ACLU: Prosecuting WikiLeaks For Publishing Documents Would Raise Serious Constitutional Concerns

Prosecuting WikiLeaks For Publishing Documents Would Raise Serious Constitutional Concerns, Says ACLU
December 1, 2010

NEW YORK – According to news reports, the government is looking into whether it could prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for publishing classified government documents he obtained from a third party. WikiLeaks, along with multiple news outlets, published thousands of pages of U.S. diplomatic cables on Sunday. The American Civil Liberties Union said that prosecuting WikiLeaks would have serious First Amendment implications.

The following can be attributed to Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:

“We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents. If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome.

“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security/prosecuting-wikileaks-publishing-documents-would-raise-serious-constit

"Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents."

expressing bad thoughts, whistle blowing,evil doing and government transparency.

Failing to applaud public figures, laying blame where blame is due, exposing mindless preoccupation of so many at the State Dept who are labeling every other gossip item as "Top Secret" and on and on.

Don't know who these Wikileaks Evil Doers think they are, but they should stop (if they know what is good for them!)

INTERPOL media release 01 December 2010

Sweden authorizes INTERPOL to make public Red Notice for WikiLeaks founder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSANGE
Julian Paul

LYON, France - INTERPOL has made public the Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the request of Swedish authorities who want to question him in connection with a number of sexual offences.

The Red Notice for the 39-year-old Australian, which was issued to law enforcement in all 188 INTERPOL member countries on 20 November, has now been made publicly available by INTERPOL following official authorization by Sweden.

All INTERPOL National Central Bureaus (NCBs) have also been advised to ensure that their border control agencies are made aware of Assange's Red Notice status, which is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition.

Many of INTERPOL's member countries however, consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.

INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrests the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2010/PR101.asp

That is not a definitive statement. I think the ACLU is trying to walk the line on transparency and whistleblowing, but certainly they don't believe that there are no actions that are illegal or represent criminal mischief?

Wiretapping is illegal. Why is releasing confidential discussions acceptable, especially when no crime is involved?

or Ellsberg for that matter?

It's "just a piece of goddamn paper" to quote the leading theorist of the post-Constitutional government, and it doesn't mean a goddamn thing anymore if it ever did.

They can do whatever they want. And you will take it.