Well, that's not to be unexpected. Intent is part of the Espionage Act. IOW, the prosecution would shoulder the burden of demonstrating malicious intent by the accused to prove the government's case. That's why Assange is digging a hole.
As any competent defense attorney will tell EVERY client who's under criminal investigation, STFU, and stay that way.
>As any competent defense attorney will tell EVERY client who’s under criminal investigation, STFU, and stay that way.
Agreed; but then again the government doesn’t actually play by the rules. {Or to put it more accurately the rules tend to be not only defined by the government but redefined by the government [at will]; we are seeing more and more of this, especially in regards to things like the DHS ‘domestic extremest’ list.}
Strictly speaking, ‘Treason’ could be applied to him; as defined in the Constitution no mention of nationality is made:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The argument that this cannot apply to the Wikileaks founder would have to be that he is not under the Law of the Constitution; this should be fairly easy as he is a foreign citizen living in a foreign country — further it would be bad form*, and possibly an act of war, to target [a foreign country’s citizen] and declare that he does fall under the Constitution and demand he be produced for prosecution under our Constitution.
*If such a argument were made, then it is possible that we could try all of Russia’s generals from the Cold war for treason; this makes little sense as they were adhering to their homeland and country of citizenship: Russia. Also such a stance could be mirrored by some foreign power and such charges leveled against American citizens.
The other alternatives are:
— Charging him with some internationally recognized law, or
— an extra-legal black-ops mission.
The latter option could be considered an act of war against his country-of-citizenship and/or the country-of-residence and so should be VERY CAREFULLY considered [and reconsidered] before committing to it. In addition to that, the moral question/impact should be considered; if America is to engage in off-record black-ops assassination [or kidnapping], especially those targeting a single private citizen, then does America-as-a-nation have any moral authority to condemn those countries who act likewise [though perhaps in a more open manner]?