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."

8 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 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...

    2. 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.

  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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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