4 ms·

Treason does not apply. Espionage does. Most countries have laws that provide for prosecution in absentia if the defendant refuses to appear in response to a

Treason does not apply. Espionage does. Most countries have laws that provide for prosecution in absentia if the defendant refuses to appear in response to a summons. For espionage, the U.S. takes it one step further: our laws specifically give our federal law enforcement agencies permission to operate outside of normal international extradition processes for the purpose of arresting espionage suspects. In other words, if espionage charges were to be filed against Assange in the U.S., the FBI would be allowed to go wherever he is and more or less kidnap him. This would undoubtedly cause a huge international incident, as it would almost certainly violate the laws of the country where the arrest takes place, but it would be perfectly legal under U.S. law.

ryoshu 16y ago
That's okay, the US would threaten the country where Assange would be kidnapped from: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cable_us_warned_germany.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cab...
vaksel 16y ago
I doubt he'll be charged with espionage, if the Russian spies that were caught this summer weren't charged, it'd be very telling if they charge him with that
- RK 16y ago
  The difference is that those spies had a whole government behind them wanting to save face. I'm not sure many governments are very happy with Assange at the moment.
- rms 16y ago
  The Russian spies were traded for US contacts detained in Russia.
cma 16y ago
Would they go after The Guardian? The NYT? All were recipients of the documents. Manning is the only one who (supposedly) committed a crime.
- hugh3 16y ago
  This is the interesting point which is often missed. In the olden days (like, a couple of years ago) classified documents would get leaked to newspapers. The newspapers would take a look at them and publish them in excerpt alongside an editorial talking about how they thought long and hard about whether it was in the public interest to publish this particular document and blah blah blah. As I understand it, based on my reading of the law, they were technically committing a crime by doing so, but the authorities never bothered to pursue prosecution against the media outlets and just prosecuted the original leaker. Why not? I don't know, maybe because responsible publication of leaks is acknowledged to be a good thing, or maybe because it's not worth going to war with anyone who buys ink by the gallon. Wikileaks, on the other hand, will publish huge swathes of documents in a much less restrained manner than the New York Times would. It's concievable that they can be charged. As far as I know, the law states that it's illegal to pass along classified documents, and it doesn't restrict the applicability of this law to the people who were supposed to have the documents in the first place.
olefoo 16y ago
If Julian Assange is charged with espionage, his lawyers will be able to argue that he is engaging in protected first amendment activities, and that he has not committed any crime in publishing confidential data that he had no obligation to keep secret. Note that this does not apply to Bradley Manning or others who may be sources and who may have committed crimes in passing classified information to uncleared people. But as much as our political elites might wish it; embarrassing the government is not a crime.

ryoshu 16y ago

That's okay, the US would threaten the country where Assange would be kidnapped from: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cable_us_warned_germany.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/leaked_cab...

vaksel 16y ago

I doubt he'll be charged with espionage, if the Russian spies that were caught this summer weren't charged, it'd be very telling if they charge him with that

RK 16y ago
The difference is that those spies had a whole government behind them wanting to save face. I'm not sure many governments are very happy with Assange at the moment.
rms 16y ago
The Russian spies were traded for US contacts detained in Russia.

cma 16y ago

Would they go after The Guardian? The NYT? All were recipients of the documents. Manning is the only one who (supposedly) committed a crime.

hugh3 16y ago
This is the interesting point which is often missed. In the olden days (like, a couple of years ago) classified documents would get leaked to newspapers. The newspapers would take a look at them and publish them in excerpt alongside an editorial talking about how they thought long and hard about whether it was in the public interest to publish this particular document and blah blah blah. As I understand it, based on my reading of the law, they were technically committing a crime by doing so, but the authorities never bothered to pursue prosecution against the media outlets and just prosecuted the original leaker. Why not? I don't know, maybe because responsible publication of leaks is acknowledged to be a good thing, or maybe because it's not worth going to war with anyone who buys ink by the gallon. Wikileaks, on the other hand, will publish huge swathes of documents in a much less restrained manner than the New York Times would. It's concievable that they can be charged. As far as I know, the law states that it's illegal to pass along classified documents, and it doesn't restrict the applicability of this law to the people who were supposed to have the documents in the first place.

olefoo 16y ago

If Julian Assange is charged with espionage, his lawyers will be able to argue that he is engaging in protected first amendment activities, and that he has not committed any crime in publishing confidential data that he had no obligation to keep secret. Note that this does not apply to Bradley Manning or others who may be sources and who may have committed crimes in passing classified information to uncleared people. But as much as our political elites might wish it; embarrassing the government is not a crime.