Wikileaks: First Amendment Or Espionage?

[The T]

Neither..it seems can you.

Swallow? *You don't even rate*

Another faggot after my jiz..

Shop elsewhere drunkie.

You're a sick puppy. Seek help.

 

[Toome]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

 

[The T]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

Information is information...files are files...paper or not.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Or is he protected by Free Speech/Free Press?

He isn't an American citizen, he isn't subject to US law. Case closed.

He has obtained illegal Contraband, Classified Information illegally obtained, and has done great harm to this Country. This is a hostile act that will cost in human life.

....And, he ISN'T A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!

​

 

[Sallow]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

And this, in a nutshell, is why the DOJ has to be careful not to go hog wild and over charge anyone. They've got a good case if they frame this around the theory that this is theft. But they could lose the whole enchilada if they go for Espionage and/or Treason.

 

[California Girl]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

First Amendment does not apply on foreign soil anyway so the argument is irrelevant. Espionage does apply the world over - we can go after anyone of any nationality for receiving property (and information is property) from the US Government.

Manning (I will not give him his rank... he doesn't deserve the respect of any rank)... will likely face espionage charges... personally, I'd prefer it to be treason but that's just wishful thinking... his actions do not fit within the narrow law of 'treason'. It is, perhaps, time that we reviewed what the US considers 'treason'.

Either way, he should face the death penalty.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to put the DP on the table with Assange because very few countries would extradite him to face trial if the punishment would be the DP.

 

[WillowTree]

Is it a crime what Assange did? Or is he protected by Free Speech/Free Press? You make the call. I'm interested in hearing what you all think. Thanks.

Enemy of the State aided and abetted by the NYT.

 

[Toome]

Information is information...files are files...paper or not.

No argument from me on that point. It's not what you and I say that makes the difference; it's how the laws are written and interpreted that makes all the difference. This is the essence of the argument between lawyers: whether or not laws written at a time when spies used to pass folded up pieces of paper to each other apply to some yahoo left-clicks on a mouse.

I say that they probably do not because we haven't seen a case like this. And laws are based on precedence.

On the other hand, we'll probably see new legislation come out of this. But that's closing the barn door after the horses got out.

 

[Toome]

First Amendment does not apply on foreign soil anyway so the argument is irrelevant. Espionage does apply the world over - we can go after anyone of any nationality for receiving property (and information is property) from the US Government.

Manning (I will not give him his rank... he doesn't deserve the respect of any rank)... will likely face espionage charges... personally, I'd prefer it to be treason but that's just wishful thinking... his actions do not fit within the narrow law of 'treason'. It is, perhaps, time that we reviewed what the US considers 'treason'.

Either way, he should face the death penalty.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to put the DP on the table with Assange because very few countries would extradite him to face trial if the punishment would be the DP.

I did not argue First Amendment. I argued Freedom of the Press, which does apply in some countries and not in others. The problem is in defining what's the Press and what isn't. To me, Assange is a webmaster. However, to others, he may be a journalist. That's something lawyers would have to bicker over.

I understand the gravity of your argument; however, I don't think espionage/treason applies. Or to put it another way, I think the prosecution would have a very difficult time proving that in court. The reason I believe this is because espionage is a rarely-prosecuted crime. And the espionage cases which have been successfully prosecuted were done so under more classic scenarios (secret meetings, codewords, etc.). We have NEVER had an espionage case based on THIS scenario.

Lawyers will see it from one of two perspectives: expand the definition of espionage by prosecuting this case as an espionage case (good luck with that!) OR go after the more easy-to-prove crimes such as deliberate security compromise, passing sensitive information to unauthorized individuals, etc.

Court cases are all about the path of least resistance.

 

[California Girl]

First Amendment does not apply on foreign soil anyway so the argument is irrelevant. Espionage does apply the world over - we can go after anyone of any nationality for receiving property (and information is property) from the US Government.

Manning (I will not give him his rank... he doesn't deserve the respect of any rank)... will likely face espionage charges... personally, I'd prefer it to be treason but that's just wishful thinking... his actions do not fit within the narrow law of 'treason'. It is, perhaps, time that we reviewed what the US considers 'treason'.

Either way, he should face the death penalty.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to put the DP on the table with Assange because very few countries would extradite him to face trial if the punishment would be the DP.

I did not argue First Amendment. I argued Freedom of the Press, which does apply in some countries and not in others. The problem is in defining what's the Press and what isn't. To me, Assange is a webmaster. However, to others, he may be a journalist. That's something lawyers would have to bicker over.

I understand the gravity of your argument; however, I don't think espionage/treason applies. Or to put it another way, I think the prosecution would have a very difficult time proving that in court. The reason I believe this is because espionage is a rarely-prosecuted crime. And the espionage cases which have been successfully prosecuted were done so under more classic scenarios (secret meetings, codewords, etc.). We have NEVER had an espionage case based on THIS scenario.

Lawyers will see it from one of two perspectives: expand the definition of espionage by prosecuting this case as an espionage case (good luck with that!) OR go after the more easy-to-prove crimes such as deliberate security compromise, passing sensitive information to unauthorized individuals, etc.

Court cases are all about the path of least resistance.

What you think is of no consequence. It is the DoJ's opinion that counts. They're talking espionage charges and, in my opinion, they are right. Just because we've never seen this type of espionage doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[California Girl]

The British media are reporting that Scotland Yard know where Assange is and are awaiting to 'go' to arrest him.

 

[rightwinger]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

Regardless of how he got the information, he knowingly passed on information he knew to be classified.........espionage

The Rosenbergs were executed for passing on nuclear secrets. They were just a link in the chain but were still guilty

 

[daveman]

He's a guy who cooperated with our WH and DOD to leak low level classification documents across a world wide media.

Why? Because wikileaks is most likely a US intelligence asset.

Horseshit.

 

[Sallow]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

Regardless of how he got the information, he knowingly passed on information he knew to be classified.........espionage

The Rosenbergs were executed for passing on nuclear secrets. They were just a link in the chain but were still guilty

That would be espionage. They were convicted for passing secrets on a weapons system to a foreign power..which were a de facto "enemy".

This is not so cut and dry. Manning could use the same sort of defense Oliver North used.

 

[daveman]

The NYT gave their documents to the DOD and WH to be vetted prior to publication. And the documents were already in the public domain fully covered by free press authority.

I don't think that being in the public domain reclassifies a document. If it is marked "Secret" you don't get to use the "He did it first" defense.

A document is classified until it is declassified

What deems it as classified?

Becuase a "stamp" is on it saying CLASSIFIED?

To me, a document is classified until someone without proper clearance has access to it...whether they were stolen or not. WQhat makes it classified is not what it is called, but who gets to see it.

A classified document should have better protection...if it doesnt it is subject to become unclassified.

You've never had a security clearance, have you?

 

[jillian]

Regardless of how he got the information, he knowingly passed on information he knew to be classified.........espionage

The Rosenbergs were executed for passing on nuclear secrets. They were just a link in the chain but were still guilty

Well, they may have been. But one of my law school projects was going to the federal archives and reviewing the trasncript of the trial. Judge Kaufman made such a mess out of the case, and the witnesses so self-serving, that it is almost impossible to say, with any certainty, what the truth was.

I don't think they should have been executed. There was a huge hysteria in those days about commies... particularly 'jew commies' and Kaufman was terrified of being tarred by that brush and Roy Cohn was just a venal character.

sorry to digress, but it's a subject that's always fascinated me.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

The problem with charging Assange under the Espionage Act is that it really doesn't address the release of information that is voluntarily provided and disseminated over a paperless media such as the internet. Espionage focuses on agents acting on behalf of one country obtaining protected information from another country for the specific purpose of either damaging that country's credibility, standing, interests OR to use that information to its own advantage at the expense of the victim country and other countries.

Assange is simply some weenie who is publishing information for everyone to see. He's not acting on behalf of some foreign power. He is clearly acting on his own behalf.

PFC Manning, on the other hand, is guilty of handing over classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. Is it espionage? No, it is not. It is a deliberate security compromise at best, but that's about it. Same applies to whoever the person is that leaked the State Department memos.

Where I admit to being rusty is how this applies to someone like Assange. He did not break into a military facility and steal the information. He was not an imbedded reporter who was given certain information under the condition that he protect it for a specified length of time or under certain specified conditions. Then there's the whole internet thing. Even though we've had the internet for quite some time, it's still an open frontier with very little rules and restrictions. There are laws that govern the publication of a hardback book or newspaper copy, but it seems that these laws don't necessarily apply to the internet's paperless environment.

I wouldn't shroud this under Freedom of the Press because Assange is not a journalist. He is, for lack of a better word, a webmaster. Is it protected free speech? That's where real lawyers have a good debate on their hands. Is it espionage? I don't think so. The "damage" to national security is abstract. To put it another way, if someone were to intentionally release information on an upcoming operation that directly allowed an enemy force to get into position and successfully ambush the troops in that operation, then you have the classic espionage scenario. However, that's not the case here. There's no way to prove a direct link between the nature of the information and the threat to the lives of troops affected by that leak. The best that can be done is to argue it in the abstract.

PFC Manning's goose is definitely cooked as far as deliberately compromising classified information, releasing information to unauthorized persons, illegally obtaining information, etc., etc., etc. But espionage falls in the very-hard-to-prove category. And forget about treason; that's in the extremely-hard-to-prove category.

Don't get me wrong: I think Assange and Manning ought to be shot, drawn and quartered as preliminary punishment before we get to the nasty stuff. I'm just saying that as despicable as their actions may be, they did not commit espionage.

Once again, I'm no lawyer; but this is how I understand the Espionage Act.

First Amendment does not apply on foreign soil anyway so the argument is irrelevant. Espionage does apply the world over - we can go after anyone of any nationality for receiving property (and information is property) from the US Government.

.....Unless it's Scooter Libby; BUSHCO's "mole".​

 

[Sallow]

I don't think that being in the public domain reclassifies a document. If it is marked "Secret" you don't get to use the "He did it first" defense.

A document is classified until it is declassified

What deems it as classified?

Becuase a "stamp" is on it saying CLASSIFIED?

To me, a document is classified until someone without proper clearance has access to it...whether they were stolen or not. WQhat makes it classified is not what it is called, but who gets to see it.

A classified document should have better protection...if it doesnt it is subject to become unclassified.

You've never had a security clearance, have you?

I am sort of interested in how the military administers security clearances.

I have one for a private firm..and it involved going through an FBI shakeout. They went through everything.

Is it the same?

 

[daveman]

What deems it as classified?

Becuase a "stamp" is on it saying CLASSIFIED?

To me, a document is classified until someone without proper clearance has access to it...whether they were stolen or not. WQhat makes it classified is not what it is called, but who gets to see it.

A classified document should have better protection...if it doesnt it is subject to become unclassified.

You were a Marine and do not know how classification occurs or how it works? The stamp is in fact what classifies it. Somethings before being stamped are classified simply by the proper level of authority declaring them classified.

ANYONE that discloses classified information without proper authorization is guilty of Espionage. Does not matter how they got it. Does not matter if a whistle-blower delivered it. Once one is in possession of clearly marked classified material of the US Government they must safe guard it, destroy it, return it or get authorization from the proper authority to disclose it.

This dumb ass would have no problem if he had vetted with the US Government. Because he refused he is guilty of espionage.

I was being facetious.....Yes, the stamp makes it classified technically....
But what truly makes iut classified are the eyes that do and do not see it.

And I have a question for you.....what is to stop me from taking my sons history essay and stamping it classified?

A stamp classifying it is only as valid as the eyes that get to see it.

Do you have original classification authority? No? Then you stamp is worthless.

Not just anyone can classify information. Where I am, there are only two people with the authority. Most bases, it's just one person.

To see classified, a person has to have three things: A current investigation, access granted, and a verified need to know. If someone lacks even one of those, he is not authorized to view the information.

Assange has none of those. Manning had those, but not for all the information he accessed. He had also sighed a non-disclosure agreement, which means he agreed not to reveal the information he was shown.

They're both criminals, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[California Girl]

You were a Marine and do not know how classification occurs or how it works? The stamp is in fact what classifies it. Somethings before being stamped are classified simply by the proper level of authority declaring them classified.

ANYONE that discloses classified information without proper authorization is guilty of Espionage. Does not matter how they got it. Does not matter if a whistle-blower delivered it. Once one is in possession of clearly marked classified material of the US Government they must safe guard it, destroy it, return it or get authorization from the proper authority to disclose it.

This dumb ass would have no problem if he had vetted with the US Government. Because he refused he is guilty of espionage.

I was being facetious.....Yes, the stamp makes it classified technically....
But what truly makes iut classified are the eyes that do and do not see it.

And I have a question for you.....what is to stop me from taking my sons history essay and stamping it classified?

A stamp classifying it is only as valid as the eyes that get to see it.

Do you have original classification authority? No? Then you stamp is worthless.

Not just anyone can classify information. Where I am, there are only two people with the authority. Most bases, it's just one person.

To see classified, a person has to have three things: A current investigation, access granted, and a verified need to know. If someone lacks even one of those, he is not authorized to view the information.

Assange has none of those. Manning had those, but not for all the information he accessed. He had also sighed a non-disclosure agreement, which means he agreed not to reveal the information he was shown.

They're both criminals, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That sums it up nicely.