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."
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
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.
In Sweden, we can't apply laws retroactively, that is, if something is still legal at the time you do it, you have not suddenly committed a crime just because someone passes a new law. How is the situation in the US?
c++;
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
I'm not sure exactly why this would apply to Assange. US law, last I checked, doesn't allow for prosecution of an act committed while it was still legal.
I don't see how the courts would uphold this outside of wartime (in wartime courts routinely let Congress and the Executive Branch run all over the Constitution), assuming the publisher didn't have "dirty hands" in obtaining the information in the first place.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I guess this is some sort of panic attack to be able to legally block wikileaks from the US and that make sure that Assange actually can be taken to court if it shows that he allowed someone in the US to take part of any of the leaked cables after this law is passed..
c++;
That we need less punishment for publishing state secrets as the government become more and more overbearing with things like the Patriot Act, foreign wars, and free market manipulation. What are we supposed to do when the government runs afoul if that same government can throw us in prison for talking about it? Representative King is more interested in having his name in the papers than representing the people. Protecting intelligence assets is the responsibility of the intelligence community, not the publishers that it gets leaked too.
Our politicians are a joke.
Julian Assange is not subject to US law.
No American citizen who has "publish[ed] the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community" in the past would be affected by this law.
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 believe that would be an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Whether information published after (and if) the law is passed would be protected by the 1st amendment is another issue.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
That is one of the things the Constitution has a specific thing to say about. Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3 says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
So if the law were passed it would make such an act illegal in the future, but would not apply to what has already been done.
Now what this would do it make it illegal for Wikileaks to release more information along the lines specified in the bill. Just because they had it before the law was passed wouldn't mean they could freely release them after the law was passed, if the law made it illegal to release information of that nature.
Did no one else see "SHIELD act" and immediately think Marvel Comics?
I half expected the link to lead to an Onion article with Nick Furry on it
Bills should be introduced in the USA, UK, Australia and lots more places saying things like
It is a crime to hide things from the electorate. (This should not be mixed up with "Freedom of Information acts" that rarely work.)
It is a crime to govern by misdirection of public attention.
It is a crime to protect the powerful to the detriment of the weak or less powerful.
It is a crime to take away civil rights, whatever the state of the nation
It is a crime to introduce 'knee jerk' legislation.
It is a crime to retrospectively criminalise something. It can only be criminalised from the introduction of the law
It is a crime to give or accept identifiable corporate campaign donations
That last one would be the one that would upset many politicians and large companies.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
They might not be able to prosecute him for what has already been done, but what about future leaks?
Dvorak on Doomtech
in a way this could be good.
now there's no doubt about what needs to be redacted, and wikileaks can get on with their job without that extra accusation being thrown at them. just redact protected names and be done with it.
Seems like a bigger deal than it is-- had Assange done what everyone told him to do & take the extra 5 minutes to censor all the names, it would still be law-abiding! Well...names of the human-rights-violators should still be left intact...
If they somehow try to apply this to Assange then they should apply it to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove for outing (or giving the orders to out) Valerie Plame.
The GOP (actually all Congressmen) show their complete hypocrisy. They cried foul when Plame was outed and the Democrats accused the administration of being involved, but now they are jumping all over themselves to go after Assange.
I think the "facto" phrase you're thinking of is "Ex post facto. As in "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (Section 9 of Article I of the United States Constitution).
So no, it won't be made retroactive, because no amount of OMG WAR ON TERROR fearmongering will make the US Supreme Court sustain an overtly unconstitutional law.
Well, almost none. But at least recently, the Supremes have resisted the siren call of undeclared war and "no express grant of rights".
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
But will they be able to get Nick Fury to run S.H.I.E.L.D?
I believe that would be an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Whether information published after (and if) the law is passed would be protected by the 1st amendment is another issue.
The Republican Party, and many Democrats don't believe that the Constitution applies to non-Citizens.
So, if the pass the law, people would just go Bob Smith, 123456 Weird St, Auckland, New Zealand is NOT the person who supplied the US with information... ie... youd end up with alot of 'not' words being added to documents... brilliant
Gee, I wonder if anyone could use the SHIELD Act to prosecute Karl Rove or someone for leaking Valerie Plames CIA cover.
Oh that's right. It's not a crime when Republicans do it.
So King claims jurisdiction outside of USA. Audacious, if stupid. Would he be OK with Ruritania legislating against morons being elected to US Congress on the basis that this constitutes a clear and present danger to the world? Would the USA comply with demands to extradite King and others of his ilk to be incarcerated until such time they are deemed fully functional and literate?
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 his most powerful piece to date.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"... it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence community."
I agree with this statement.
By all means, pass it as a law and then bring in Samuel L. Jackson sporting an eyepatch to start an agency named after this Bill.
i suspect it is media hype, but all i have to go on is media hype. ergo whatever the media around here is hyping is generally opposite of the truth (it's bad, send help!)
look sig is kool
How about a bit of legislation prohibiting the titling of bills in a manner that constitutes blatant propaganda? It's perhaps not as bad as the PATRIOT act, which is the most crotch-punchingly offensive example I've come across, but it's the same fucking ballpark. I'm not sure who should be most insulted: people who don't back the legislation, or the general public whose intelligence is held in such dim regard (and all snark aside, I don't think that most people are really all that stupid).
If simply using sequential numbers is too boring, I propose that the opposing team be allowed free rein to add words to the title of the bill, with no right of appeal or amendment granted to the originator. In this case, for instance, the 'no' camp could insist that the title be amended to Another Nugget of Awful Legislation Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination.
"The bill would clarify U.S. law by saying that it is an act of espionage to publish the protected names of American intelligence sources who collaborate with the U.S. military or intelligence community."
Anyone who would want to create a classification of people who are immune from public scrutiny is definitely an enemy of United States. That's you Rep. King.
wikileaks won't be able to be prosecuted for the leaks they've done, but they won't be able to make any new leaks. This isn't about retaliation or damage control, but about giving them some legal teeth for later.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Didn't WikiLeaks ask at least one federal department for help redacting names and other identifying info from the documents, and those departments declined to do so?
I bet the people who drafted this Bill for him (and I don't mean his staff) didn't know that, or conveniently forgot about it.
and if you're an American citizen, they delcare you an "enemy combatant" and snatch you off to gitmo in the night.
What a lovely place we live in.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Today, Curveball admitted he lied to start the Iraq War.
Millions dead - mostly civilians and drafted Iraqi soldiers.
Bankrupt nation - both Iraq and America.
After the war crimes trials for all three ... then they can come for Assange.
And NOT a MOMENT before.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They should throw the book and the bench at Pfc. Bradley Manning and not touch Jullian Assange. Manning was the one who STOLE the information in the first damn place.
This amounts to trying to "kill the messenger" if the messenger was telling everyone about something he heard from from someone who stole the information. It has a bad "chilling effect" and is not good for free speech.
It is like trying to shut down a newspaper that published stolen state secrets, instead of going after the person who stole them in the first place.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The politicians need to realize that, in this day and age, once a secret is out, it's out forever. Once the next Bradley Manning leaks some secrets, they're pretty much public. All Assange is doing is putting them in one place. I'm not saying leaking secrets is good. Some secrets should stay that way. But go after the people leaking them.
So... It would be unlawful for a foreign citizen, to publish information in a foreign country, using foreign resources. Basically a US crime, but not committed on US territory. Good luck with that.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
"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."
Ya, ok... but if, say, the US Gov't was approached with the opportunity to redact any/all of the names that should be protected but refrained from doing so would they be complicit in the final action? Would they hold some blame?
The Republican Party, and many Democrats don't believe that the Constitution applies to non-Citizens.
But they do believe that the Constitution applies to laws of the United States.
Like a list of suspected russian spies on US soil. I realize that Russia doesn't have such a law in place, so it's a bit of a moot point, but it does throw perspective on the idea that this law is effectively attempting to outlaw the counter espionage acts of other sovereign nations. If my government catches a US spy, then they are committing espionage, and when they are tried for espionage their names enter public record, making the judge (?) or the master of court records (?) or just the entire government criminals... But that's because the US should be allowed to spy on everyone on as they see fit, cause they're special...
We already have Shield Laws. But they protect Journalists, not prosecute them. Some people are really not meant to come up with names.
he isn't american.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Exactly what I was thinking.
It seems like every other bill has a stupid backronym. I guess it's marketing.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Lets make sure it's retroactive so Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney can go to jail for espionage as well! After all they did compromise the identity of a secret agent of the CIA.
"New legislation in the US Congress targets WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage prosecution."
How does any legislation target one person?
"The penalty for being Julian Assange is 20-30 years in prison and a minimum $250,000 fine."
I'm finding it hard to believe that Wikileaks hasn't posted anything that's NATO-classified. Even if Sweden isn't a NATO member, wouldn't that expose Assange to prosecution in the UK, which is a member, and also happens to be his present location?
Ex Post Facto
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
They can pass all the laws they want. International law says he can't be prosecuted for something that was not illegal at the time it was done. Something lawyers call Ex Post Facto.
+1, Ostrich Strategy.
no amount of OMG WAR ON TERROR fearmongering will make the US Supreme Court sustain an overtly unconstitutional law.
Oh how I wish that were true, but the Roberts court is thoroughly corrupt. Bear in mind - four of the justices decide cases entirely on the desires of their party. If the Republicans want to see Assange in jail (and boy do they ever) then the best possible outcome is a 5-4 decision with Kennedy joining Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Recently there was just such a decision in Boumediene v Bush to uphold habeus corpus rights. Who knows if a bit more fearmongering might push Kennedy over the edge?
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
If not, who gives a fuck what laws they pass?
You don't get a free pass on a crime because you happen to be in another country. That is the whole point of agencies like Interpol and things like Extradition Treaties. You can't just skip to another nation and say "Ha, ha! Can't arrest me!" That is actually what is going on with Assanage right now. Sweden has chosen to criminally charge him, but he's in England. Sweden has requested he be extradited so he can be tried. So England is have an extradition hearing to decide if he will be or not. More or less they see if the request is legal per the treaty, and if there's any extenuating circumstances as to why it shouldn't happen.
Now this also can apply to crimes that are committed form outside a country, but have an impact on citizens in the country. If you run a fraudulent business selling dangerous good to US citizens marketed as safe, you can get charged for that. Doesn't matter that you aren't in the US, your crime is happening there. They can charge you with it.
Now again, it depends on the country you are in. Some countries don't have extradition treaties with other countries and thus you aren't going to get handed over. Also the nature of the treaties differ, so not all nations will hand over people for all things. For example the US won't extradite for some minor crimes.
England and Australia both have extradition treaties with the US and the nations are very cordial. If he was charged with a felony in the US, and there was evidence to substantiate it, the nations would almost certainly extradite. Now once in the US, the court would try him like anyone else. A criminal court is not concerned with how a defendant got there or where they are from, they are concerned only with the matter set before them to decide.
Now as to prosecuting Bush for war crimes, no probably not. For one, you really have no case. The idea that the Iraq war was somehow illegal is completely false. A bad idea and started on flimsy pretense, but not illegal. The fact aside that sovereign nations have a right to make war, the US was already at war with Iraq. There was no peace treaty after the first Gulf War and Iraq continually violated the no-fly zones by shooting at US jets. A de-facto state of war existed, even if no actual major conflict was being fought. Also the UN didn't pass any resolution against the war (and couldn't because the US has veto power, along with several other nations).
That aside when dealing with national leaders, right or wrong, the rules are a little different. The US is a powerful and influential nations, not to mention one with a really big military. Trying to charge its leaders would be a non-starter, in particular because you'd have to ask the US to extradite them, which it wouldn't, or try to kidnap them, which would be an act of war.
Elucidate, oh Genius/PolyMath/Insightful wizard, please!
Meh.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Even if they pass this law it cannot impact Wikileaks because it would be ex-post-facto. You can't make something illegal after the fact.
I believe it isn't an ex post facto law because it's about the publication of names of protected individuals and a big part of it will depend on the legal definition of what a publication date is on an online document. If it goes the online documents are published on demand then things will get interesting.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
He was 'lying' in that his account of a certain set of dates recalled from memory differed slightly from someone else's recall of a certain set of dates, also from memory. Moreover, the judge threw out the expert witness that Libby wanted to use who would point out that memory is quite fallible.
Apparently the jury didn't see it as such a little slip-up.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
My kingdom for a mod (up) point!
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
A jury is a group of 12 people of average ignorance. - Herbert Spencer.
A jury consists of 12 people chosen to decide who has the best lawyer. - Robert Frost.
When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. - Norm Crosby.
Almost arbitrarily the jury can decide whether you genuinely forgot something, you're lying about forgetting something, or the fact you can't recall is sufficient. Never underestimate the level of "stupid" a group of lay men can bring to a discussion between educated people.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I believe it isn't an ex post facto law because it's about the publication of names of protected individuals and a big part of it will depend on the legal definition of what a publication date is on an online document. If it goes the online documents are published on demand then things will get interesting.
True - does the original date something was made available online determine when it was published or does making something available online constitute an ongoing act of publication? Print is pretty easy since there is a tangible item put out but online content can be removed from the public. At any rate, if Assange would remove the material prior to the bill being signed into law (if it were to pass) then he would be protected under the Constitution.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I am an American, but I do not see the US government being any longer a genuine American government consistent with its founding documents. But only drifting further and further away, becoming a rouge government. And now its becoming quite obvious the US government is disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent, but instead leads the people with deception.
What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too.
The math is to simple. there will be 7 billion people on this planet this year and its only some fraction of 1% of the population that is causing all the trouble and waring wasteful expense of the mind games of these few rather than correcting real world problems for the rest of us, RE: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml which would be much more effective at reducing the motives of others to attack us, as well.
This is the best indicator of a government that can be rightfully diagnosed as being psychologically unfit to command anyone.
Making up the rules as they go along does not work in this country as its supposed to be a democracy but where is our opportunity to vote on this?
Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfield publicly stated that they cannot account for 2.3 trillion dollars of Pentagon spending.... Thats about $8,000 per man, woman and child in the US..... Its also taxation without representation... striking at the very heart of the birth of the US.... the Boston Tea Party... And they continue to spend massive amounts for defense.... 47% of the total world defense spending. Add in the Allies spending and we are over 60% of world spending where teh remaining 40% is divided amount many many poor countries. We don't need to spend anywhere near that much on defense... unless we are going to be attacked by Aliens... Yeah right....
What began in north Africa is spreading and it will come around to the US too, for teh US government continues to show evidence of their failure to understand the founding documents of this country and even teh Declaration of Independence states its not only our right but duty to put of such corrupt government and make the corrections ourselves.
I don't see anything about what these people in the intelligence services are engaged in. For instance if they rob, kill or torture people will publishing anything about that be lawful? Does it mean that the intelligence services can employ lowlife to do their work and if they do a few crimes on their way they get immunity from investigation? Looks like a bunch of opportunities to me. And why anyway are intelligence services so special compared to anybody else? If you know someone is going to be endangered by your actions shouldn't you tell them in advance anyway so they can prepare?
thou discernest my thoughts from afar
I believe that would be an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. Whether information published after (and if) the law is passed would be protected by the 1st amendment is another issue.
The Republican Party, and many Democrats don't believe that the Constitution applies to non-Citizens.
Doesn't that make all foreigners technically outlaws? This concept makes me extremely uncomfortable, and it feels like it belongs in a highly fascist society.
Of course some people argue that that is exactly what the US is, but I'd expect that only a small minority would actually want their country to go that far.
They didn't get him for doing anything actually 'wrong', just for not having 100% recall? _I_ don't have that type of recall I barely remember what I did last week, let alone daily events that happened months ago.
Hasn't this guy read the constitution and amendments? You know the the one he took an oath to uphold?
It would be one thing if he were proposing an amendment but contradicting the constitution? We as American citizens need a way to impeach government officials ourselves.
Just so you know, if US law applies to Australians, then equally, Australian laws apply to Americans - to you. So here's what will happen if you continue with this farce.
We'll pass a law in our Parliament, say, making it illegal to be a dickhead. Then we'll arrest you. You can cool your heels in Long Bay - or maybe enjoy the comforts of one of our famous detention centres. Fair exchange?
Exposing Government Corruption and Cover ups is the Duty of every American Citizen. -- ''During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'' My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. ~Thomas Jefferson
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britains policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called special relationship, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
1. There are many loopholes in the prohibition on ex post facto. They can still screw up your life for something you did long ago.
2. An amendment to the Constitution can change anything about the Constitution.
Constitutionally speaking, and with no intent to show disrespect for all of our military soldiers who have dodged bullets and more since WWII, we haven't been at war since V-J Day in 1945.
OK, I take that back, we were at war for a short period of time during and shortly after the actual attack of 9/11 and arguably for brief periods of time during and after other, much less significant, actual attacks and insurrections on the United States. I don't think it's constitutional to consider the wars that resulted from 9/11 as extending much past September 2001 as Congress had ample opportunity to pass a formal declaration of war and chose not to do so, the War-Powers Act and related laws notwithstanding.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You haven't seen the documentary program "Team America: World Police" then have you?
America.....Fuck Yeah!
If CIA (and USA) would want, it would topple half of dictatorships of this world without any problems. In some cases just stopping sponsoring them would be enough.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
if you add;"It is a crime to give or accept identifiable Union campaign donations"
No, Just as I can personally post identifiable donations to a political campaign and the politician can accept them if they want, I should have the right to personally give identifiable money to a trade union.
It would be reasonable to stop corporations from doing so. This might happen, for example, when 'they' figure out that candidateX will be more "business friendly" (amenable to pressure) than candidateY. This is them interfering in union politics and is little different from them interfering in electoral politics.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I just like the names.
Patriot act?
SHIELD?
What's next?
Securing Homeland's Information Technology?
Hicks inbreeding clueless klan supporters?