Publishing Classified Information

[marharth]

Soldiers are not free from the Constitutions law...

 

Every single law passed in the US HAS to follow the constitution, it doesn't matter if its military or not.

Dude, headed over your constitution and it apparently says no word about personel freedom, self-determination and things like granting personel integrity and so on. If you serve, you are usually forced to life in barraks, doing stuff which has been ordered and which you not agree, etc ppp.

 

Usually you can't force a civillian doing stuff like that. But since you constitution doesn't seem to say a word about it, it probably wouldn't violate it ... :unsure:

 

But as said, it just was a quick review though.

 

---

Mr Anssange today just handovered himself to the british police.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/europe/08assange.html?_r=1&ref=world

 

Strange thing though. Some say he had consensualy sex with one or two swedish woman but apparently without condom ... which was a serious violation of the swedish security interests. :laugh:

 

Now Anssange has been jailed, Mr Gates is happy and I wonder what's coming out of this condom affair. :ermm:

 

You have to sign a contract that says you agree to all that, the military is not something your forced into. Its like a job, and when you join the military there is a contract you have to sign to get in that says you agree to all that.

[DarkWarrior45]

Contrary to popular belief, but when the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment talk about Freedom of Speech, it is guaranteeing the freedom of expressing your opinion about something, such as me saying that I think Obama should immediately resign. It does not protect freedom of Libel (flaming is libel) and it does not protect publishing classified information. Publishing classified information is called Espionage, and it is illegal. It is also considered Treason against the US for an American to leak classified information, and it also puts the US at risk, and it puts our troops lives on the line. Me personally, I hope the US prosecutes Assange.

[Aurielius]

Contrary to popular belief, but when the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment talk about Freedom of Speech, it is guaranteeing the freedom of expressing your opinion about something, such as me saying that I think Obama should immediately resign. It does not protect freedom of Libel (flaming is libel) and it does not protect publishing classified information. Publishing classified information is called Espionage, and it is illegal. It is also considered Treason against the US for an American to leak classified information, and it also puts the US at risk, and it puts our troops lives on the line. Me personally, I hope the US prosecutes Assange.

As much as we are on the same philosophical page it may be espionage but for civilians Treason is specially defined in the Constitution, which Mr Aasange is not subject to, being an Australian national.

[marharth]

Contrary to popular belief, but when the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment talk about Freedom of Speech, it is guaranteeing the freedom of expressing your opinion about something, such as me saying that I think Obama should immediately resign. It does not protect freedom of Libel (flaming is libel) and it does not protect publishing classified information. Publishing classified information is called Espionage, and it is illegal. It is also considered Treason against the US for an American to leak classified information, and it also puts the US at risk, and it puts our troops lives on the line. Me personally, I hope the US prosecutes Assange.

As much as we are on the same philosophical page it may be espionage but for civilians Treason is specially defined in the Constitution, which Mr Aasange is not subject to, being an Australian national.

 

He didn't leak the information, he published it after he got it sent to him...

 

Guess who else published this information? The new york times is one of the groups who published it...

 

Once again, you can not have treason charges for publishing information that would not put lives at risk.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

Let me break that down...

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

This means that you can only charge for treason if you declare war against the USA, or purposely help a enemy of the USA.

 

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We can clearly see that there was a confession and at least two witnesses. This does not matter however, since he never declared war or helped a US enemy.

 

Can anyone seriously say that he is helping terrorist groups? He can not be charged for Treason for 2 reasons.

 

1. He doesn't live in the USA...

 

2. He isn't event committing treason.

 

Take note that the law does not say "the first person to publish the information". It is for ANYONE who publishes it.

 

That means a large number of news corporations are going to need to be put in trial along with assange if that goes through. He did not leak the information.

[Vagrant0]

Yep, something has to be said about the News industry dropping the ball on this one. If it wasn't broadcast to the public in such a large way, most wouldn't even know about it. Let alone focusing on all the tabloid "he said this about her" kinda stuff and bringing to light some of the more damning things.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Vagrant0

[TheCalliton]

the government hiding things from us is wrong

it is their duty to be honest with us and protect us from those who would harm us

[ginnyfizz]

Errr...Private Prize Prat, who leaked the cables in the first place, can certainly be charged with treason, as he IS a US citizen. Publishing classified information is very likely a strict liability treasonable act, ie it may well be automatically considered as committing acts helpful to any enemy. (Before you ask, yes I DO have a legal qualification.)

 

And since when has it been the duty of a government to tell us EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING? Sometimes there are things that have to be kept hidden, for security reasons. I am very keenly aware of mine and everyone else's right to free speech, but there have to be some limits! Let us not make out Private Prize Prat and Julian Assange as heroes. They are little muckrakers/mischief makers for the sake of getting their fifteen minutes of fame.

[Aurielius]

@ Marharth

Since you keep quoting the constitution without checking on subsequent rulings or laws in enacted post constitutional convention.

 

Treason Act an act passed on July 17, 1862 to prohibit the crime of treason against the U.S. government and to counter disloyalty as it was defined during the Civil War. An individual convicted could be sentenced to death as authorized in the 1790 Treason Act, but it also allowed for a lighter sentence that included imprisonment and a fine at the discretion of the court. It's still on the books.

 

Although the Constitution defines treason strictly, Congress has expanded the definition of treasonous behavior by legislation such as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and and the Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War I (1917; 1918), which punished subversive political expression deemed hazardous to the state.

 

Might want to take a look, legal definitions are rarely static.... they evolve. Last but not least you might want to look at the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2009

Edited December 11, 2010 by Aurielius

[marharth]

@ Marhath

 

Since you keep quoting the constitution without checking on subsequent rulings or laws in enacted post constitutional convention.

 

Treason Act an act passed on July 17, 1862 to prohibit the crime of treason against the U.S. government and to counter disloyalty as it was defined during the Civil War. An individual convicted could be sentenced to death as authorized in the 1790 Treason Act, but it also allowed for a lighter sentence that included imprisonment and a fine at the discretion of the court. It's still on the books.

 

Although the Constitution defines treason strictly, Congress has expanded the definition of treasonous behavior by legislation such as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and and the Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War I (1917; 1918), which punished political expression deemed hazardous to the state.

 

Might want to take a look.

 

Everything you mentioned does not change the meaning of treason, or expand on it.

 

It adds extra laws about what can happen if you are charged with treason, but it does not change what treason is.

 

How did anything he publish help the enemy? Someone tell me one thing in the documents that would help the enemy.

Edited December 11, 2010 by marharth

[Aurielius]

Everything you mentioned does not change the meaning of treason, or expand on it.

 

It adds extra laws about what can happen if you are charged with treason, but it does not change what treason is.

 

How did anything he publish help the enemy? Someone tell me one thing in the documents that would help the enemy.

 

Did you read any of the relevant material? Because if you had, you managed it in under 22 minutes, something that took me the greater part of an evening to accomplish. Once read, it would be self explanatory how the definition and scope of indictable Treason has been broadened.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Aurielius