Can Assange be tried for Espionage?

Well, first lets look at the law

Title 18 section 978

The significant term is "whoever". It is not limited to US citizens only.

Title 18 Section 2

Assange would be considered a principal in this case. To be a principal does not require Assange to be a US citizen nor does it require him to have been physically in the US.

He could also be charged under Title 18 Section 794 "Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government"

And Section 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

Now charging and convicting are two separate matters. But he can be charged with these and other crimes. Personally, I think getting a conviction would be difficult... not impossible though.

The only problem I see with the espionage clause is that he did not explicitly gather this information to deal to foreign governments, according to him, he's simply doing it to enlighten the public.

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information"

The general public, which includes the entire internets tubes community was not authorized access to this information.

:hmmm: Hmmm.. You may have it there

However (devils advocate, I'd rather he rot in prison) can't he just say it's for the knowledge of the public and there was no intent to do any harm to the national interests of the U.S or its citizens?

Like I posted, I think getting a conviction might be difficult. :yep:

By that definition most journalists are also guilty of espionage.

In any case, I think the relevant question is whether or not the US can get him on their soil. If they can then I suspect the rest of the world will never see him again, regardless of whether they can prove he's guilty of anything.

That has been argued ever since 1917 with the passage of the espionage act.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government does have the right to prevent the publication of national security information by the press, but that the government has to first demonstrate a "heavy burden of proof" that the release of this information would cause sufficient damage as to provide justification for overriding the First Amendment Rights. Court decisions on similar cases have indicated that the level of proof will be very high.

In the case of New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that in this specific case, the government failed to demonstrate the "heavy burden of proof" and the government's case failed.

What is commonly misunderstood about NYT v US is that it pertained to that one case and did not set a precedent against all similar cases. It just established (re-established actually) the requirement of the government's "heavy burden of proof".

If there is ever a case where the government can make its "heavy burden of proof" the government's power to restrict may be upheld.

It should also be recognized that NYT v. US was a case of prior restraint. The government wanted to prevent the NYT from publishing the information.

The Assange case would not be a case of prior restraint as the information has already been published. I don't think NYT v. US will apply to any Assange case. :nope:

A distinct possibility that can not be immediately ignored. But it would not accomplish anything.

The hitch is that wikileaks is "owned" by "The Sunshine Press" which despite the term is not a news media but a Non-Profit Organization that operates Wikileaks.

As has been posted before, Assange is the "just" the editor of Wikileaks, not the owner. Assange does not even own wikileaks.org. The website is owned by John Shipton acting as an agent of Dynadot Privacy.

Assange is a smelly fish, but only one of many fish, in that slimy pond, that needs to be caught.

Whacking Assange, while providing emotional satisfaction, will have little effect on wikileaks. :nope:

So then wouldn't it be easier and more effective to go after the true owner of Wikileaks rather then one of the "small-fry" like Assange and Manning?

That reason has never stopped the US government before!
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Well Manning is not part of wikileaks. Manning, if the charges against him are true, is a US criminal who violated a cubic-buttload of federal laws by betraying his oath of honour and illegally transferred sensitive information with out authorization. Manning, if the charges against him are true is hardly small-fry.

As was rightly pointed out earlier in this thread, we need to keep our scumbags separate.

The United States should continue its investigation of Manning and its investigation to find other leakers to prosecute.

But, I do agree that "going after" Assange won't amount to much other than giving the public someone to hate (the public likes its soundbytes clean and short".

I am sure there are investigations against Dynadot Privacy and The Sunshine Press. :yep:

Well, good point. :salute:

Please don't mistake me that I'm putting Assange and Manning in the same basket.

I realize that Manning, a soldier in the U.S Army betrayed his country by illegally stealing the cables and distributing them to media sources (in this case wiki-leaks).

I also realize that Assange is in no way connected to Manning except for publishing and being chief editor of the cables he received from Manning.

What I meant by "small-fry" was that Manning, as someone who steals secrets, and Assange who merely distributes what he deems will make the largest splash, have no real bearing on where wiki-leaks will go. However, the owner, who thus has the final say in whats going on, is should be more of a "target" if you will, for that sole reason then no?

An excellent point. Who should "we" "go after"?

The owner of the website?
The officers of the NPO The Sunshine Press
Wikileaks advisory board?
Wikileaks Board of Directors?

Not an easy question to answer. But an excellent question to consider. :yep:

:hmmm:

Also, please don't think when I say "we" it is solely the U.S, or the entire world, or whatever generalisations may be made from that statement, but rather the group who would "profit" from something being done to said target (<--- me trying to be politically correct :haha:)

Also, by saying "target" what exactly should be done to said target? Or rather, what do you think will be done to said target?

Internment (Guantanamo Bay would be ironic to me)? Extradition to the U.S and facing espionage charges? Quiet disappearance? Nothing?

Assange is the public face of Wikileaks, and this is politics. The US government are sending a public message: don't f*ck with us. I had some hope that the totalitarian nature of the message would backfire on them, but it seems most of the US public are right behind them.