3 ms·
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Sections C through F. I'm unsure of relevant case law, it may be
by boomboomsubban 4y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Sections C through F. I'm unsure of relevant case law, it may be untested, but it's part of the charges against Julian Assange.
- nradov 4y agoI take it you're unfamiliar with the case law established in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThe case which ruled they couldn't use the law to bar publication of classified documents? I'm not sure if that's relevant when charging an individual. The government certainly doesn't think so, hence the ongoing indictment against Assange.
- nradov 4y agoWrong again. Read the actual indictment. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-sup...
- boomboomsubban 4y agoYour link is the DoJ summary of the indictment, if you read the attached actual indictment they reference title 18 section 793 for count 1 then 3-18. Reading the indictment is how I found the relevant law.
- nradov 4y agoRead it again. The core of the indictment is for conspiracy and incitement. If Assange had merely received unsolicited classified information and published it then he wouldn't have been indicted.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoIt repeatedly says that Assange "knowingly and unlawfully received documents" in charges 5-8. Something it could be argued these people did too. And trying to argue "the law itself can be used to charge people, but not the subsections that clearly apply in this case despite the lack of case law striking them down" is silly. Those laws are on the books, and being used in an indictment. They definitely could be charged, though probably won't be.