On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let me assist you in understanding: > > "This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply [to > dissemination of classified documents], but notes that these have been used > almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified > information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it > available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified > information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of > classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as > crimes, and *we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information > obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been > prosecuted for publishing it*. There may be First Amendment implications > that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political > ramifications based on concerns about government censorship." > > That is the key paragraph of the article. > You cannot prosecute a journalist, newspaper, or website for publishing > documents which it received. > It has never happened in the history of the United States.
Your key doesn't work. Not been charged != cannot be charged. Are you really defending a point that doesn't exist? The Espionage Act: ... Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any documen ... 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; may b e prosecuted. > To assist you further - it begs the question on what grounds does the United > States propose to prosecute Assange, or Wikileaks, and on what grounds is > the United States threatening companies to not support Wikileaks? The law. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:332655 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
