No U.S. Law against WikiLeaks Publishing Diplomatic Cables

[The Straight Story]

No U.S. Law against WikiLeaks Publishing Diplomatic Cables

Friday, December 10, 2010 The Obama administration and some members of Congress have been making noise about prosecuting Julian Assange (assuming he could be extradited to the U.S.) for publishing classified government documents on his website, WikiLeaks. But no U.S. law currently exists that forbids the publication of diplomatic cables, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Only federal employees can be subject to prosecution for unauthorized disclosure of classified materials, says the CRS report.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other statutes the U.S. Department of Justice might try to use to go after Assange. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), for one, is in favor of using the Espionage Act of 1917 to convict the WikiLeaks founder.

However, Stevev Aftergood at Secrecy News says the Espionage Act “only pertains to information ‘relating to the national defense,’ and only a minority of the diplomatic cables could possibly fit that description.”

Defenders of WikiLeaks and the newspapers that have published some of the State Department cables point to the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, in which the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to not prosecute The New York Times and The Washington Post for running excerpts of a classified Pentagon history of the Vietnam War that had been photocopied and released by Daniel Ellsworth, who had contributed to the report.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/No_US_Law_against_WikiLeaks_Publishing_Diplomatic_Cables_101210

[Bragi]

1. SOP -- just declare WL a terrorist organization

Isn't that what the Patriot Act is for?

The whole idea is to be able to arrest and/or kill people, especially foreigners, without the usual legal formalities by declaring them terrorists.

So why all the hand-wringing now about finding a law to use to justify the ongoing supression of WL currently being managed by the U.S administration?

[harun]

2. I don't know what they've been griping about, he isn't a citizen and not in the U.S.

Pick a new bogeyman.

[Bragi]

5. That's what rendition is usually for

Citizens of other countries living outside the U.S who become problems for the U.S are usually sent by the freedom-protecting CIA to third-countries for torture and imprisonment.

Unfortunately, that only works when the people being seized and tortured are unknown people from the Middle East with complicated names who can't command any media attention.

[tavalon]

3. Whoops, that's going to put a wrinkle or two in their plans

Perhaps Congress can enact a law and they can call it the Julian Assange State Secrets law. I'm not sure who Obama is supposed to surround himself with while signing that rapidly passed piece of "cover our American ass" law. It's easy when it's a Lily Ledbetter or a Matthew Shepard bill being signed. Oh, well, one of those difficult decisions.

Do I sound disgusted with America right now? I hope so, because, well, I am.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. It was Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers, not Daniel Ellsworth.

The article states his name as Daniel Ellsworth. Or, are there two different Daniels involved?

[yodermon]

6. If Robert Novak wasn't prosecuted then Julian Assange shouldn't be.

If Robert Novak's paper (WaPo, in which he published Plame's id) shouldn't be prosecuted then neither should WikiLeaks.

[FLPanhandle]

7. Not yet anyway. n/t