The T
George S. Patton Party
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
Well done. I brought that point up last night. Good on ya.