What Fresh Hell Is This?

December 13, 2010

Espionage Act of 1917

Naomi Wolf via the HuffingtonPost:
This week, Senators Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein engaged in acts of serious aggression against their own constituents, and the American people in general. They both invoked the 1917 Espionage Act and urged its use in going after Julian Assange. For good measure, Lieberman extended his invocation of the Espionage Act to include a call to use it to investigate the New York Times, which published WikiLeaks' diplomatic cables. Reports yesterday suggest that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder may seek to invoke the Espionage Act against Assange.

These two Senators, and the rest of the Congressional and White House leadership who are coming forward in support of this appalling development, are cynically counting on Americans' ignorance of their own history -- an ignorance that is stoked and manipulated by those who wish to strip rights and freedoms from the American people. They are manipulatively counting on Americans to have no knowledge or memory of the dark history of the Espionage Act -- a history that should alert us all at once to the fact that this Act has only ever been used -- was designed deliberately to be used -- specifically and viciously to silence people like you and me.
She points out that Julian Assange isn't the leaker of all that stuff. He's the publisher. He's the New York Times to Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers.

Here's the Espionage Act, by the way. And the part of the Act that's got Wolf nervous? That probably Section 793(e):
Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it...[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Or maybe Section 798(a):
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information...[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As Benjamin Wittes points out:
By its terms, it criminalizes not merely the disclosure of national defense information by organizations such as Wikileaks, but also the reporting on that information by countless news organizations. It also criminalizes all casual discussions of such disclosures by persons not authorized to receive them to other persons not authorized to receive them–in other words, all tweets sending around those countless news stories, all blogging on them, and all dinner party conversations about their contents. Taken at its word, the Espionage Act makes felons of us all.
He goes on to say that any Assange prosecution would be complicated:
...precisely because there will be no way in principle to distinguish between the prosecution of Assange and the prosecution of just about anyone else–from the New York Times to the guy on the street who reads the newspaper and talks about it. That will make Espionage Act prosecutions seem like far more of a menace to legitimate speech than would a prosecution under a better-drawn law.
So if Assange can be prosecuted, than any of us can be prosecuted, too. Either that, or it's a selective prosecution.

Neither is acceptable in a truly free society.

1 comment:

Joshua said...

I'm not going to implicate anything about you Dave, but I know that there were a LOT of people on the left who were screaming at the top of their lungs to use this against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman when they were entrapped by Larry Franklin. Ultimately, the judge saw it for the fraudulent case it was and tossed it, but not before a bunch of Far Leftists (again, to distinguish from you) cried "Zionist conspiracy". Something tells me I won't be hearing the same howls from the Far Left this time.