It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds hint at charges for WikiLeaks' Assange

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

The U.S. government indicated today that WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange could be in legal jeopardy for disclosing classified information because he is "not a journalist."


The catch, however, is that the Espionage Act draws no distinction between traditional journalism and WikiLeaks-style informational activism. It merely makes it illegal to disclose "information relating to the national defense" as long as that information could be used "to the injury of the United States."
That means reporters and editors at The New York Times, which has published a subset of the cables, could in theory face criminal charges too. (So could anyone operating one of the 1,289 mirror sites that currently exist.)

CNET

I find it interesting that they differentiate between how the information was received, displayed and submitted in the press to justify whether or not charges can be filed. They are designing the laws governing our constitution to fit the situation and there favor, yet again.




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
That's how the U.S. government is. They do what they want, when they want, where they want. We, the people, no longer make the laws, unless we decide to do something about that.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Bring in the lawsuits facist pigs!
I'll just put up few more mirrors



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Good! I say call their bluff. Bring on the charges and charge me too since I've been mailing stories to my friends.
It's all hot air and innuendo. Lotsa bark and no bite.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


Not so sure about that idea..

“We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden,”

www.theaustralian.com.au...

They ARE registered as a newspaper in Sweden..
Wouldn't that mess with the US planned charges.???



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I see your point but I don't think it matters as long as there are at least one site that clearly is not a news format agency like the other ones you listed.

But at this point I don't think it matters anymore they are going to make an example of him no matter what.
edit on 12/9/2010 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
You can't call them journalists because they're simply not. Journalists take sources, take documents and whatever else and turn it into a story. All wikileaks does is publish.

Journalists also don't publish the actual documents where they have got *one* part of their story, which is an important distinction.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
News these days are nothing but opinions paid by owners of the media companies. Very little of the 'news' these days is news worthy. As such wikileaks is more of a media than all the rest of the 'press' put together. They are releasing raw data and don't taint the story with their own biased ideas.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Oh bollocks to that. Then they're publishers, they're still not journos.

Why can't you people see that?



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join