should be charged

What, every single foreign diplomat currently operating in the U.S should have their collars felt?

[Grumps]

I love how our Israeli allies reacted to the big leak:

From the AP:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said the WikiLeaks disclosure of U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program vindicated his stance that Iran was the chief threat to peace in the region."

I didn't see any quotes where Bebe condemend the dump......actually, Israel will likely make good use of it.

[beneficii]

The guy who leaked this information should be charged... I've always said that, and I continue to say it now.

What he and Assange did here does not rise to the level where the intent was clearly to damage the U.S.  I've never said that proof of intent was there.

But, there are times when the intent is clear (during the 30s, if a German spy was caught, for instance).

Has he ever been to the U.S.?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wow! The guys that defended Eric Cantor's semi-treasonous statement, suddenly got the vapors because a foreign citizen disclosed some pretty innocuous cables.

Ain't life funny?

[Senator Libertas]

Truth-telling. It's illegal in the U.S. now, isn't it?

[homelycooking]

I suppose Mr Assange should be charged with rape after all, since so many of you feel so violated.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I suppose Mr Assange should be charged with rape after all, since so many of you feel so violated.

This thug actually has been charged with rape and molestation in Sweden, though I don't know if the charges are legit or not.

[Grumps]

Truth-telling. It's illegal in the U.S. now, isn't it?

Only if the intent is to injure the U.S.......

[cinyc]

It is. Our constitution is pretty clear that what Mr Assange is doing counts as Freedom of Speech. The crime is commited  by the people who leak the information to him.

Which is also true under US law. See the publishing of the Pentagon Papers or Bob Novak exposing Valerie Plame. Neither the NY Times or Novak broke any laws.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of both the Pentagon Papers case and current law.  The Pentagon Papers case was about whether the government could stop the New York Times from publishing classified information, not the criminality of the actual release.  And the government sometimes has good reasons not to go after lawbreakers who release classified information, including not compromising additional classified information during the trial.

LOL, "espionage", "treason", "foreign spy".  Good luck getting him extradited to a country that still has a federal death penalty for such offenses, guys.

Who said anything about extradition?  There are plenty of ways governments deal with foreign spies, many times not by hauling them into court.

[patrick1]

So much of this is overblown.  It is not like the launch codes are being released. The little information that comes out only confirms much of what we already know.  The real tragedy in this is not for Americans but our foreign sources of intel.  We rely on some people to give us information on the Taliban and Iran.  These documents may redact names, but from the details left in the reports, it is usually pretty easy to figure out who it may be.