Plan B Forum

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say.



The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been taken and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impanelled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against the Australian, who has sought asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top secret military and diplomatic documents.

The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information - such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning - with violations of the Espionage Act.

But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.

"The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists," former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said.

"And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange."

Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realised that they have what they described as a "New York Times problem". If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organisations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain's The Guardian, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/julian-assa ... z2lncgxBvZ

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say

In addition, in Asswipe's case, there's always been the quite logical and real possibility (given the communication in involved between them and the expertise he possessed) that he, or members of his terrorist organization acting on his instruction, provided The Traithor Manning with assistance in stealing the classified information and/or concealing the theft.

I imagine the DOJ would have brought those charges.

Scooter wrote:

government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say

I seem to recall saying this a number of times. I don't recall hearing about any provision in law that says it is ok to publish classified information as long as someone has already done it. Either all or guilty or none are guilty. And spare me the "they were just reporting it because it was news" crap. There were ways to report it that did not have to involve divulging the secrets that are at issue.

There's nothing that "forces" the government to conduct prosecutions it chooses not to conduct.

In addition, in Asswipe's case, there's always been the quite logical and real possibility (given the communication in involved between them and the expertise he possessed) that he, or members of his terrorist organization acting on his instruction, provided The Traitor Manning with assistance in stealing the classified information and/or concealing the theft.

Andrew D wrote:Last time I looked -- the results of which may still be here or at The Other Place -- the assertedly applicable statute made it a crime for anyone who had authorized access to classified documents to disseminate them to people who did not have authorized access to them. It conspicuously did not make it a crime for a person who did not have authorized access to them to receive them from someone who did. That was only one statute; there may be other relevant statutes. I don't know, and I don't feel like hunting it down.

I just notice that the State Department's legal person said that the documents "were provided in violation of US law". And he said that "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing." But he conspicuously did not say whose violation of the law is ongoing.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were in Koh's position, and I really thought that Assange was violating the law, I would have said something more like: "By receiving documents which you knew were classified, you violated U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]. By retaining possession of those documents, you are continuing to violate U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]. By disseminating those documents, you are violating U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]."

But Koh said none of those things. In short, Koh did not come right out and say that Assange is doing anything illegal. Why not?

It makes one wonder ....