Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Couldn't the government just make any document classified?
Once you accept the idea that there can be such a thing as treason, than sure, releasing any classified documents would count.
1. It's conceivable that, even in a free market society, people will be under contract to not reveal business or trade secrets, or to "spill the beans," so to say. So if anyone is arguing for a completely open society insofar that secrecy is concerned, please punch them in the face and call them stupid. Secrecy is a very important part of society.
2. If you're talking about this due to the recent Wikileaks debacle, remember that according to federal law, it is not illegal to publish secret information, so Wikileaks has not done anything illegal.
Political Atheists Blog
Of course, though, an important distinction would be that a breach of contract can only be punished non-violently whereas currently treason is a jailable or capital offense.
"it is not illegal to publish secret information"
it is not?
As Greenwald pointed out if Wikileaks is so bad, why not prosecute NYT, which also published the documents.
The person who stole the documents is the person that should be held with the crime, according to US law.. if that person gives the stolen documents to a group to publish them, the company that publishes the stolen documents is not at fault, the only person at fault is the person who stole the documents in the first place...
SO wikileaks isn't doing anything illegal, unless they can prove that wikileaks stole documents... the people that gave the documents to wikileaks are the ones at fault...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Yes, it is. Treason is whatever the government wants it to be. So the real questions are who gives a shit, and how does the state get to demand any kind of loyalty from you apart from that which you voluntarily give? The answers respectively are: statists; they don't.
Is the government presumed to be entitled to the same type of business or trade secrets as a private enterprise? When government agents sneak out documents, even if they've signed a contract not to do so, they've only revealed the secrets to people who paid to produce them, i.e. taxpayers.
If you work for a private company and you sign a non disclosure agreement and violate it you are subject to being sued in civil court. If I own a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise and a disgruntled employee tells the competition about my 11 herbs and spices. I can call a cop he'll tell me it's a civil matter . If I don't like it I can sue him. No help here It's my problem...go hire a lawyer and try to get blood out of a stone. If you work for the State Dept and someone reveals to your customers that your 11 herbs and spices include cyanide and hemlock, you can declare him a traitor and have him arrested by your cronies in another government. Who's the traitor? The guy who's spiking your chicken, or the guy who told you to spit it out?
Bill Smith:If I own a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise and a disgruntled employee tells the competition about my 11 herbs and spices. I can call a cop he'll tell me it's a civil matter.
Bill Smith: If you work for the State Dept and someone reveals to your customers that your 11 herbs and spices include cyanide and hemlock...
A very interesting analogy. But let's go a step further and look at both matters from the standpoint of private property. When someone steals a patent, that is still stealing. Hence, it is a crime. When the government puts its stamp on something that it produces, that something becomes its property and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act-- just like a patent or copyright belongs exclusively to its owner. If that owner wants to keep his recipe a closely guarded secret or bury his product in his back yard and never reveal it to anyone, that is his own business.
If a "journalist" decides to distribute the Colonel's secret recipe, knowingly violating his property rights, that too is a crime, especially if there is no other reason for it than that person having some grudge against KFC.
From what I have read on Wiki, there is nothing pointing to a government conspiracy against the citizenry. It makes the military brass and State Dept. look like the clowns they are, but frankly, it's not exactly earth-shattering news. There was no "higher purpose" that Wiki's defenders seem to be struggling to find. There is no cyanide in the chicken, so prosecute the criminals and let the Colonel have some justice!
It forced me to pay for the production, and claims the production is for my benefit. This is different than a private owner.
By the way, some of the leaks have revealed: the military killing civilians and journalists for sport, a Texas company engaging in human trafficking, and Hillary Clinton stealing credit card information from diplomats of other countries.
A very interesting analogy. But let's go a step further and look at both matters from the standpoint of private property. When someone steals a patent, that is still stealing. Hence, it is a crime. When the government puts its stamp on something that it produces, that something becomes its property and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act-- just like a patent or copyright belongs exclusively to its owner. If that owner wants to keep his recipe a closely guarded secret or bury his product in his back yard and never reveal it to anyone, that is his own business. If a "journalist" decides to distribute the Colonel's secret recipe, knowingly violating his property rights, that too is a crime, especially if there is no other reason for it than that person having some grudge against KFC. From what I have read on Wiki, there is nothing pointing to a government conspiracy against the citizenry. It makes the military brass and State Dept. look like the clowns they are, but frankly, it's not exactly earth-shattering news. There was no "higher purpose" that Wiki's defenders seem to be struggling to find. There is no cyanide in the chicken, so prosecute the criminals and let the Colonel have some justice!
I probably shouldn't take the thread down this road, but copying =/= stealing. IMO (other than breach of contract) the worst this could be would be trespassing.
Release of classified documentation via a third party is protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If the news organization steals the information, the person(s) who stole the information could be prosecuted, but not for publishing. Most news organizations, however, utilize informants and whistleblowers. Now government employees have to be careful thanks to a supreme court decision that exempted them from 1st Amendment protection if the action was done as part of their duties. They need to express this as their opinion or belief in order to receive 1st Amendment protection. Legislation to correct this has been blocked to this point.
There are certain laws in place to protect whistleblowers. The old Lincoln Law (False Claims Act) was used to protect the government from bad contractors. A whistleblower could be paid up to 25% of the contract value for reporting the crime of cheating the government. Other acts have been passed to provide protection to those who identify government wrong-doing.
Treason:
The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
See also Espionage Act of 1917
The first part of prosecuting someone for Treason would be to determine whether the individual owes allegiance to the United States. For Wikileaks and Assange, this is extremely difficult for the U.S. to maintain. If they do manage to maintain that Assange owes allegiance to the United States, then he would be protected by the 1st Amendment. Of course, the U.S. can, and often does, make things up as they go along.
Now for the person who handed Wikileaks the information, it doesn't look good for him.
Even though it would be difficult for the U.S. to indict Assange, they could still detain him and seize his possessions until the case came to trial. Since the U.S. sets that schedule, Assange would be at their mercy. In that sense it has nothing really to do with law or the Constitution, and everything to do with retaliation.
treason is mostly religious concept. To quote my fav quote:
We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely – those against private citizens or those against itself? - (from Anatomy of the State)
We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely – those against private citizens or those against itself?
- (from Anatomy of the State)
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"Most news organizations, however, utilize informants and whistleblowers."
Thats what i was thinking.
Most news companies rely on whistleblowers all the time. Why is wikileaks somehow different?
limitgov wrote: Most news companies rely on whistleblowers all the time. Why is wikileaks somehow different?
limitgov wrote:
They aren't any different, which is the problem the U.S. Government will attempt to overcome.
Anybody who has guns and enough legislative, judicial, and executive authority within it's sphere of influence gets to create the legal terminologies. There is no such thing as "inconsistency", the thing is always itself and acting for itself, and in so much as it can do so, it is correct. Don't mystify the words, observe the actions.
EDIT: And if you want to compare some normative legal precedent to the US Federal government; America is in what, it's 5th Republic without admitting it?
Their new angle is to prove that Assange had played an active role in aquiring the information.
U.S. Tries to Build Case Against Wikileaks
K.C. Farmer: limitgov wrote: Most news companies rely on whistleblowers all the time. Why is wikileaks somehow different? They aren't any different, which is the problem the U.S. Government will attempt to overcome.
You have a disgruntled gay soldier and a left-wing "journalist", both with an axe to grind. It is unlikely that Assange's informant even knew exactly what he was downloading. He probably just picked a batch of whatever looked important and hit the burn button. Only in a twisted, Michael Moore kind of world would either of these losers be considered a whistleblower.
limitgov: "it is not illegal to publish secret information" it is not?
It's 100% legal. That's why US newspapers and other news media can publish leaked documents and not fear prosecution (e.g. NYT). The US government is trying to find a way to prosecute Assange via an outdated WWI-era law which clearly violates the Bill of Rights.