Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill

Posted by samzenpus on from the kickig-a-dead-horse dept.

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."

15 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Libby and Cheiney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, does this apply to Libby / Chaney leaking name of active CIA operative? Oh wait, got a pardon from Bush....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby

    1. Re:Libby and Cheiney by tombeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I'm sure after as much "time for reflection" necessary has been allowed, Bradley will certainly remember whatever is required for his conviction.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    2. Re:Libby and Cheiney by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm sure after as much "time for reflection" necessary has been allowed, Bradley will certainly remember whatever is required for his conviction.

      After a year of waterboarding I'd be happy to confess to crucifying Jesus, organising the Nazi concentration camps and flying one of the planes on 9/11 just to get them to stop.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Misleading... by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability; in other words, you can't make something illegal today, and then prosecute the guy that did it yesterday. It's more like the early laws around computer crime, which came about not to prosecute people who had already been hacking, but instead came about because existing law didn't properly address something that should already have been criminalized, in the eyes of the legislature.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Misleading... by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but leaving those documents available on WikiLeaks after the law passes (if it passes in to law) would be an on-going act that could be illegal.

    2. Re:Misleading... by bstender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability

      you trying to tell a law-maker what the law is? maybe they'll just pass another law making it lawful to enact retroactive law enforcement, bitch! it's not like the US public will say squat about it anyway as long as the cheap gas and Bacon double-cheesburgers keep rolling. and don't try that "i have rights constitution" bs, you must be a terrorist to talk like that. i've heard enough, guards, silently lock him away.

      --
      look sig is kool
    3. Re:Misleading... by adamstew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except they can't do that. It's expressly forbidden to do this in the US Constitution. It's called "Ex Post Facto" and it's not allowed.

      I could be wrong, but I don't even think an amendment to the constitution can allow ex post facto laws, since it's explicitly in the section called "limits on congress".

    4. Re:Misleading... by RLaager · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Retroactively granting someone immunity (which is a limited form of retroactively making something legal) is very different from making something retroactively illegal. For example, if Congress were to repeal the prohibitions on marijuana and apply that retroactively, people could be released from jail. On the other hand, if Congress made possession of ibuprofen illegal retroactively, the fact that someone owned Advil (and took it all) last year could land them in jail. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that making something legal retroactively would not run afoul of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.

      I'm not taking a position, in this post, on the wiretapping immunity law itself, the legality of said wiretapping, or the legality of Congress granting such immunity.

    5. Re:Misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      uhm maybe take a geography course? World > usa
      No amount of legislation is gonna make julian assange come under U.S jurisdiction. To do that , you need to cook up some moronic charges and get him extradited to the u.s.a, oh wait...

    6. Re:Misleading... by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There still is a rather obscure part of the U.S. Constitution:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      I don't know what part of "congress shall make no law" those guys can't figure out, but making a law to prohibit the publication of the names of people is unconstitutional. It says so right there.

      Then again, if they don't give a damn about the constitution and are willing to be so bold as to shut down a media outlet by legislation, they also don't give a damn about ex-post facto laws either.

      No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

      (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4)

      Some people thought it was idiotic and wasting time to actually read aloud this document at the beginning of the current session of Congress. Frankly, I don't think it gets pounded into their heads enough and that should be an annual tradition.

    7. Re:Misleading... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to think things forbidden by the constitution can't be done.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    8. Re:Misleading... by Anachragnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Yes, but it tries to put a stop on the next bunch of Wikileaks that are on their way..."

      Too fucking late.

      Only 4,091 of 251,287 of the diplomatic cables have been released so far.

      Lets take a look at the way things are playing out. Starting in Tunisia, we have mass protests that eventually lead to the ouster of Tunisia's ruling elite. These protests started on December 17, 2010. Wikileaks had been releasing cables relating to Tunisia starting on November 30, 2010, more then two weeks before Mohamed Bouazizi self-immolated. Next is Egypt. Demonstrations there started on January 25, 2011. Wikileaks started releasing cables from Cairo on December 13, 2010. Next, Jordan. Protests started there in late-January. Wikileaks began releasing cables regarding Jordan as early as November 30, 2010. It goes on and on...

      The fact of the matter is the events taking place there have all been preceded by cable releases that directly apply to those countries. I am surprised Brazil hasn't followed suit--plenty of cables to get people riled up in Brazil.

      Reading between the lines? You bet. So fucking what--everyone does it. It is part of our "intuition", that inner-self that tells us the truths we do not want to hear. What I see are very scared men trying ANYTHING to stem the flow of cables. Shit is changing fast and Wikileaks is most certainly NOT helping things, as far as the scared little men are concerned. They are losing power, that which they hold in the highest possible esteem. These cables are being released strategically and the little men are starting to realize the shit they are in, finally understanding the true power of truth. To what end are they being released strategically? A shift of power from the elite and corrupt. To whom? Who knows. That remains to be seen.

      The US government doesn't want Assange for execution or prosecution--they want to hold him hostage, alive, to stop the flow of cables. Nothing else will do as the little men know he has insurance. But, we all know that will not work. It is TOO FUCKING LATE. Julian knew what he was getting into, and life is full of risks.

      The train is just leaving the station, folks. The real changes are still to come. Roughly 246, 000 cables left...

    9. Re:Misleading... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. A country can't unilaterally extend its law's jurisdiction.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  3. Re:Constitutional? I doubt it. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Question: When was the last time the US was not at war?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. US law to apply to foreign citizens? by Stripe7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That still does not address the issue that Assange is an Austrialian currently residing in England. Does that mean rendition teams from US will apply US laws to any foreign citizen? Then the reverse is true and rendition teams from other foreign countries can do the same to US citizen. Like prosecute Cheney or Bush for war crimes with rendition teams in the US.