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."

3 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

  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 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.