USA vs. Assange: A Crime in the Making
Published in Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 16 December 2010
by Reymer Klüver (link to original)
(Germany) on 16 December 2010
by Reymer Klüver (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Jessica Boesl.
The Obama administration is desperately trying to put WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on trial. The White House should back away from that idea as soon as possible. Public reaction to an indictment would be disastrous.
The desire to teach someone a lesson isn’t a valid basis for a fair trial, and slick tricks are unbecoming to a constitutional government. That’s why the Obama administration should back away from any plan to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for aiding and abetting the illegal transfer of classified documents.
The success of such an indictment would likely be dubious; the public outcry would be disastrous.
It is obvious that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, encouraged by the White House, is looking for any opportunity to put the secretive WikiLeaks founder on trial for something. The idea of using a resurrected old espionage law dating from World War I was considered and then quickly laid once more to rest.
The dissemination of classified information as such is not punishable by law because of doubts that such dissemination is constitutionally protected by the freedom of expression clause. In order to cover themselves, the staff at WikiLeaks has recently been making stronger attempts to look more like a journalistic organization.
The only alternative left is to claim that Assange not only received and leaked the classified documents, but caused the real traitor to commit the deed — a bizarre construct.
Of course, the United States can’t afford to have its secret documents flooding into the public marketplace en masse. But it should address that situation by improving its intelligence procedures, not by trying to put together a questionable legal maneuver.
The actual charge against Assange comes from Sweden, where he is suspected of rape. But one case has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
The desire to teach someone a lesson isn’t a valid basis for a fair trial, and slick tricks are unbecoming to a constitutional government. That’s why the Obama administration should back away from any plan to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for aiding and abetting the illegal transfer of classified documents.
The success of such an indictment would likely be dubious; the public outcry would be disastrous.
It is obvious that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, encouraged by the White House, is looking for any opportunity to put the secretive WikiLeaks founder on trial for something. The idea of using a resurrected old espionage law dating from World War I was considered and then quickly laid once more to rest.
The dissemination of classified information as such is not punishable by law because of doubts that such dissemination is constitutionally protected by the freedom of expression clause. In order to cover themselves, the staff at WikiLeaks has recently been making stronger attempts to look more like a journalistic organization.
The only alternative left is to claim that Assange not only received and leaked the classified documents, but caused the real traitor to commit the deed — a bizarre construct.
Of course, the United States can’t afford to have its secret documents flooding into the public marketplace en masse. But it should address that situation by improving its intelligence procedures, not by trying to put together a questionable legal maneuver.
The actual charge against Assange comes from Sweden, where he is suspected of rape. But one case has absolutely nothing to do with the other.