WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Can a non-US citizen be prosecuted under the Espionage Act?

Also, could a US newspaper like the NYT be prosecuted under the Act, given that it disseminated the leaked material?

Mr. Koh's letter said that publication of the documents in Mr. Assange's possession would, at minimum:

• "Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals—from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;

• "Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,

• "Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries—partners, allies and common stakeholders—to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability."

The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail

Julian Assange being driven into Westminster Magistrates' Court Julian Assange surrendered himself to police in London

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has told a court he will fight extradition to Sweden.

Bail was refused and the Australian, who denies sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

Mr Assange told a judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court he would contest extradition.

A Wikileaks spokesman said Mr Assange's arrest was an attack on media freedom.

Kristinn Hrafnsson said it would not stop release of more secret files and told Reuters on Tuesday: "Wikileaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before.

"Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."... <cont>

Holder was asked Monday how the United States could prosecute Assange, who is an Australian citizen. "Let me be very clear," he replied. "It is not saber rattling.

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." He did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

Quote:

The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Quote:

The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing."

Oh I am sure, the United States will find a reasonable explanation why they absolutely must prosecute Assange and the minute he's extradited to Sweden (hopefully not) he'll be shipped off to the U.S.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:

The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Not true. If you read the court's opinion, which is only a page long, you will see it doesn't even mention the Espionage Act. Perhaps the Wikipedia contributor who wrote this paragraph had some other case in mind, but forgot to reference it. Or perhaps one can construe something that kinda sorta approaches Wikipedia's claim by stitching together tidbits from the numerous concurring and dissenting opinions in New York Times v. US. (I haven't read them.) But no matter: neither of the dissents and concurrences is a precedent under current US law. Only the court's opinion is. And the Court's opinion, to repeat, doesn't even mention the Espionage act, let alone decide anything about it.

Are you really that naive, Thomas?

Assange made himself available for questioning in Sweden for four weeks, then left the country with the permission of the public prosecutor's office and told Scotland Yard in Great Britain that he could be reached through her law firm, says Jennifer Robinson, Assange's attorney. He also offered to be questioned at the Swedish Embassy in London or directly at Scotland Yard, she said.
(spiegel.de)

This took place in August 2010 and now after Wikileaks published the cables,
Sweden issues a red alert Interpol search for Assange. Furthermore, both
women admitted to consensual sex but later on changed their mind (probably
due to pressure).

Assange's lawyers fear that he'll be extradited to the U.S. once he's in Sweden
based on Sweden's recent actions against him (Interpol), after he's become
public enemy # 1 in the U.S.