What should Julian Assange be charged with?

[J. J.]

The state shouldn't exist?  Pure anarchy doesn't work.

Well it does, but that's not the pertinent issue here. Let's focus on why the State is addicted to committing crimes and then arresting people for exposing said crimes.

What crimes were committed as evidenced by this release of documents?

Well, here is an interesting question.

Somebody sends me a secret document, directly, in the mail.  I scan it, and place it online.  I probably can't be charged with espionage.

Maybe, publishing secret documents, but what if it's from China?  I have not broken any US laws.  Do I have an obligation to obey the laws of another country that I've never visited?  I didn't hack a computer in China; I was just sitting in my house when the mail showed up.

If it's a document that's property of the U.S., you can be charged.  That doesn't mean you'll be extradited...

For what?  The document showed up.  I didn't steal it?

That doesn't matter.  Both 18 U.S.C. § 798 and 793 have sections that say you can be charged for either posession or even the transmission and/ or publication of classified documents.

And I think that's going to be your first amendment issue.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The state shouldn't exist?  Pure anarchy doesn't work.

Well it does, but that's not the pertinent issue here. Let's focus on why the State is addicted to committing crimes and then arresting people for exposing said crimes.

What crimes were committed as evidenced by this release of documents?

Well, here is an interesting question.

Somebody sends me a secret document, directly, in the mail.  I scan it, and place it online.  I probably can't be charged with espionage.

Maybe, publishing secret documents, but what if it's from China?  I have not broken any US laws.  Do I have an obligation to obey the laws of another country that I've never visited?  I didn't hack a computer in China; I was just sitting in my house when the mail showed up.

If it's a document that's property of the U.S., you can be charged.  That doesn't mean you'll be extradited...

For what?  The document showed up.  I didn't steal it?

That doesn't matter.  Both 18 U.S.C. § 798 and 793 have sections that say you can be charged for either posession or even the transmission and/ or publication of classified documents.

And I think that's going to be your first amendment issue.

Even if he argues that, he can still be charged under 793 for conspiracy to commit (although there's no ctc clause in 798).

[opebo]

the Julian Assange's aren't the real problem, rather it's the fact the intelligence and diplomacy departments of the U.S. are filled with antiAmericans.

Plenty of Germans who fought or fled the Nazis were called 'anti-German', too, jmfcst.  Those leakers are heroes for trying to expose our murderous empire.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The state shouldn't exist?  Pure anarchy doesn't work.

Well it does, but that's not the pertinent issue here. Let's focus on why the State is addicted to committing crimes and then arresting people for exposing said crimes.

What crimes were committed as evidenced by this release of documents?

Well, here is an interesting question.

Somebody sends me a secret document, directly, in the mail.  I scan it, and place it online.  I probably can't be charged with espionage.

Maybe, publishing secret documents, but what if it's from China?  I have not broken any US laws.  Do I have an obligation to obey the laws of another country that I've never visited?  I didn't hack a computer in China; I was just sitting in my house when the mail showed up.

If it's a document that's property of the U.S., you can be charged.  That doesn't mean you'll be extradited...

For what?  The document showed up.  I didn't steal it?

That doesn't matter.  Both 18 U.S.C. § 798 and 793 have sections that say you can be charged for either posession or even the transmission and/ or publication of classified documents.

And I think that's going to be your first amendment issue.

Even if he argues that, he can still be charged under 793 for conspiracy to commit (although there's no ctc clause in 798).

Inks, the WaPo article I linked even suggested first amendment issue might trump this stuff and the Feds will be careful on this, trust me.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And that may happen.  I'm not going to speculate as to what the Court would do here, but I do think that he could at least be charged under one of the statutes I noted.  Now, could it be challenged?  Of course.  I just don't know which way the SCOTUS would decide.

[J. J.]

And that may happen.  I'm not going to speculate as to what the Court would do here, but I do think that he could at least be charged under one of the statutes I noted.  Now, could it be challenged?  Of course.  I just don't know which way the SCOTUS would decide.

There is a jurisdictional problem as well.

How does US statute apply to a non citizen outside of any US territory and not having any direct dealing with the US?  How is Assange even under the jurisdiction of US law?

You can say that violates a statute, but how does Assange suddenly fall under the statute?  We can legally limit the actions of US citizens abroad; we can limit what a non-citizen does in the US, or it territories.  How does the statute extend to non-citizens that are not within US jurisdiction?

[opebo]

They're going to have him smeared in Sweden, then perhaps he'll 'commit suicide' in prison.  They'll be subtle, but it'll still be obvious enough.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In any case, I suspect that Time is gonna name Assange Person of the Year 2010. This is if they stick to the actual definition of "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."

Full list of candidates:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2028734,00.html

He surely won't be beaten by Lady Gaga.

His chances could be hurt by Time's recent reluctance to select perceived enemies of the United States though (despite the fact that even Hitler was Person of the Year once).

[J. J.]

In any case, I suspect that Time is gonna name Assange Person of the Year 2010. This is if they stick to the actual definition of "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."

Full list of candidates:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2028734,00.html

He surely won't be beaten by Lady Gaga.

His chances could be hurt by Time's recent reluctance to select perceived enemies of the United States though (despite the fact that even Hitler was Person of the Year once).

As they did with the Ayatollah Khomeini.  They just did a cover story on Assange.

[Joe Republic]

I believe whoever is leaking things to him is probably breaking his NDA that he signed.

And I'm not content to think it's some lowly service man leaking it.......I think he has a very high placed source.

Maybe they figured out Biden's password?  "coke&hookers123" or something, probably.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe whoever is leaking things to him is probably breaking his NDA that he signed.

And I'm not content to think it's some lowly service man leaking it.......I think he has a very high placed source.

Maybe they figured out Biden's password?  "coke&hookers123" or something, probably.

I'd like to think it's "thisisabigf****ingpassword"

[J. J.]

I believe whoever is leaking things to him is probably breaking his NDA that he signed.

And I'm not content to think it's some lowly service man leaking it.......I think he has a very high placed source.

Maybe they figured out Biden's password?  "coke&hookers123" or something, probably.

I'd like to think it's "thisisabigf****ingpassword"

Don't be silly.  Biden would be using Lord Kinnock's password.

[Zarn]

I figured his password would be the punchline of a racist joke or his name.

[Inverted Things]

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?

It probably does fall under the statute, but the statute is (or rather could be*) trumped by the whole "freedom of the press" business in the first amendment.

* If Assange is caught, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.  I'd be surprised if they didn't come down on the side of the first amendment.

[??????????]

The problem with him being convicted is that he is basically just copying information given to him by a third source. Is that any difference from a journalist who uses a whistle blower to expose corruption? Also, what needs to be considered is that these documents were confidential and secret but not TOP secret, I think a distinction needs to be made. Some of the memos were already known about but hadn't been viewed by the public. Charge him with a crime if he divulges blueprints to a nuclear sub but not for memos that embarrass the State Department. I think we should embarrass them from time to time, it keeps them honest.

If they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Inks, what should the newspapers who publish or link to wikileaks get charged with?

[??????????]

Inks, what should the newspapers who publish or link to wikileaks get charged with?

Since wikileaks has been shut down, I'd imagine nothing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Inks, what should the newspapers who publish or link to wikileaks get charged with?

Since wikileaks has been shut down, I'd imagine nothing.

So don't charge Assange if that's the case, right?

[Nhoj]

Inks, what should the newspapers who publish or link to wikileaks get charged with?

Since wikileaks has been shut down, I'd imagine nothing.

wikileaks Hasnt been shut down just the .org domain, they moved the website to Switzerland now or something.

[??????????]

Inks, what should the newspapers who publish or link to wikileaks get charged with?

Since wikileaks has been shut down, I'd imagine nothing.

wikileaks Hasnt been shut down just the .org domain, they moved the website to Switzerland now or something.

Link to new website? Effectively it has been though.

[Middle-aged Europe]

http://www.wikileaks.ch/

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, what should the newspapers who publish or link to wikileaks get charged with?

Link to... nothing.

Publish.  They could at least be charged with Section 798 (assuming what they publish was part of one of the classified documents... not everything Assange released was classified).

[Free Palestine]

http://www.wikileaks.ch/

Switzerland may be the best place for that site to go.  Torrent sites should go there next.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Glenn Beck is defending Assange against the alleged rape charges (which, even I'll admit are shady AT BEST)... but this is kinda weird.

[Lief 🗽]

Glenn Beck is defending Assange against the alleged rape charges (which, even I'll admit are shady AT BEST)... but this is kinda weird.

Well, I heard on the internet that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young woman in 1990, so this isn't surprising.