Posted on 12/03/2010 1:30:26 PM PST by lormand
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is taking a stand as one of Julian Assange’s few defenders in Washington, arguing that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protections as the media.
Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that the Justice Department is examining whether Assange can be charged with a crime for posting hundreds of thousands of leaked government intelligence documents and diplomatic cables.
Many Republicans have gone even further in their attacks on Assange, especially former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said this week that the source who leaked to the WikiLeaks founder should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty.
But in a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said the idea of prosecuting Assange crosses the line.
“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”
“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”
Paul followed up with a post to his Twitter account Friday morning: "Re: WikiLeaks — In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."
Comparing an info dump of embarrassing material to a murderous attack in peace time? That's a stretch.
You'd have a better argument if you compared it to the putative Chinese missile launched off the California shore.
The question is whether the warning implicit in the Assange data dump is early enough for us to shut the barn door before all the horses are out. Let's hope so. We'd be in more trouble if the leaks continued, but no Assange happened to tell us.
The problem with the missile launch is that it's probably intended to tell us that the barn is empty.
I certainly agree with all that, and was unaware there were claims he conspired to acquire the information.
I presume you are aware that a great deal of “investigative journalism” conspires to break various laws all the time, certainly after the fact of the crime if not before. Fraud, theft, etc. In fact, without the law breaking it would be real difficult to do investigative journalism.
The way it often works is: “whistle-blower” who works for corporation contacts member of press, tells what he has got, journalist works with him to figure out what information will work best. WB trots off and steals the relevant data, provides it to journalist who publishes it. Sounds like conspiracy and accessory before and after the fact to me, and except for the national security connection exactly what Wikileaks is accused of.
Where's the proof of a Chinese missle launch off of California? It may be plausible, but so is a jet contrail until we know for sure.
Ron Paul loves to talk with Alex Jones. It is the Paul/Jones types who are quick to conclude things which are not provable. I hope you are not one of them.
Lets hope that your argument is correct, which is that it cannot be compared to Pearl Harbor. It's way early.
In this instance, that could be a bad analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
IMO, the worst reactions from these leaks are coming from people who always dismiss conspiracy theories. Now that things are coming to light, it just blows their minds.
But, they have to operate within legal boundaries, as Food Lion Incorporated v. Capital Cities/abc Inc 194 F. 3d 505, demonstrates. These investigative stories don't come without some legal peril for the journalists doing them. Criminal prosecutions are probably rare, if only because of mens rea.
"WB trots off and steals the relevant data, provides it to journalist who publishes it. Sounds like conspiracy and accessory before and after the fact to me, and except for the national security connection exactly what Wikileaks is accused of."
This really isn't my area of practice, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there may have been prosecutions (or at least indictments) in just this kind of case. I'd guess though most prosecutors would exercise more cautious discretion in bringing such a case.
It is the national security element that makes this so much different. Quite literally, the stakes are so much higher.
I’m not sure the espionage case is quite that clear-cut. Assange runs a website that expressly solicits Americans with high clearance to steal and transmit classified information into their hands. That sounds like espionage to me.
Whether they requested this specific information beforehand doesn’t seem relevant when they have issued a general request for any and all classified information.
SnakeDoc
There are materials that have to be classified but it should be directly related to our nation security.
National security covers many things. Need I spell out everything so you could understand.
I should have added, that if it turns out that Assange was just sitting in his office, and these materials plopped on his desk (or his computer inbox), then he has virtually no criminal exposure here. New York Times Co. v. United States absolutely guarantees this.
--FR's once vocal but dwindling core of RonPaulBots
Wrong set of people:
1 - The President,
2 - The Congress,
3 - The Supreme Court.
Here’s why:
The President because of the whole fiasco concerning LTC Lankin [ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635498/posts ].
By subjecting the LTC to a Courts Martial, which is authorized/enacted by an executive order on the Manual for Court Martials, for questioning the legitimacy of orders is precisely that of allowing Obama to declare his own legitimacy and under that legitimacy subject him to trial. (i.e. it is, in effect, allowing Obama to be judge/jury in his own cause.)
Further, the ineligibility of Obama to be President would, if true, could render ALL foreign military actions/engagements to be illegitimate which, in turn, expose the soldiers overseas to charges of violating international law ratified by the US by treaty.
The continued allowance of having a president of questionable eligibility is therefore giving aid to the enemies of America.
The congress because of their allowance of the above. For the enactment, and enforcement of the GCA of 1968; the disarming/restriction of firearms to the people ACTIVELY inhibits them from responding to external threats under no such restrictions (ex. AZ vs. Mexican Gangs). For the refusal to seal the borders [see art 4 sec 4 of the US Constitution].
The USSC for degrading the Constitution.
The USSC has declared itself to be superior to the Constitution, and in so doing it has weakened the authority of the Supreme law of the land.
Example, in 1798’s Calder v. Bull the Supreme Court declared that the restriction against Ex Post Facto law was applicable only to criminal law [or law which could be prosecuted criminally]. {The Congress uses that as justification to make ex post facto tax law; which they claim to be ‘administrative’ or ‘regulatory’.} Yet violations of ex post facto tax law are prosecuted in criminal court. {And it is thus that the Constitution is made of none effect; if the Constitution is of none effect then how is that NOT the active act of “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the country whose supreme law is the Constitution [that is, America]?}
The same sort of undermining can be seen in more recent USSC decisions; the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London for example. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that larceny was a-ok should it be done with the government approval that is ‘eminent domain.’ {The 5th Amendment REQUIRES that eminent domain be “for public use” but in Kelo’s case it was being used to turn the land over to a private developer for the construction of some private business building, IIRC.}
How’s that tie in with post 46?
Did you at least GLANCE at the Wiki article you linked here? They had 10 inquiries into the Pearl Harbor attack. Guess how many of the 10 concluded that we had prior knowledge of the attack?
I still maintain that Assange is a patsy, a small bit player in this mess.
Has any investigation been proposed, ferreting out the sources of "classified" data?
I am especially intrigued by the omission of what's NOT been released so far - IS THERE NOTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT 0BAMA??
No. I understand perfectly what you said. Army PFCs, nor foreign journalists get to decide what should or should not be classified. Everything that is classified should be classified, just by virtue that it is. That blows your mind, right? Let me tell you why I think that's true.
We live in a representative republic where we elect people to manage our government. In our system, the Executive gets to decide solely, and without oversight what is or is not classified. Somebody has to be in charge. If we think too many things are classified, then we should elect a president who campaigns on just that platform - "I'm going to declassify more stuff". I wouldn't be hopeful such a platform would be compelling to many.
Think of it this way: If someone anonymously sent you a file with a bunch of Chinese classified material and you posted it online, do you think you should be subject to arrest by the Chinese for espionage? You are basically just the publisher of the information.
We’re dealing with the actual person who broke the law here. I don’t know that we can go after Assange.
Assange is not a citizen of the United States of America.
Therefore he has no standing under our laws, either to be protected or to be prosecuted.
This is a sideshow.
We should really be going after the leakers and the lax security in our military and diplomatic corps.
Point is, if we don’t have people willing to risk their own lives to get out the truth, we might never know it.
If governments and nasty rich people like Soros, Rothschilds or the Rockefellers didn’t have a history of evil doings, there would be no need for conspiracies.
Honestly, he makes a good point. It's a complicated issue, to be sure. New York Times Co. v. United States goes far, but Assange does seem to be soliciting a crime. Would such solicitation actually be criminal under existing US law, and/or would existing Supreme Court precedent still inoculate them from criminal liability?
It's a good question, and one that very well may be answered as this case is fully litigated.
I think you would have 1A attorneys and national security experts making very compelling arguments, both.
The *leaks* do seem very selective and nothing earth-shattering this far. Self-serving IF your name is Hussein 0bama as a matter of fact.
COULD it serve primarily as a reason to shut-down and over-regulate the Internet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.