Slashdot Mirror


Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill

angry tapir writes "New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution. Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, introduced the Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination, or SHIELD, Act (read the bill here [PDF]). The bill would clarify US law by saying it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."

7 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Somethings is Rotten in the District of Columbia by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anonymous seems to have stumbled upon a much bigger problem. Read Glen Greenwald's piece on the collaboration between DoJ, BoA and rogue 'security' companies. Greenwald was to be personally targeted, and now he's taking names:

    It's impossible to imagine the DOJ ever, ever prosecuting a huge entity like Bank of America for doing something like waging war against WikiLeaks and its supporters. These massive corporations and the firms that serve them have no fear of law or government because they control each. That's why they so freely plot to target those who oppose them in any way. They not only have massive resources to devote to such attacks, but the ability to act without limits.

    It's his most powerful piece to date.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Re:Libby and Cheiney by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    Keep in mind that we don't even know that Bradley Manning was the one who leaked the information. The only "evidence" anybody knows about is simply an accusation by someone else... someone who happens to have been convicted before of hacking into computers...

  3. Re:Libby and Cheiney by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Libby was convicted on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, not actually outing Plame.

  4. Re:Libby and Cheiney by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pete_King#Valerie_Plame_comments

    In 2005, during the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, King said the crosshairs ought to be set on the news media, which weren't tough enough on her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, rather than Karl Rove. King also suggested that the media "be shot" for pursuing the story and identifying White House aide Karl Rove as the alledged leaker.[6]

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  5. Re:Libby and Cheiney by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US informers involved with "that company" where left in Iraq. Many where systematically 'lost' in the fog of war, like they where on some list.
    The movie Fair Game hints at the details http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0977855/
    As for US law, this will be very chilling on the press. From the 1920's and 30's books on US ww1 code breaking to the Pentagon papers, NSA books ect. US law has been clear about the freedom to publish. What has been published is mostly collected from the press, been cleared or hints at deep crime, useless hardware/software, limited hangout efforts, pure propaganda or PR.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Re:Misleading... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Classified documents become declassified once they're in the wild.>

    By common sense, yes, by law, no. The executive order handling classified information (currently #13526) explicitly states "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information." in part 1, section 1.1c.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  7. Re:Libby and Cheiney by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plame's name was dropped in front of Richard Armitage and others, under ambiguous circumstances. Libby and close associates of his were in the center of these "accidents". When the prosecutors tracked down the leaks to a specific timeline, and questioned Libby about key related conversations, from the investigator's POV, Libby appeared to fabricate an alibi from whole cloth.

    So the circumstances strongly suggested that this "mistaken" recollection was not innocent.

    And the jury all agreed. I would note that multiple jurors stated they believed Libby was a "Fall Guy".

    There are two kinds of Fall Guy. There is the complete innocent who is framed on purpose or through bad luck, which is vastly more common in fiction than real life. And there is the very guilty Fall Guy, who is left holding the bag while more morally culpable individuals escape justice.

    It is unambiguous the jurors were thinking of the second kind, which, if taken at face value, implies they believed there must have been a criminal conspiracy within the highest levels of government.