[tptacek]

Why stop there? Assassinate Julian Assange? No. The trial balloon was clearly the shadow annexation of Sweden. After all, didn't a scholar at the AEI --- famously part of the US military/industrial/intelligence compound, home of the "neocon" movement --- intimate just that strategy in an op-ed just a few weeks ago?

If you're not going to constrain yourself to actual evidence, you can make any claim and then force anyone who'd dispute that claim to prove a negative. Those suppositions aren't informative. They're boring. And they're epsilon from forum trolling.

[spyne-02139]

I wasn't familiar with a couple terms you used:

- A trial balloon is information sent out to the media in order to observe the reaction of an audience.

- http://www.aei.org/home, The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943

To your first paragraph: I didn't realize the AEI raised the point. To your second paragraph: I thought by clearly stating that I was positing the position, that it was up for discussion, in a friendly manner. I certainly wasn't trying to troll. Sometimes creative exploration of an idea without debating first can lead to interesting places. In fact, Edward De'Bono has written reams on the matter. So thanks for enlightening me on those terms, peace.

[tptacek]

Conversations about Wikileaks on HN are especially prone to comic book reinterpretations of foreign and domestic policy.

The reality is, as upset as the US no doubt is about the gravity of the information they managed to lose, Assange has almost certainly committed no actual crime (not being a citizen of the US or in any way obligated to safeguard military secrets), and probably faces reprisals no more fearsome than the rejection of any future US visa.

Oh, but it is fun to spin conjecture about his "enemy of the state" status, and the swarm of secret stealth drones that is no doubt speeding to his current undisclosed location as we speak!

[grandalf]

By that logic, few of the members of Al Qaida have committed a crime. We all know few detainees at Gitmo ever had, as most were released.

Assange is an annoyance to the US Government. We don't know how big or small an annoyance he is. There was rumor of some very embarrassing diplomatic cables which have not yet been released, which might or might not constitue Assange qualifying as a very big annoyance.

[tptacek]

No, fairly straightforward logic and (for that matter) jurisprudence argues that virtually every member of Al Qaeda is a party to any number of crimes.

Sorry, try as hard as you can, you're not going to elevate Proff to the level of "enemy of the state". He's a guy with a bunch of files that the US no doubt wishes he didn't have. It is a complete certainty that every one of those files is going to be public sometime within the next couple years. Nobody with a functioning adult mind and more than a years exposure to any part of the problem space could believe otherwise.

(Bradley Manning is, if credible allegations are to be believed, an entirely different story).

[ryoshu]

Assange may have violated 18 U.S.C. § 793.

[tptacek]

The Supreme Court has never heard a § 793 case. Not even for American citizens. The constitutional problems with the Espionage Act are manifold, starting with the fact that it criminalizes speech. The notion that the government is going to successfully prosecute a case against a foreign national living on foreign soil for violating it seems far fetched.

Note also that to make this case, the government would have to claim "evil intent": either an intent to harm the United States, or an attempt to aid a foreign nation, or a reason to believe his actions would result in either. Assange may be no friend to the US national security apparatus, but he clearly seems to believe he's acting for the benefit of everyone, including the US. Check out US vs. Truong Dinh Hung (and the recent APAC case) for more detail; search for "scienter", the technical term for the requirement.

[ryoshu]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870448840457544...

"Pentagon lawyers believe that online whistleblower group WikiLeaks acted illegally in disclosing thousands of classified Afghanistan war reports and other material, and federal prosecutors are exploring possible criminal charges, officials familiar with the matter said."

They haven't said what law WikiLeaks has broken, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. The Espionage Act was the first thing that came to mind, but you may be right that it would be a difficult -- if not unconstitutional -- case.