E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The first congressional hearing relating to WikiLeaks will come next week.
The House Judiciary Committee intends to hold a hearing on Thursday to look at how the espionage laws can be brought up to date, according to sources familiar with the committee's plan. The laws, enacted nearly a century ago, are widely considered inadequate to deal with disclosures of government secrets in the digital age.
As the Justice Department struggles with how to prosecute WikiLeaks, members of Congress from both parties have expressed interest in giving the government new authority to prosecute leaks.
As for indicting Julian Assange, a Justice Department official says legal action against him "is not imminent," despite a claim by his lawyer that something is about to happen. Even so, it's a safe bet that the government will find a way to charge him with something.
Prosecutors have several options, but there's a reason they're moving slowly, officials say. This is not a case the government wants to enter unless it's confident the prosecution is on solid ground. Losing this case, they say, would send a harmful message for protecting future secrets.
Leave a Comment:
Where's Jonathan Turley when you need him? He likes representing crooks. He represented the corrupt Judge G. Thomas Porteous.
Calling Jonathan, oh Jonathan.
You represent the accused.
How odd...
I actually think I agree with you, Paul.
Jonathan Turley absolutely did the right thing.
Only at First Read, and by someone like Bev...
Could he possibly be vilified.
Yup, and Porteous lost!
Hopefully, he will represent Bush and Company! Speaking of Bush, I quess President Obama made a deal with those devils about prosecutions that has not worked out in his advantage!
Calling Turley, come in Turley!
Obviously...
Bev isn't the only one.
After all...
This is First Read...
Speaking of accused.
I see this guy that 'napped Elizabeth Smart wants off because he's incompetent. I know this doesn't sound very 'lib' of me, but- these people that lawyers always try to get off because of mental incompetency: IF they are so imcompetent that they don't know their crimes were wrong, wouldn't they also be too incompetent to realize they were under detention (in jail)?
drive-by-observer
Speaking of accused.
I see this guy that 'napped Elizabeth Smart wants off because he's incompetent. I know this doesn't sound very 'lib' of me, but- these people that lawyers always try to get off because of mental incompetency: IF they are so imcompetent that they don't know their crimes were wrong, wouldn't they also be too incompetent to realize they were under detention (in jail)?
drive-by-observer
Did you see this?
Halliburton is in talks with Nigerian officials to make a plea bargain in the case, said Femi Babafemi, spokesman for Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the agency which has pressed the charges against Cheney.
Cheney and three other top executives could face sentences of three years in a Nigerian prison if convicted of the charges in the 16-count indictment, said Babafemi.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/09/halliburton-500-million-cheney/
==========================================================
Gawd, I hope Cheney & Co does not think this is a Nigerian email scammer . You know Cheney thinks he's the biggest scammer in the world.
"thinks" he's the biggest scammer??
I'd like to see some of those Nigerian jailbirds poking their 'stuff' into that criminal Dick Cheney.
They'd say- "here it comes, big boy" and the Dick could say "so?"
drive-by-observer
I'd like to see some of those Nigerian jailbirds poking their 'stuff' into that criminal Dick Cheney.
They'd say- "here it comes, big boy" and the Dick could say "so?"
Too funny drive-by-observer,
And then as a tribal custom leave Cheney with a big bone!!!
Boy you two really like to talk about penises, huh?
It would seem that either you really like them or really hate them. Which is it?
slimsignet
It would seem that either you really like them or really hate them. Which is it?
I never said penis. Me, I love one.
Well, I can't call dick a pric*, because a pric@ is part of a MAN, right, skinny-goose-chick?
right, skinny-goose-chick?
???
A God is my witness, I thought you were combining slim and cygnet on purpose, including the misspelling of cygnet.... Never mind.
Nope. It's just nonsense. Doesn't mean anything.
Make it espionage to knowingly release classified documents of a NATO ally. Pass the law in every NATO country. He was doing this from the U.K. If they had that law in the U.K. they could have charged him there. I don't believe the U.S. has jurisdiction over a non-U.S. citizens actions in a foreign country. If that was the case, Muslim countries would try to start extraditing female U.S. citizens in America who go out with males without being chaperoned.
Espionage is different...like terrorism. It's the only law that crosses international borders. It usually isn't applied that way, but Assange made a BIG mistake by making it blatantly obvious. Unfortunately, if the action cannot be argued to be covered by current law, any changes cannot necessarily be made retroactive, without Supreme Court action.
@coffeemancer - No, the Supreme Court cannot make a law retroactive, that's called "ex post facto" and it's specifically forbidden by the constitution.
'Updating' the espionage laws essentially concedes the point that Assange committed no crime. The Swedish charges are laughable once you scratch beneath the surface. He will, and should, walk.
Those who leaked classified info to him are a different case--they must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
So, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid are sitting on the edge of a cliff and the only way they can get away is to jump off the cliff into the river below. Sundance is afraid to jump. Asked why by Butch, Sundance says it's because he can't swim.
Butch laughs and tells Sundance, "The fall will probably kill you!"
"Losing this case, they say, would send a harmful message for protecting future secrets."
Psh - that's no excuse for not having a decent firewall. If the pursue a case, they've already lost. It's better if they drop it and let him fall into obscurity again.
Protecting future secrets bah... Or - let's use some more fear mongering, because obviously that tactic works; if they think they will get prosecuted they won't do it... rather than just don't let it happen.
if they think they ... (that probably needs punctuation, but they is a potential information thief)
Obviously, the US released its own disinformational leak claiming that charges were imminent, so that Assange's lawyers would repeat this in good faith, so the US could turn around and say that charges weren't imminent, specifically in order to make them look foolish.
Never forget how crafty the US is.
Now, the US could now turn right around and press charges, and even if his lawyers said, "See?", nobody'd believe 'em, because they'd claimed the charges were "imminent" when they weren't. And then were. See?
It's all a conspiracy to get you to believe it's all a conspiracy. I know, 'cause I read it in the comments section of Raw Story and Crikey!
You really have to be very good at heart to be a Democrat !!!! Seemingly, it is a God given gift.
Minding about the well being of every individual regardless of whether they are middle class or rich is a difficult task to many people, especially when you as an individual is already rich.
As a rich man, one is likely to fight for his own continued well being just the way rich republican representatives are fighting for their own tax cuts at the expense of the middle class.
Why is it that only these already rich and successful Democrat representatives keep on fighting for tax cuts for the middle class and are ready to have their own taxes go up just to make sure that only the middle class get tax cuts?
Why is it that only these already rich and successful Democrat representatives are always ready to sacrifice their financial circumstances by always agreeing to have their taxes go up for the sake of the middle class?
Why is it that they do not take advantage of their being in Congress to fight for their own tax cuts (tax cut for the already wealthy like them) the way republican representatives do?
Why is it that only Democrat representatives, despite their being wealthy and successful, keep on spending sleepless nights thinking of how the middle class and the low income class can be given tax breaks and not themselves the way republicans do?
"World War III will be a global information war with no division between civilian & military participation." Marshall McLuhan
When will the Wikileaks come out that show our Gov't illegally using Paypal, Mastercard, Visa and trumped up charges of "rape" by a CIA floozy tied to Anti-Castro activities? When?
And all this happens after Wikileaks says it'll expose corruption on Wall Street?
Very fishy. Before that we loved them...but f with the Banking MAfia that runs things and watch the CIA lap dogs go to work running your name through the mud.
By the way,
I WONDER WHICH BIG BANK SIGNS THE CHECKS FOR MSNBC???
Our congress would be better served to take notice of the growing undercurrent of distrust of the integrity of our own government & elected officials along with a increasing admiration of the movement that Assange has started. To continue to attempt to discredit him, will only consolidate and amplify populace unrest and international contempt of us as a nation. Its time that we look at ourselves from another perspective, before we become the most regressive civilized nation in the world and history looks back upon this time as the beginning of the end. Should the movement that Julian Assange initiated fall or fail....
"Farewell The Rights Of Man .."