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."

37 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 rwade · · Score: 3, Informative

      More to the point, he had his sentence commuted because Bush thought 30 months for endangering the life of a intelligence operative was excessive:

      From the wikipedia article you cite:

      "After Libby was denied bail during his appeal process on July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month federal prison sentence, calling it "excessive", but he did not change the other parts of the sentence and their conditions.[17] That presidential commutation left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation."

      He was still punished, but whether a fine and probation is enough is questionable...

    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: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.

    7. 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
    8. Re:Libby and Cheiney by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is any of that relevant. Richard Armitage was someone who had clearance to know who Valerie Plame was and what she did. I find it hard to believe that he did not already know who she was and her relationship to Joe Wilson. However, that is beside the point. The prosecutor was commissioned to investigate who had revealed Valerie Plame's name to Richard Novak. He very quickly discovered that it was Richard Armitage. Why was the prosecutor still investigating when he knew who had revealed the name? And it was someone who would have had no part in "revenge" against Joe Wilson. There is no evidence that Libby ever revealed Valerie Plame's name to anyone who was not cleared to know it.
      The prosecutor in this case was on a witch hunt and he was unwilling to end his investigation without charging someone with something...even though the "crime" he was investigating was not a crime (revealing Valerie Plame's name was not a violation of the law as it is written, which is why he did not charge Richard Armitage).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Libby and Cheiney by sumdumass · · Score: 3

      What are you talking about? A pardon wouldn't have been any different then the sentencing commute concerning the fifth amendment. He had already been tried and convicted for everything a pardon would have covered.

      Further more, he was only convicted on making false statements, nothing in depth or detail of the Plame leak case. The investigation pretty well showed that the leak was because of Richard Armatage which is supported by Armatage himself and the reporter who broke the story that originally outed Plame when Armatage was drunk at a state diner or something and someone asked who in the hell Joe Wilson was and he replied, his wife's a spy or something to that effect.

      Shit.. move on guys.. This is all history you should at least be aware of. Here's something else you probably aren't aware of, Bush is out of office, he isn't running for any other office. You can stop bashing him, you can stop misrepresenting the truth in order to bash him. It serves no purpose.. unless you think someone in office still has to run against Bush to remain in power.

    10. 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 Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and I thought SHIELD was the organisation with Samuel L. Jackson in it?

      You're off by 90 degrees.
      David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD

    4. 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".

    5. Re:Misleading... by click2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Harassing Assange Might Make Exposers Reconsider

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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...

    11. 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. How about by Gonoff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. Re:de facto by idontgno · · Score: 3

    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.
  5. But by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Funny

    But will they be able to get Nick Fury to run S.H.I.E.L.D?

  6. Re:Can this be applied retroactively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't remember anything particular happening on Sunday, december 9th, 2001.

  7. Re:Marvel should sue by VRisaMetaphor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd ask you who "Nick Furry" is, but I'm afraid of what the answer might be.

  8. 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)
  9. Who's the enemy here? by chicago_scott · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.

  10. 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!
  11. They are Punishing the wrong person. by jameskojiro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...
  12. 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.

    1. Re:US law to apply to foreign citizens? by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, No.

      Yes, the US routinely applies US laws to foreign citizens. I have first hand experience of that, as one of the defendants back in the DeCSS case.

      No, the same does of course not apply the other way around. The US does not consider itself a peer amongst peers, it thinks of itself as the greatest nation on earth, chosen by god himself, above all international law save the one they bring themselves, with guns and tanks.

      But it's good that they're doing it now. Julian has hinted towards this from the beginning, it will give his fight against extradition more strength.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. Re:clarification by hackingbear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Easy. They just need to publish the list of the names on government websites, so everybody know what not to publish.

  14. So Dick goes to Jail? by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  15. Re: Libby and Cheney by ravenshrike · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.