Poetic justice: WikiLeaks the victim of U.S. leaks?
A front-page story in today’s New York Times reports inside details of the Justice Department’s investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. This raises the question of whether Assange is now himself the victim of illegal leaks.
The Times story avoids attributing any details to federal prosecutors, yet manages to read their minds. It reports that Justice Department officials are trying to find out if Assange encouraged Pfc. Bradley Manning to leak classified documents, and that “If he did so, they believe they could charge him as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.”
Under Rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is unlawful for a government attorney to “disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” And there is reportedly a federal grand jury, empaneled in Alexandria, Va., investigating the WikiLeaks disclosures.
The Times story, scrubbed of attribution in all the key paragraphs that reveal the Justice Department’s strategy in the investigation of Assange, evidently attempts to extricate Justice Department officials from problems with Rule 6e:
Justice Department officials have declined to discuss any grand jury activity. But in interviews, people familiar with the case said the department appeared to be attracted to the possibility of prosecuting Mr. Assange as a co-conspirator to the leaking because it is under intense pressure to make an example of him as a deterrent to further mass leaking of electronic documents over the Internet.
Having spent seven years as a reporter in federal courts for The Associated Press and New York Newsday, I’m familiar with the sort of code being used here. If Justice Department officials think they can disclose their strategy for a criminal probe that is ongoing before a grand jury without disclosing “a matter before a grand jury,” they are walking a very fine line.
Re: Walking a very fine line.
Perhaps. Then again a foul isn’t a foul until the ref blows the whistle.
To the Justice Dept attorneys, I say, Go for it!
18 U.S.C. 793(e), provides:
“Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, … (which) 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 (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) …
“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
I agree. Go for it!
Who defines how something relates to the national defense?
I am not sure whether it is the same for vulnerable people to use anonymous leaks to expose misuse of power by those in government (that’s Wikileaks’ lofty goal), and for people in power to use anonymous leaks to circumvent the law (that’s apparently what may be happening).
“Go for it.” Yes, it is poetic justice. But be aware that when the law is stretched to go after someone you may despise, it doesn’t stop there.
Well, I have found Julian Assuange leaks helpful. I have been defending the war in Iraq for the past few years. I am not sure why other than you start being more like your friends, and since I reverted to Catholicism, many of my friends have increasingly been Republicans. So, I found watching the You-Tube Video “Collateral Murder” a real moment of repentence. I was so ashamed that I have been defending this, that it is being carried out in my name. It’s just evil.
Some people claim they already knew this but I did not know that we have been bombing Yemen and pretendting their govt is doing it. Why are we bombing Yemen? I don’t care about Hillary Clinton’s embarassement. I want to know these things.
Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
If I were Mr.Zuckerberg’s lawyer, I would suggest he shut down wikileaks facebook which clearly indicates the desire of wikileaks to obtain and publish classified information that is distributed through facebook. http://www.facebook.com/wikileak
I wonder why The Justice Department has not shut this site down?
“Who defines how something relates to the national defense?”
Ultimately, the federal court system if alleged perpetrators are prosecuted.
Regarding our invasion of Iraq, I think Dick Cheney and GWB have blood on their hands — the unnecessary and, therefore, illegitimate loss of blood, both American and Iraqi.
Mr. Moses, I do not “despise” the person(s) responsible for these leaks.
I despise what they did.
The sky is falling! Panic and run in circles! Hang the bastards! We are so closed minded that we believe these secrets are in fact secrets. Unfortunately, every foreign national who needs to know already knows. What we are worried about is by letting in some fresh air we can detect the rank smell of rotten eggs. Once the people really know what’s happening they are likely to be just a bit angry and upset. That’s what some politicos are really worried about. There are no secrets, just pretense.
My favorite comment so far on Wikileaks comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski (yes, I had to google him to spell him) on the Lehrer show a day or two after the leaks. He quoted a nineteenth century Austro-Hungarian foreign minister (Andrassy?) who, when asked about a crisis of is day, replied, “Of course it’s catastrophic! . . . But not serious.” He followed this up with the observation that we really didn’t need Wikileaks to tell us of common knowledge, such as that American diplomats and others regard Berlusconi as a clown.
Mike, no need to panic since it appears the sky is expanding, not falling. Why don’t you just calm down and tell us why you think The Justice Department should not be concerned that there is a facebook page looking for sources who are willing to conspire with wikileaks through the sharing of classified documents?
Nicholas, according to the wikileaks facebook page, wikileaks is not interested in conspiring with those who only have common knowledge that is already available in the public domain.