Washington Post Calls Out: “Don’t Charge WikiLeaks”
Published in Hankyoreh
(South Korea) on 14 December 2010
by Il-Jun Cho (link to original)
After Julian Assange, the creator of WikiLeaks, was arrested in London on Dec. 7 in the wake of his site’s exclusive exposure of the United States’ classified diplomatic texts, discussion surrounding the possibility of the United States bringing espionage charges against Assange has spread like wildfire.
Mark Stephens, Assange’s lawyer, stated in an interview with the German daily newspaper Bild on Sunday that, "The whole sex thing is just a postulated allegation over an offense that he can be detained for, while investigations over the actual, more serious crime proceed.” He added: "In Washington a grand jury is being prepared, not necessarily over spying (charges), but to proceed against Julian (Assange) on several counts relating to WikiLeaks."
Another of Assange’s lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, has confirmed, through the British newspaper The Guardian, having heard of “several different U.S. lawyers’ rumors that an indictment was on its way or had happened already.” On Dec. 11 it was revealed that Assange would be transferred from his current cell in a London prison to a single cell. Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald has reported on Dec. 12 that Assange’s team of lawyers is planning to file a new motion to petition bail for Mr. Assange before a justice of the peace.
Furthermore, on Dec. 12 the influential American daily The Washington Post published the first editorial opposing any charges of espionage being brought against Assange. The column, which ran under the title “Don’t Charge Wikileaks,” stated categorically that, “The government has no business indicting someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its secrets.” The column emphasized that “doing so would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations,” while commenting on the Espionage Act that it “is easily abused [and] should be scrapped or tightened, not given new […] life.”
The UPI news agency also reported that “legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate proposes a new law targeting Assange for allegedly endangering the lives of confidential sources providing information to U.S. intelligence,” while pointing out that “Ex post facto, or retroactive, laws are banned by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.” The UPI pointed out that there is a problem not only with the idea of the United States incarcerating Assange, but also with the way in which it identifies the nature of the crime of which it seems to be set to accuse him.
Mark Stephens, Assange’s lawyer, stated in an interview with the German daily newspaper Bild on Sunday that, "The whole sex thing is just a postulated allegation over an offense that he can be detained for, while investigations over the actual, more serious crime proceed.” He added: "In Washington a grand jury is being prepared, not necessarily over spying (charges), but to proceed against Julian (Assange) on several counts relating to WikiLeaks."
Another of Assange’s lawyers, Jennifer Robinson, has confirmed, through the British newspaper The Guardian, having heard of “several different U.S. lawyers’ rumors that an indictment was on its way or had happened already.” On Dec. 11 it was revealed that Assange would be transferred from his current cell in a London prison to a single cell. Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald has reported on Dec. 12 that Assange’s team of lawyers is planning to file a new motion to petition bail for Mr. Assange before a justice of the peace.
Furthermore, on Dec. 12 the influential American daily The Washington Post published the first editorial opposing any charges of espionage being brought against Assange. The column, which ran under the title “Don’t Charge Wikileaks,” stated categorically that, “The government has no business indicting someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its secrets.” The column emphasized that “doing so would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations,” while commenting on the Espionage Act that it “is easily abused [and] should be scrapped or tightened, not given new […] life.”
The UPI news agency also reported that “legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate proposes a new law targeting Assange for allegedly endangering the lives of confidential sources providing information to U.S. intelligence,” while pointing out that “Ex post facto, or retroactive, laws are banned by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.” The UPI pointed out that there is a problem not only with the idea of the United States incarcerating Assange, but also with the way in which it identifies the nature of the crime of which it seems to be set to accuse him.
Previous article![]( "WikiLeaks Proves the U.S. Just Can’t")
