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.

 

Rep. Peter King introduces anti-WikiLeaks legislation

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Rep. Peter King introduces anti-WikiLeaks legislation


www.rawstory.com

"Julian Assange and his associates who have operated and supported WikiLeaks not only damaged US national security with their releases of classified documents, but also placed at risk countless lives, including those of our Nation’s intelligence sources around the world," Rep. King, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wired.com
thehill.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Senator Joe Lieberman Introduces SHIELD Act To Make Classified Information Releases Illegal




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
(Note to Add:: After further searching the congressional database, the only House bill I see mentioning SHIELD Act that is related to (another) King is this one . "This Act may be cited as the `Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act' or the `SHIELD Act'." So now I'm really wondering if RawStory didn't mess up
and there are actually two SHIELD Acts by King and the one RawStory is talking about just isn't in the database yet. They did have a quote from him and everything. Anyway, it's puzzling. Noteworthy is that this second SHIELD Act that I did find looks to be a whole other beast in and of itself, relating to EMPs. I just created a new thread here, in General Conspiracy, pondering this apparent oddness.)

Three senators introduced similar legislation in December (see additional news links and related threads...bill text here), and I'm not quite seeing the distinction here. The two bills seem very similar. Why couldn't they have just worked on one bill? The Wired article about the Lieberman bill is worth a read in itself if you haven't seen it. Lieberman of course has been very vocal and very anti-WikiLeaks, with a lot of activity coming from him last December, particularly against the papers and media outlets.

Anyway, apparently King's legislation is also to amend the Espionage Act (see here) and is called the SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) Act. It seems to me as if between this act and the Patriot Act we already have all the laws covering what they have issues with here: espionage. damaging national security, and releasing classified documents. Read this blog too, it's rather interesting on this subject: Anti-Wikileaks Legislation Already Passed by Congress
A quote from it:


So for those that would have applauded the passage of this Act today in reaction to Wikileaks: is this the world you would have us live in? A world with no freedom for the press and others to reveal wrongs and corruptions within the government? Even with the perspective of history behind us, would you really support a bill that would be tantamount to reviving the Sedition Act of 1798–that so-maligned and so-universally-agreed-upon travesty of justice and liberty? If so, I pray you never have the chance to live under the yoke of this world you long to see.

Exactly.

The only thing it seems to me they are going after here with any vigor is the freedom to publish, and this will have huge implications Constitutionally. Seems this is yet another case of them not knowing what to do with this pesky internet.


The bill, known as the the SHIELD Act, would amend the Espionage Act to make publishing classified information "concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community" an act of espionage.

Apparently this is also the name of the bill Lieberman introduced in December that extends the Espionage Act to include (human intelligence (HUMINT). Erm, doesn't the Espionage act already cover that? Weird that both bills have the same name? Maybe a mistake of maybe SHIELD is a common term.

The ACLU came out about the related legislation, saying...


"[W]e urge Congress to resist the urge to broaden the Espionage Act's already overbroad proscriptions and, instead, to narrow the Act’s focus to those responsible for leaking properly classified information to the detriment of our national security," the ACLU added. "Publishers who are not involved in the leaking of classified information should be praised by our society for their contributions to public discourse, not vilified as the co-conspirators of leakers with whom they have no criminal connection."

This is a wise statement because to extend it to publishers would be a first amendment violation, specifically freedom of the press. So here we have yet another case The full text is available here

A few months ago Amazon stopped hosting WikiLeakss because they claimed WikiLeaks violating their ToS and put innocent lives at risk. Amazon is denying that government influence had any bearing on the decision.

I don't see where they've shown anywhere that WikiLeaks caused any damage to anything but egos. Where have they put any lives at risk or damaged national security? Other than the one accusation about releasing a few informant names in regards to Afghanistan, which from what I understand was later proved to be a non-issue. More likely this is fear of losing control and fear of transparency on the parts of leaders and legislatures and a bunch of hurt egos.

Also very insightful is this Global Research article: Criminalizing Whistleblowers: Wikileaks and America's SHIELD Legislation.


Certainly no one with integrity would describe the US government as accountable — it holds itself above the law and beyond moral stricture, while committing heinous acts of kidnapping and torture, wars of aggression, genocide and looting of pubic coffers. Those within such power centers who do possess integrity have no recourse but to leak information. The quality of information (more on this below) released is less relevant than the effort to expose a psychopathic government.

This was written about the legislation introduced in December but seems still relevant here. So who they are really going after is the press and whistleblowers, who are our only hope for ever righting the wrongs that a government might perpetrate against the people.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 2/16/2011 by ~Lucidity because: added the blog about the Sedition Act and the Global Research article.

edit on 2/16/2011 by ~Lucidity because: erm there appear to be two SHIELD Acts puz:[



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
How can a country conduct espionage ON ITSELF?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
S&F

I'm also trying to figure out how any Wikileaks info has put anybody's life in danger. You know, real danger like when the Bush administration outed CIA people yet there was no anti-bush bill was there? As much as everybody would have liked one.

I like that last quote you posted, sums things up pretty nicely.

You know, instead of harassing people that leak info and host it, they should just stop doing things that deserve to be leaked! Stop doing bad things and you won't have to worry about anyone leaking information.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I flagged exactly this in a post in a much earlier thread.

Assange has said that 911 is not a real conspiracy and nothing they have released has critized Israil.

What Wiklileaks has released is no big deal to aynone but all the right people in the US and elsewhere have have been appropriatley histerical about wikileaks placing lives at risk etc etc.

Was this flagged legsilation the whole planned purpose of Wikileaks?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bussoboy
 

That's a theory. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through though just to introduce legislation. More likely it's opportunism.

(Odder to me at the moment is how we have two and possible three pieces of legislation in Congress all called the SHIELD Act. I can see there being one in the House and one in the Senate called the same thing if they relate to the same thing, but not when they relate to two different subjects entirely, and one is related to EMPs. But that's my other thread on this (see OP).



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Peter King is a nutcase!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by galactictuan
 


I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not the point here?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpreadLoveNotHate
How can a country conduct espionage ON ITSELF?

it can't
but it makes for good entertainment
and allows for laws to cover it in the
future.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

Why can't a country conduct espionage on itself? Happens all the time.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Here's more information from PC World. It seems King also introduced this legislation in 2010 and is now reintroducing it.

Lawmaker Reintroduces WikiLeaks Prosecution Bill



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join