Obama's Justice Dept to actually go after anti-American terrorists?
Doubtful.

 

B

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081705
225_pf.html

 

The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks

Wednesday, August 18, 2010; A14 

IN AN INTERVIEW this year with the
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?
currentPage=1>  New Yorker, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange acknowledged
that his practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information
online could one day lead the Web site to have "blood on our hands." 

The Pentagon has all but alleged that this day has come. Last month, with
little or no screening or verification, WikiLeaks posted 76,000 classified
government documents about the war in Afghanistan, including some that
contained information that could be used to identify Afghans who have
cooperated with the United States. The safety of these individuals and their
families may now be in danger, according to the Pentagon, which has demanded
that Mr. Assange hand back the original documents and permanently take down
the information from his Web site. Mr. Assange has said that he has another
15,000 or so related documents that he
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR201008120
3332.html>  intends to post. 

The Defense Department may have little leverage over Mr. Assange, an
Australian who spends much of his time in Iceland, Sweden and Belgium. But
the Justice Department is said to be considering charges against him for
violation of the Espionage Act
<http://www.answers.com/topic/espionage-act-of-1917> . That law is intended
to punish individuals who spy on the United States on behalf of a foreign
power, but it is so broad and so vague that it has been misused in recent
years against individuals with no connection to spying. Attorney General
Eric H. Holder Jr. last year wisely dropped
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR200905010
1310.html>  such a case against two lobbyists for the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee. He should not now make the mistake of trying to hammer
Mr. Assange with the same flawed tool. 

The government is entitled to enforce confidentiality agreements that bind
many government employees, especially those who work on sensitive national
security matters. And media organizations and Internet sites such as
WikiLeaks should not indiscriminately make public everything they obtain.
They should seek -- and responsible media organizations do seek -- to
protect sources and methods, the disclosure of which could endanger lives. 

But the government has no business going after third parties that obtain
secret information without committing theft. Media outlets do not have a
legal duty to abide by the government's secrecy demands; in the past,
publication of classified documents has yielded important disclosures in the
public interest that caused no harm to national security. The apparent
irresponsibility of Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks should not be used to launch a
prosecution that could chill legitimate news-gathering efforts. 

The WikiLeaks episode does point to a need for a continued dialogue on
creating responsible outlets within the executive branch for national
security whistleblowers. Shoring up the independence and tools of the
inspectors general at the intelligence agencies would be a good first step
and one that might persuade the next would-be whistleblower to turn to a
responsive and responsible government entity rather than a renegade Web
site. 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to