Count 18, which was the one charge in the initial indictment, alleges that Assange tried to help then-Bradley Manning crack a computer password; had the crack succeeded, the leaker would have been harder to identify.
The government's theory is that Assange himself commited a crime by essentially soliciting Manning's crime.
After confirming that ASSANGE thoughtthey had value, on March 8, 2010, Manning told ASSANGE that she was "Throwing everything [she had] on JTF GTMO at [Assange] now." ASSANGE responded, "Ok, great!" When Manning brought up the "Osc," meaning the CIA Open Source Center, ASSANGE replied, "That's something we want to mine entirely, btw," which was consistent with WikiLeaks's list of "Most Wanted Leaks," described in paragraphs 4-5, that solicited "The complete CIA Open Source Center analytical database," an unclassified database.
The government's theory appears to be that this doesn't apply to illegal leaks of national defense information.
In essence, their position is that once a government secret has been leaked to the general public and the first line of defense thereby breached, the government has no recourse but to sit back and watch as the threat to the national security caused by the first disclosure multiplies with every subsequent disclosure.
Although the question whether the government's interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense.
The Assange case, I expect, will be much more likely to go up on appeal, and to draw broad public attention.
https://reason.com/2019/05/23/theory-of-revised-julian-assange-indictment-could-apply-to-ordinary-reporters/
The government's theory is that Assange himself commited a crime by essentially soliciting Manning's crime.
After confirming that ASSANGE thoughtthey had value, on March 8, 2010, Manning told ASSANGE that she was "Throwing everything [she had] on JTF GTMO at [Assange] now." ASSANGE responded, "Ok, great!" When Manning brought up the "Osc," meaning the CIA Open Source Center, ASSANGE replied, "That's something we want to mine entirely, btw," which was consistent with WikiLeaks's list of "Most Wanted Leaks," described in paragraphs 4-5, that solicited "The complete CIA Open Source Center analytical database," an unclassified database.
The government's theory appears to be that this doesn't apply to illegal leaks of national defense information.
In essence, their position is that once a government secret has been leaked to the general public and the first line of defense thereby breached, the government has no recourse but to sit back and watch as the threat to the national security caused by the first disclosure multiplies with every subsequent disclosure.
Although the question whether the government's interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense.
The Assange case, I expect, will be much more likely to go up on appeal, and to draw broad public attention.
https://reason.com/2019/05/23/theory-of-revised-julian-assange-indictment-could-apply-to-ordinary-reporters/
No comments:
Post a Comment