WikiLeaks' Assange to be indicted for spying 'soon' US prosecutors plan to file spying charges against Julian Assange soon in connection with the publishing of secret diplomatic memos on the WikiLeaks website. Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson told ABC News that charges would be brought “soon” under the US Espionage Act. The law makes it a felony to receive national defense …
Wait wait wait...
So if you come into contact with classified information, and you discover that the government is lying and misleading, and then you decide to make it public, you can be charged as a "spy"?
I do not agree with how Wikileaks operates, but there are bigger things at stake here!
>>"So if you come into contact with classified information, and you discover that the government is lying and misleading, and then you decide to make it public, you can be charged as a "spy"?"
You'd probably be on far safer ground if you selectively leaked only things which showed *criminal* behaviour by the government or its agencies.
That at least might lead to action for past crimes and reductions in future ones.
However, it's pretty much understood that when it comes to things like diplomacy, what's said in public is necessarily not going to be the full picture, so everyone can confidently assume that they won't be being told the whole truth, and that some of the time they'll be being given misleading information (like a leader suspected of involvement in killings being applauded as a Force for Good if they seem to be the best option to avoid a civil war).
Actually *proving* that deception just for the sake of it would add very little to the sum of human knowledge even if it may be entertaining, and having it proven isn't at all likely to make future diplomacy an open affair.
Leaking more information than necessary is likely to undermine a public-interest defence - it's highly unlikely a trial would be conducted from a starting point that all information should be freely available.
If you come in contact with protectively marked information (the formal UK term for "classified" information) the stuff you hold is under the Official Secrets Act.
I don't quite know what position you're in if you find it on the train (the traditional route for UK information disclosure, cough), but if you had to sign the Official Secrets Act (OSA) to gain access you are committing a crime by releasing such information to anyone without due authorisation. They are not *your* secrets to give away - the same principle as if you've been told something personal by someone else.
If you get caught, you will be convicted, and it is only at this point that your motive starts to matter.
If you can show that you exhausted every other method to report a misdeed, and that you took care to limit the disclosure to the problem at hand you can apply for whistleblower status and thus have the sentence reduced or even commuted.
This is the precise problem with Wikileaks - not only is their release process not able to demonstrate that care (the volume is too high to ensure the complexities of collateral damage are dealt with) but they made matters worse by by stating they will just release all information (unfiltered) in one go if any of that club is harmed. That's plain blackmail, and is not going to make a difference. If anything, it hardens determination of those who don't like Wikileaks.
Assange has thus put himself in a position where he is not just failing to provide the public "service" to whistleblowers that Wikileaks apparently set out to do, he has placed himself in a position where he can be charged with collaborating with crime in a way that can be made to stick.
If they manage that, Assange is going to be in a world of trouble - he is annoying people that have never quite learned the art of diplomacy to a usable degree..
I think our government would do better to spend its efforts improving the security of its classified networks. From what I've read, American military security is pitiful compared to what I've experienced in the corporate realm. And if Wikileaks could get so much classified information --- what do our ACTUAL enemies have in their hands?
Let me tell you what I know.
1. Assange isn't being treated as a journalist (someone who publishes with the intent of serving the public interest). This week Assange is about to be classified by the US government as a SPY - that is, he INTENTIONALLY SOUGHT classified information with the DELIBERATE INTENTION of inflicting harm on the United States. Geez, his own statements have backed that up! It's like he deliberately made himself guilty. If he had kept his freakin' mouth shut things wouldn't be so bad for him!
2. Also, Operation Payback has kinda forced the government's hand. If the USA doesn't prosecute Assange as a spy it could be inferred that Payback succeeded. If the purpose of Payback is to support Assange, then the best and only way to counter Payback is to prosecute Assange.
If you don't like #2 that's too bad - but prosecuting Assange as a spy is really the US government's ONLY option. PAYBACK FORCED ASSANGE'S ARREST.
Already the US press is reporting that some compromised PCs participating in Payback are being denied internet access by their ISPs. Also, a high school kid in Oregon was arrested and his computer equipment seized for actively participating in Payback by using LOIC.
What really frightens me about all of this is the short-sightedness of Operation Payback. It has the dangerous potential to achieve the exact opposite of what it wants. It was mentioned on some of the US Sunday morning news shows that Operation Payback might be used by politicians as an excuse to legislate stronger controls and government monitoring of an individual's internet access, not just in the USA but in other countries. This would be a catastrophic backfire of Payback..
You have to consider that, with Christmas coming up, economies can't afford website outages. The enforcement is going to get more vigorous. Obama's best best to protect the economy is to direct his Justice Department, and the FBI and CIA, to go after Payback participants both in and out of the USA. This has the potential to get way out of hand.
>>"This week Assange is about to be classified by the US government as a SPY - that is, he INTENTIONALLY SOUGHT classified information with the DELIBERATE INTENTION of inflicting harm on the United States. Geez, his own statements have backed that up! It's like he deliberately made himself guilty. If he had kept his freakin' mouth shut things wouldn't be so bad for him!"
I wonder what the situation with Bradley Manning was (assuming he was the source)?
Did he copy all the information before ever getting in touch with Wikileaks?
If not, and if he was encouraged to get more, would that actually affect the legal situation?
>>"Already the US press is reporting that some compromised PCs participating in Payback are being denied internet access by their ISPs."
Wonder why it took so long for that to happen - surely it makes sense for that to be standard practice, not least since it gives PC owners a chance to get their machines cleaned and protected, and maybe saves them from identity theft, etc.
May, 2010: Obama signs bill to promote press freedom abroad:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/obama-signs-bill-aimed-to-promote-free-press/
Do as we say, not as we do.
No US dog food for the US govt. Oh no. Freedom is for the other guys, all our dirty little secrets are really soooper doooper important and anyone who publishes them is a terrorist.
It's questionable whether the US could do any more damage to its image if they adopted black uniforms with skulls on and roman style, raised arm salutes.
These leaks have done no damage to US security, they have simply embarrassed it.
But let's face it. The US reputation for being the 'good guys' disappeared not long after they started two wars based on made up evidence and instituted a global network of torture gulags.
Simply invent your own definition of torture, and your own interpretations of what constitutes combatants, and hey presto, you can wire people's nuts up or drown them 'til the cows come home and still claim the high moral ground.
So it is hardly surprising that when someone dares to challenge the US's right to conduct its dirty dealings in secret by exercising the right of free speech that the US claims to champion, he is fitted up for the most dubious 'sex crime' ever, held in solitary confinement in London with limited access even to lawyers, while the US no doubt runs roughshod over any due process to ensure he ends his days in a US torture gulag somewhere.
But rest assured, all this hypocrisy really is keeping us safe from the 'terrists'.
And we're supposed to believe things are going to be worse in 20 years when the Chinese are in charge and telling us what to do?
Things look pretty similar to China already if you ask me.
There's something in those cables that USG desperately don't want people to see.
Sadly, expecting the UK Government might protect the right to free speech was probably the second unfortunate mistake Assange has made, after his reckless encounters in Sweden.
I hope the Courts here prevent his extradition to Sweden or USA, but I'm not confident.
Bets the US will schedule Assange's espionage trial to begin on May 3rd?
The UN has proclaimed this date to be "World Press Freedom Day", and the 2011 celebration is to be held in Washington DC.
In other news, if gubmints don't want their dirty laundry aired in public, they shouldn't put them on a USB stick & leave it on the bus!
Who cares ? The first ten amendments to the US Constitution - with the possible exception of a distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment - were tossed out long ago. Empires in decline which are engaged in continual wars of aggression abroad can hardly afford civil liberties at home....
Henri
It's staggering that some people (who appear to all be American) are so stupid as to point the finger at Assange saying he has committed a crime whilst completely ignoring the huge crimes that they claim he is responsible for exposing in Wikileaks. PRIORITIES people!!
Mines the one that has a lynching rope with U.S.gov's name on it in the pocket
Data theft is a crime, especially of classified information. You may be sort of "excused" for that crime if you can prove that your motive was to highlight another crime, but you start with being a criminal.
Oh, and you have to be very specific about the why even before the disclosure, you can't just hand over a filing cabinet and state that you suspect something wrong to be in there - that would be like shooting every 10th person in Oxford Street and claiming you have reduced crime.
Statistically you will be correct, but it still won't serve much as an excuse for the collateral damage..
It will only make him a matyr which is what he and his supporters want. From what i understand, it will be very difficult for the American authorities to make any charges stick because technically, he did not steal these materials himself. It was handed to him and Wikileaks by Manning (whom they have abandoned to rot in jail)
who cares about rights; petty vengeance is the quality I look for in democratic governments; I guess you're with me.
Like how if you swear at a policeman you should expect him to turn up at your house the next day with a baseball bat.
I quite like not living in an openly fascist police state void of rights; lets keep it that way ay.
THIS WAS WRITTEN AS A REPLY TO DS 1's COMMENTS BUT HE'S PULLED THE REPLY.
IT SEEMS A SHAME, AS HIS REPLY WAS ONE OF THE FEW GOOD COGENT COMMENTS FROM THOSE WHO OPPOSE WIKILEAKS AND ASSANGE. HAVING IT WOULD HAVE PRESERVED SOME BALANCE.
AS I'VE SAID IN THE TEXT, DS 1 IS A GOOD WRITER AND DESERVES TO BE READ EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM. THUS, I'D URGE HIM TO REPOST IT.
_________________________
DS 1's unfavourable views about Assange are poles apart from the majority who've replied to this El Reg post. However, his opinions about Assange are very cogently argued* and they encompass many of the core arguments espoused by Assange's main critics. Whether you're for or against Assange, his reply deserves to be read.
I do not intend to comment on the points raised in his reply, rather I want to draw the reader's attention to how diametrically opposed they are to those who favour Assange. In microcosm, these El Reg replies have the same degree of extreme polarisation that we are now seeing across Western democracies in many important issues, the US being the most prominent country although the UK and Australia etc. are not far behind. Thirty or forty years ago, such divergent worldviews only existed between countries and differing political systems--capitalism and communism for instance--now such wide divergences of view are commonplace within democracies. In fact, we have to go back to the 1930s before we see anything comparable.
Whether it's health care, education, taxes, abortion, creation science, climate change, immigration, pharmaceutical patents, ACTA, WIPO--intellectual property and copyright, or whether we go to war or not, or whether governments should share secrets with other governments yet exclude their own citizenry, a common consensus is unlikely to exist nowadays. Instead, polarisation over many issues has hit such heights that democracy is becoming unworkable: elections are no longer arbiters as losers simply refuse to accept policies decided upon by the majority and they deliberately set about to publicly undermine and subvert them by every means possible (the US Tea Party's antics for example).
I won't speculate why this extreme divergence of opinion has taken place, but with the lack of consensus across so many fronts, facts indicate that the US is now essentially ungovernable and other countries are moving this way. For example, the vehement opposition to Obama on just about everything has made him a lame duck president: sure, he was popularly elected but a common widespread consensus on policy did not follow, in fact, opponents have actively undermined his agenda.
Democracy, more than any other political system, requires people of good will to cooperate for it to work. Once, minor abuses to the democratic process such as an official's abuse of power or trust, would have little bearing on the general will of the citizenry, but with the ongoing and widespread erosion of consensus on so many fronts there's ample evidence that democracy is beginning to crack at the seams. (Inevitable compromises leave too many citizens unsatisfied--as the saying goes, try to please all and you'll please none).
Combine that lack of a widespread consensus with the increasing complexities (and often questionably undemocratic workings) of modern governments such as increasing government secrecy, carefully managed spin and propaganda from politicians and government officials, politicians found rorting the kitty, governments in secret deals with corporations, the starting of questionable wars etc., thus it's not surprising that citizens in Western democracies have developed an almost universal disrespect for and distrust of their political leaders.
Into this existing mess came 911, and tragically, the terrorists won much more out of it than Western leaders would ever admit although probably not in ways they expected. The terrorists might not have achieved their stated aims but by enlarging existing cracks in democracy, we citizens have lost much. We've lost freedoms that were already tenuous, we're subject to extra surveillance and monitoring, air travel is almost unbearable and so on. In response, our democracies have not behaved well. Those in power, usually under the cover of secrecy, have had no compunction in deviating from the Jeffersonian democratic model. Take Abu Ghraib as just one instance. All up, things are considerably worse now in Western democracies than they were before 911.
Thus, it's hardly surprising that all this is fertile ground for the formation of organizations such as WikiLeaks. Moreover, had it not been for 911 then WikiLeaks would never have gained access to these US diplomatic documents.
In reality, WikiLeaks is not the cause of the trouble; rather it's a combination by-product of this democratic malaise and a new Internet way of doing politics. Blaming WikiLeaks totally when it's at the end of events is simply hypocrisy and or false logic. However, it is by no means neutral, it's a political player as any other, which is what anyone would expect. The fact that it fortuitously came across a goldmine of information through the incompetence of others then published it is exactly what any number of newsagencies would have and have done (witness the NYT et al).
Criticism from governments of WikiLeaks and Assange is exactly what we would expect. Moreover, it will be relentless but seemingly reasonable propaganda that will 'manufacture consent' in the eyes of the citizenry to legitimise the government's future actions as well as to neutralise the damage of its monumental incompetence. As they regroup, expect to see governments use every trick imaginable from the classic propaganda textbook, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm, and then some. It will be very dirty and unethical.
Probably at no other time in history has the democratic service--this 'undemocratic' part of democracy--been exposed so comprehensively. It, along with the often-secret process of negotiating international treaties, is out of bounds to ordinary citizens. Moreover, the process ratifying treaties through parliaments is a sham, as parliamentary members are rarely a part of the negotiating process, thus in practice they've little option but to vote to ratify. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, once signed, treaties are forever locked out of the political process, changing them is essentially impossible.
Although the contents of some of WikiLeaks documents will be of interest, what's absolutely relevant is proof positive of how the diplomatic systems actually work. Although common knowledge before the leak, insight was gained only through insinuation and innuendo, thus always plausibly deniable by the diplomatic protagonists, now its operational methodology is undeniable. Thus, it's possible the diplomatic process could be forced to account for itself in the political domain which is open and public. Essentially, the leaks have changed the paradigm, in future diplomats may have to explain their actions in public, secrecy may no longer be the order of the day.
What's at stake here is nothing less than the power and authority of the elites who actually run the world. The fact these leaks have become known to popular culture means that the game play-out will be as dirty as it gets. People who have power usually fight to keep it.
It's just possible that what we are witnessing here with WikiLeaks, the protests and retaliation through the denial of service attacks, and the threat of the Pirate Bay co-founder to start a P2P-based DNS to take on (bypass) ICANN might just be the beginnings of a new political process. If that ever eventuates, then Assange will end up as either a martyr or political hero.
Maybe we've been cursed to live in interesting times.
--------------
* As are DS 1's other posts (this writer always presents well-reasoned arguments in El Reg).
Question. If you have fifteen or so credit cards, and you display them on a sidewalk in a large metropolitan area and beside each credit card you put the corresponding pin number in bold letters, who is ultimately responsible for the use of that information ?
Nothing is secret in the hands of humans, we've know this forever.
I smell a rat. And that rat has a big "G" written all over it.
Okay, okay. So the horse escapes from the barn in the middle of the night, just when you think you are going to settle in for a little 'action' ? And you want to shoot the horse, why ? Cut the guy some slack and get to the real source and stop wasting everyone's time and $$$.
I'd hate to be the one to tell you the real culprit here is not Mr. Assange. Wake up and smell the print while the ink is still wet, please.
Guess everyone who has been or is currently connected with the military, every branch, is guilty at one time or another. How many people have 'phoned home' before, during or after a tour ? And knowingly or in some cases un-knowingly provided sensitive information ?
How about a more secure barn door ? Oh yes, don't say a word to the horse 'else it may be in court next year too.
11th Para - stupid typo.
"Probably at no other time in history has the DEMOCRATIC service--this 'undemocratic' part of democracy--been exposed so comprehensively."
Should read:
"Probably at no other time in history has the DIPLOMATIC service--this 'undemocratic' part of democracy--been exposed so comprehensively."
Regardless of what you think of Mr. Assange, how did someone get access to all these documents so readily? Why isn't someone's head (or multiple someone's heads) on the proverbial platter from within the administration for not preventing this?
Were there no controls on these files? Seems like what happens when someone hacks into a retail operation and steals credit card numbers. Yes, those who use those numbers have committed crimes. But those who didn't secure them adequately have some culpability, too!
My 2 cents.
... is that he is not a US citizen.
While the US court system "tries" to give the same rights to non-citizens as they do to citizens there is usually a difference in the amount of "rights" that are given.
The will most likely go for espionage on Assange for purposes of extradition, then once he is in the US he will be charged under terrorism laws and end up in a prison somewhere out of sight and eventually out of mind, without trial.
As for the PVT who leaked the information, while I am for letting the public know what happens in government, this is and can be much better done through legal means.
He would have probably been better off if he was a civilian who leaked the information then an active service member.
This PVT has basically ruined his life, as he could easily be charged under espionage, and under the Uniform Military Code of Justice Article 106a Section C subsections 2 and 3, he could very easily get a death penalty.
>>"He would have probably been better off if he was a civilian who leaked the information then an active service member."
He'd have been far better off if all he'd leaked was clear evidence of illegal acts where most people would have agreed there was a clear public interest.
Even if he still ended up getting convicted, it'd be much harder to make an example of someone who could portray themselves as purely trying to stop serious wrongdoing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
