What should Julian Assange be charged with?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What should he be charged with for this latest leak of classified documents (if anything)?

So far, there's a pretty wide partisan range of support for prosecution:

"This is extremely damaging to U.S. troops, U.S. interests and U.S. intelligence.  They are engaged in terrorist activity.  What they're doing is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist groups.  Either we're serious about this or we're not." - Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

"To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described they will be held responsible, they will be held accountable." - Eric  Holder

"I also urge the Obama administration, both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world, to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables." - Joe Lieberman

"The people who are leaking these documents need a gut check about their patriotism, and I think they're enjoying the attention they're getting but, frankly, it's coming at a very high price in terms of protecting our men and women in uniform.  I hope that we can figure out where this is coming from and go after them with the force of law." - Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He should be treated as what he is - a foreign spy - and dealt with like other foreign spies.

I'd tend to agree with this.  If a member of the KGB/FSB did this, and simply brought it back to Russia, he'd be charged with espionage.  Why should it be any different if somebody simply makes classified documents public instead of taking them back to his/her government secretly?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, my question to everybody who says, "Nothing." ... should the U.S. not charge people with espionage?  And if we do, how are those people any different than Assange?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, my question to everybody who says, "Nothing." ... should the U.S. not charge people with espionage?  And if we do, how are those people any different than Assange?

Uh, Inks and cinyc, the guy who allegedly gave him this stuff is being charged.  

What Assange has done is still clearly covered under U.S. Code Chapter 37, Section 793...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Gramps, section (e) states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely there's reason to believe that this information that was leaked could be used to the injury of the U.S.  Even if Assange didn't have the intent to injure the U.S., he can still be charged.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

If he's charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793, he'd get at most 10 years in prison and the possibility of a fine.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Gramps, section (e) states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely there's reason to believe that this information that was leaked could be used to the injury of the U.S.  Even if Assange didn't have the intent to injure the U.S., he can still be charged.

So the U.S. decides if the information "injures" the U.S.?  Convenient.

When building the case, yes.  When prosecuting him, that'd ultimately be left up to a jury.

Who else is supposed to decide what injures the U.S.?  Should we not have gone after the Rosenbergs simply because you see a conflict of interest in who is defining espionage?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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)?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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!"

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.?

How is that relevant?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Robert Hanssen was just telling the truth... would you defend what he did?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

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

Again, Gramps, intent does not matter under the law.

I'd like you to answer this... he's been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793 (e) and you're on the jury.  Where is the reasonable doubt for you to find him not guilty?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nothing.

The government is responsible for keeping its classified documents leak-proof... not citizens who want to know what the documents say.

1. He's not a citizen.

2. In that case, if somebody hacked into government computers, you're saying they shouldn't be charged with a crime?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Robert Hanssen was just telling the truth... would you defend what he did?

The two cases aren't comparable. Hanssen was feeding secrets to a supposed enemy nation for money and personal again. Assange and WikiLeaks are simply releasing information that all of the world has the right to know.

Of course I don't really care about the espionage games the two evil empires liked to play during the Cold War anyway. It just serves to illustrate what a joke the State is as an institution, Russian or American, capitalist or socialist.

You simplified this to "truth-telling", or, telling something that is true.  That's all Robert Hanssen did... he just did "truth-telling" in secret.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

[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?

[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 if they didn't do anything wrong, then what is there to hide?

National security secrets.  You realize that your logic for "if they didn't do anything wrong, what is there to hid" is the argument that some governments have used to pry into civilians lives...

[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...

[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 if they didn't do anything wrong, then what is there to hide?

National security secrets.  You realize that your logic for "if they didn't do anything wrong, what is there to hid" is the argument that some governments have used to pry into civilians lives...

If you didn't cut out half his post you would have seen he was making a point.

I don't even remember cutting that out... or seeing it when I responded to it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The real criminals are those that are upset about the truth coming out.

Ahh yes, because those of us who want to uphold the laws of the U.S. have really committed a crime in doing so.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Ok, Inks, did you support an effort inside of Germany to indict Donald Rumsfeld, George J. Tenet, former Central Intelligence Agency director; Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence; David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of US forces in Iraq; and Colonel Thomas Pappas, the former top intelligence official in Iraq for war crimes?

If the indictment would have been issued, should we have loaded them on a plane and sent them to be tried, or now, since they're all retired, if German charges them with war crimes, what do we do?  They might be guilty under German law......."German law provides "universal jurisdiction," allowing for the prosecution of war crimes committed anywhere, said Rattner, who is in Berlin preparing the case."

I have no problem with Germany charging Rumsfeld with war crimes.  I don't think he authorized torture, however, so it's unlikely that the U.S. would extradite him.

I'm not saying that we need to demand Assange be extradited... that's up to the government of the country he's in at the time.