Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   OtisIzaltumuch said, about 4 years ago

   Cheney & Rove must be in a different cell block?
2. 

   Badto Thebone said, about 4 years ago

   The fact that to be convicted of espionage you have to have committed the act in the U.S is really being lost on a lot of people. Especially Republicans. If you are in a different country and receive a file you have not violated any U.S. law. The entire craziness about him committing treason is even worse. You have to be a U.S. citizen to commit treason.
3. 

   Tommy1733 said, about 4 years ago

   Good point, Badto. Now, the US soldier (I believe) who actually provided the documents is another story.
4. 

   PossumPete said, about 4 years ago

   ^ They’ve got a nice warm cell in Leavenworth waiting for him.
5. 

   Rad-ish said, about 4 years ago

   One up leakmanship
6. 

   seablood said, about 4 years ago

   I agree that most of those things should have been leaked. What I don’t like is that these leaks are going to people who want to destroy us. Being an aussie, we have no legal authority over Assange. But the case might be made that he is an enemy combattant since some of our troops are in danger .
7. 

   DeanBooth said, about 4 years ago

   seablood, So the editors at the New York Times, The Guardian, etc. (or those shown in the comic), should be declared enemy combatants, too? Off to Guantanemo without a trial? If most of the public shares your view, we may as well give up democracy.
8. 

   jtpozenel said, about 4 years ago

   I’ve never been to the Wikileaks website yet I’m finding out details of those leaked documents on all the cable and network news programs, newspapers, internet websites, and even PBS and NPR.

   This espionage conspiracy is bigger than I could have ever imagined!
9. 

   chassimmons said, about 4 years ago

   seablood, The Muslims fighting in Afghanistan, etc., don’t “want to destroy us”. Some just don’t want their country ruled by foreigners. Others have goals that do not have my approval, but our “destruction” is not one of them.
10. 

    icky mung-mung said, about 4 years ago

    I hear the Emperor has no clothes, but I better not say anything–I’d probably be arrested if I did.
11. 

    Toby Bartels said, about 4 years ago

    But the case might be made that he is an enemy combattant since some of our troops are in danger .

    The case ‘might be made’? The U.S. government can declare anyone an enemy combatant at any time and do to them whatever U.S. forces can manage to do, including summary execution. It does this regularly to this day. (Maybe 10 years later a court will declare the action illegal, maybe not. The Constitution recognises habeas corpus, but the Congress does not, and the SCOTUS has yet to give a clear ruling for the new millennium.)

    If you want an intellectual exercise, then you can pretend that the phrase ‘enemy combatant’ has a meaning and argue whether Assange qualifies for it. (Of course, it has a literal meaning, but Assange obviously does not qualify for that, so you must be thinking of something else). But the only thing that matters to the U.S. government is whether they can get their hands on him and what they can do to him that won’t cause too bad PR. (In this case, they almost certainly won’t assassinate him, so it could be worse.)
12. 

    aircraft-engineer said, about 4 years ago

    Assange only published the TRUTH for all to see. Gummint tends to hide things and DENY DENY DENY (even when it IS THE TRUTH)

    PUBLISHING the information doesn’t make ASSANGE a criminal. HE JUST PUBLISHED WHAT HE RECEIVED (and it IS NOT ESPIONAGE ACCORDING THE THE LAW) As far as the LAW goes, it’s HEARSAY and is as valid as if I HAD SAID IT (or anyone else). The main (perhaps ONLY) reason the gummint wants to “get Assange” is because they are EMBARRASED that the TRUTH came out. They DO have a case against Manning, but NONE against Wikileaks (none whatsoever unless they want to prove that “hearsay” is admissible in court - but IF that holds a pecedent, then the floodgates open as to the admissibility of “other” hearsay)

    The fact that Assange is in jail in England has NOTHING to do with Wikileaks. It’s about a Swedish warrant for “rape” (alleged) - supposed for indulging without a raincoat (not lack of consent).
13. 

    Toby Bartels said, about 4 years ago

    Hearsay is not allowed as evidence (normally) in court (at least in the Common Law system used in the U.S.). This is a completely separate issue from whether publishing classified secrets is a crime, even when these secrets are themselves hearsay.

    However, you’re right that the Espionage Act doesn’t seem to make that illegal. The U.S. would have a pretty flimsy case here. Here’s hoping that Sweden won’t extradite! (Whether Assange committed rape is another completely separate issue.)
14. Refresh Comments.