Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, sources familiar with the inquiry said Monday.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Justice Department and Pentagon are conducting "an active, ongoing criminal investigation.'' Others familiar with the probe said the FBI is examining everyone who came into possession of the documents, including those who gave the materials to WikiLeaks and also the organization itself. No charges are imminent, the sources said, and it is unclear whether any will be brought.
Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.
But the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is rapidly unfolding, said charges could be filed under the act. The U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria - which in 2005 brought Espionage Act charges, now dropped, against two former pro-Israel lobbyists - is involved in the effort, the sources said.
The Pentagon is leading the investigation and it remains unclear whether any additional charges would be brought in the military or civilian justice systems. Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of being the source of the WikiLeaks documents, was arrested by the military this year.
Holder was asked Monday how the United States could prosecute Assange, who is an Australian citizen. "Let me be very clear," he replied. "It is not saber rattling.
"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." He did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.
Although the Justice Department has taken the position that media organizations could be prosecuted for printing leaked classified information under the legislation, that prospect is unlikely because of official aversion to running afoul of the First Amendment, experts said. Indeed, the Justice Department has never brought such a case, they said.
"Whenever you're talking about a media organization, the department is going to look very closely to ensure that any prosecution doesn't undermine the valid First Amendment functioning of the press," said Kenneth Wainstein, former assistant attorney general in the national security division.
But when it comes to Assange, Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel, said: "I'm confident that the Justice Department is figuring out how to prosecute him."
Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.
"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.
But, said former federal prosecutor Baruch Weiss, that statute raises difficulties of its own. "How do you prove that a particular cable about secret negotiations with Russia was dangerous to national security? You have to disclose more classified information to explain to the jury the damage brought about by the disclosure," he said.
Perhaps the most significant issue is the Constitution's protection of people's right to speak freely and to exchange ideas.
"If the government were to prosecute the person who received and disseminated the classified information - as opposed to the individual who leaked it from within the government - mainstream media would express the concern that they could face prosecution for reporting information they routinely receive from government insiders," Wainstein said.
Fundamentally, Weiss said, the WikiLeaks case "is not about the disclosure of troop movements to al-Qaeda or giving the recipe for the plutonium bomb to North Korea. This is the widespread publication of information that is important in determining the future policy of the United States, that could be very important for people in assessing how well our government is doing its job. It's a good example of the problems created by the First Amendment clashing with criminal law, the law protecting national defense information."
All the experts agreed that it may be difficult for the United States to gain access to Assange, who apparently has avoided traveling to the country. Most nations' extradition treaties exempt crimes viewed as political. "I can imagine a lot of Western allies would view this not as a criminal act, but as a political act," said Weiss, who was on the legal team that defended the two former pro-Israel lobbyists.
Assange's legal pursuers are not confined to the United States. The International Criminal Police Organization issued an arrest warrant this month for Assange, who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of rape and sexual harassment. Interpol, which is based in Lyon, France, said it had received the warrant from Swedish police, according to wire service and newspaper reports.
Assange has proclaimed his innocence and suggested the accusations are part of a U.S.-orchestrated smear campaign to undercut WikiLeaks' prestige.
In addition to vowing to hold WikiLeaks to account, the administration also instituted new measures to try to prevent leaks.
Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob J. Lew instructed government departments and agencies to ensure that users of classified information networks do not have broader access than is necessary to do their jobs, and to restrict the use of removable media such as CDs or flash drives on such networks.
OMB, the federal Information Security Oversight Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will evaluate aid the agencies in their efforts to strengthen classified information security, Lew said.
The White House move in turn comes a day after the Pentagon announced similar steps to bolster network security following a review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in August.
"Protecting information critical to our nation's security is the responsibility of each individual who is granted access to classified information," Lew said in his memo. "Any unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a violation of our law and compromises our national security."
But lawmakers and national security experts have chided the administration for not moving long ago to shore up network security. The U.S. military has been investigating Manning for months because of suspicions that he passed large amounts of classified material to WikiLeaks.
"There's been a great deal of attention paid to this issue for a long time and a lot of work has been done," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. "It's an ongoing process."
22 comments:
None of the stuff that's been released has been truly damning, right? I mean really. There was a bit about that one guy and his blonde lady bodyguard that was kind of funny, but it wasn't dangerous. I don't know. I think it's good that the public can have access to more information and not have EVERYTHING kept a secret. I think it's okay.
i agree that this falls under the first amendment, but i believe that there has to be limits and or specific boundaries of what could be considered as dangerous to the safety of Americans....it's true, that it's hard to actually determine that this was dangerous to national security without disclosing any more information...it is going to be interesting how they deal with this.
I remember learning about another case similar to this one involving the New York Times. In that particular case the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper. However, I think the safety of the nation should be taken in greater consideration in cases similar to this.
I find my self becoming ever more frustrated with our legal system. The espionage act wasnt created to punish stupid people, it was created to punish traitors and spies. Was he being a traitorous spy when he allegedly leaked the documents, no he was just being an idiot. Its like ticketing someone for running a red light at 3 in the morning with no other cars around. Yeah, its illegal but the point of the red light is to maintain a flow of traffic not make people wait or get tickets. Similarly, the point of the espionage act is to deter intentional acts of treason, not punish anyone who does something dumb. Judges need to learn the difference between what that the law can do, and what the law was intended to do.
Grant Curry
AP Government
1st period
It seems to me that the first step in this investigation would be to find the insider that's been giving classified information to Assange. If they arrest Assange, which I still don't understand the process in which they'll do that since he lives in Australia, this insider person is still capable of disclosing more information to other journalists anywhere. I do think that Assange is guilty of Espionage, but since the damage has already been done, they need to fix the root of the problem.
The way I see it is if Julian had files from area 51 this would have never made it to the news. Yes I know area 51 is a military place/where the aliens are held and if any information leaked out it would be a threat to the U.S. but what if the disclosed files contain something that could hurt somebody? Plus the whole not suppose to have them should be enough of a charge. Bottom line this book shouldn't be published and the government should take him down for threatening them with files illegally obtained not for writing the book.
this is a stupid thing for this guy to do. not only is he jeapordizing the country's safety but his as well. how stupid can you be.
Having government documents leaked out into the public is very dangerous. The army person that violated national security should be prosecuted and the people involved that did not report it to authorities should have some punishment depending on how involved they were.
Okay...so basically the Pentagon is mad because they can't keep all of their own stuff secret? I mean, it's their fault for not keeping all their stuff locked up in the first place. WikiLeaks is just acting on the unsecure information that the Pentagon is leaking out. I think the Pentagon is just trying to cover their butt for not covering themselves like they should have. Way to go government. WikiLeaks: 100 Pentagon: -5000
I don't understand why anyone would do this. There's a reason the government doesn't publish its documents. Once stuff like this is on the Internet, anyone can use it. I don't really understand what Assange is guilty of though. It's not like he was stealing documents from the government. The people who published this information on the internet are equally guilty.
This is a real tough case to call. People are all for knowing information, however, when does it become too much information? How many secrets should the government be keeping? The First Amendment will truly be challenged in this case.
I think this is a very important artical concerning the freedom of expression and press. I think that the U.S is allowed to be fully informed of the jobs going inside the government and how they might affect them and working hard to conceal such info indicates that the government is tying to hide something
The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, should have been more responsible with documents of such a sensitive nature and not released them around to everyone.. Its a matter of national security and those documents should be better protected from the public eye. If we are going to spend tons of money on our national defense we could start by protecting our important documents first.
There is a difference between an expose on government and an attempt, like Assange's, to undermine it. Assange is not behaving like a good journalist by not protecting his sources. Not only will this case have 1st Amendment implications but it may change the world of blogging and casual internet quasi-jurnalism by bringing it under the scope of 'proper' news sources and all the rules that involves.
I believe that in this case the government has the right to restrict free speech because it is acting on behalf of the good of the people. Like the prohibition of burning draftcards, the same principle applies in that there cannot be no limitation. The rights that are protected by the Constitution are not absolute and unlimited. Without the limitation of law, there will be anarchy and government is there for no good. Like everything else, a balance has to be sought and in this case I believe that the CIA has right to hijack the site in the good interest of the people.
Julian Assange, despite his claim to the first amendment, should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Although the internet is a platform for ideas, opinions, and information, exposing private information to the general public about classified government documents can have both a harmful and a detremental effect on the government's plans. By allowing important documents to be paraded around, the Australian may not be damaging his government, but he is risking the safety of both the United States, and its citizens.
This is silly because these days people are able to find anything out if they wanted to by using the internet and they all use the freedom of speech excuse and they get away with it. Him leaking information if ghe did seems to be a problem only because the government wasn't ready for that particular information to be let out yet. if the government is worried about the security of the nation they should be worried about individuals of the nation too
As much as I've heard about the whole wikileaks situation I still don't really know what sort of documents they were and how harmful they really were to our national security. But it seems to me that if they're debating whether the 1st amendment applies then the documents could have been that important. While the scope of the 1st amendment has been widened since the espionage act I still feel that if the documents really made us extremely vulnerable to some sort of an attack then there would be no question as to whether the 1st amendment applied and those responsible would be held accountable.
It is crazy how they are barely looking into the gaps in the law and trying to fix them just because a case that has never happened has now happened. Security should have been better in order for the files to not be seen or received by those who should have never known about them. They should keep the laws the same until this case is over and then work on fixing the gaps.
I think that America has a right to know certain information especially pertaining to our country's safety but some information is kept hidden for a reason. Assenge technically Stepped outside the boundaries of the Espionage Act so I believe he should be punished for his actions. However I don't think they should give him any jail time. They should just make him destroy the documents and get rid of any trace of them. He obtained them illegally so he should not be allowed to keep them. The United States needs to clear this up quickly because this scandal will make many Americans paranoid. So the faster and quieter they clear this up the better.
Jylian Assange, in my opinion, did violate the law because he's not supposed to let out that sort of information! Its like secret keeping.. you're always supposed to keep your secret... but this guy goofed up!
I think the person who gave WikiLeaks classified material should be punished more than the founder, Assange. It isn't Assange's responsibility to keep classified information classified.
Post a Comment