
Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection - juliusmusseau
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/04/more-than-a-data-dump-julian-assange/
======
calhoun137
It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that
the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political
corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every
political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But
what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now
vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to
the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset
that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" \-- to react with
anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should
have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of
all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True
Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded

[https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/](https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/)

~~~
jancsika
At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment
protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter.

1\. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists.

2\. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to
the press of prosecuting Assange.

3\. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange
on 1st Amendment grounds.

Follow the small group that survives #3 to get a variety of (probably) high-
quality perspectives from serious journalists.

Use set from #2 as a casual guide for when to prick your ears up and listen to
the news.

~~~
wybiral
Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury
proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks
discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database.

The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the
"but it was for journalism" defense.

In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get
information to leak to the public?

"It's just journalism, you can't arrest me..."

~~~
stoolpigeon
I used to consider grand jury indictments to indicate that something was going
on. Then someone close to me was indicted. That's when I learned that it takes
almost nothing to get an indictment. In the case I know best it was less than
nothing. When the case finally made it to a judge and was heard the judge
realized how bad it was and through it out.

Those indictments come from a group of people who hear only one side, there is
no one there to question the validity of what they are told, and they are
basically being asked to let it go to court and so I don't think they see it
as so bad if they are wrong, it can work out in trial.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
This is a sentiment I've seen with the Assange threads. I see something
significantly wrong with:

"Well if a grand jury wishes to bring charges, it must be a legitimate charge,
or they'd not bring it to them."

It's akin to the idea that if someone has charges for a crime, that because
they were charged they must have did it.

------
belltaco
What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM
keys of US military logins?

Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and
exemptions not given to others?

Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign
soil?

~~~
apsec112
Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say,
Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his
speech.

~~~
rayiner
The First Amendment probably does not apply to non-Americans with respect to
their conduct abroad. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-
Urqui...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez)

> The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable
> searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and
> seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in
> the United States. Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the opinion for the
> Court, joined by Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor, contending
> that "the people" intended to be protected by the Fourth Amendment were the
> people of the United States, and that the defendant's "legal but involuntary
> presence" on U.S. soil (a direct result of his arrest) failed to create a
> sufficient relationship with the U.S. to allow him to call upon the
> Constitution for protection.[1]

~~~
KorematsuFred
American law can not apply to non-Americans abroad.

~~~
tyingq
Maybe "should not". "Can not" has been disproved many times.

~~~
KorematsuFred
Either cases it is irrelevant if the parent country of that person supports
that individual. Like how it happens with a lot of Chinese citizens that US
routinely tries to entrap.

------
txru
Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum.
While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making
about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't
represent the political facts.

Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the
DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to
thank him for withholding just the proper amount of information for us to make
our voting decision? Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that
didn't align with the best interests of the American people?

[0] [https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-
republican...](https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-
emails-fbi-director-says/)

~~~
calhoun137
I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made
in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians
would like them to think:

"just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and
especially a "journalist" \-- to react with anger that these things have been
revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd
be better if we didn't know"

By the way, the indictment for the extradition request has nothing to do with
the 2016 election, but rather the Iraq war logs from back in 2010. I
understand you may not like Assange very much and think he is a bad person,
but I would encourage you to consider the bigger picture and that many people
are raising the alarm that this is an extremely dangerous attack on the first
amendment and the freedom of the press.

~~~
txru
Trust me, I'm aware of the thin lines that these things ride upon. I don't
care that, in particular, the Podesta emails, the DNC emails, the Brazile
questions, or anything else about the Clinton campaign were leaked. It was
information, and it was illuminating to the nature of American politics.

What I have a problem with is, these sorts of leaks allow American elections
to become a target of nation-state attacks. We shouldn't become used to making
electoral decisions based on what the Russian state wants us to know about our
politicians-- we need to make those discoveries ourselves, with investigative
journalists that have skin in the game.

I understand that the request has nothing to do with the election, and likely
would have happened without. Still, when inciting American citizens to break
the law, I would hope that one would have some stronger backup than a single
embassy's forbearance to carry you through to safety. Conspiracy isn't some
newly made up charge, Assange didn't have to encourage Manning to do anything
other than release what she had legal access to at the time.

~~~
carnagii
Maybe we could have political candidates who aren't criminals so then foreign
powers couldn't tilt our elections by revealing the truth about them.

~~~
scarmig
...except the Russian state was undermining the non-criminal to aid the known
criminal?

Please, point to any "criminal" act that was revealed in the emails (that were
stolen and released to Wikileaks by Russian security services).

~~~
jessaustin
If a game show that gave away real prizes leaked the questions in advance to
one contestant but not the other, that would be fraud. I'm not sure if a
debate can be held to that standard, however?

------
doe88
I tell you what, I'm moderate, some might say a bit coward, tonight I will
sleep as usual, tomorrow I won't protest, never been in a single protest in my
life. But I nonetheless think there is something wrong in our current western
democracies. Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video,
these are the men and women revealing these facts that are hunted down, for
years. Meanwhile, these same people don't understand when citizens in
desperate attempts to shake the system vote to the fringes failing or not
wanting to acknowledge the current situation. It's not going to end well, that
much I know.

~~~
ausbah
>Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video

what..?

~~~
jonathanstrange
The collateral murder video showed how US military killed innocent unarmed
civilians from the air and then shot other innocent and unarmed civilians who
were trying to give first aid to the victims and get them to a hospital.

------
oedmarap
> Since Assange has already published the leaks in question, he obviously
> cannot be stopped from publishing them now; all the government can do is
> prosecute him criminally for obtaining or publishing the leaks in the first
> place. To date, there never has been a criminal prosecution for this type of
> behavior. Obama’s Justice Department ultimately concluded that a prosecution
> of Assange would damage the First Amendment. Their decision effectively
> meant that Assange was entitled to the same constitutional protections given
> reporters.

IANAL but this seeming to be the crux of the article brings with it a lot of
legal baggage such as constitutional precedent, being charged ex-post facto
for releasing info that's now public/republished, and the proverbial "letter
of the law vs. the sprit of the law" type argument.

I can understand any motive behind prosecuting Assange for leaking military
secrets; these are strategic parts of a nation state's defence and
sovereignty. Go figure.

However, and it's not a popular opinion but, I do believe that if you opt to
run for and eventually serve in public office your correspondences (both intra
and inter governmental) should be totally public. Secrecy in this area I think
leads to corruption viz. misuse of power, brokering sweetheart deals with
private companies, and facilitating lobbying by special interest groups all of
which, inter alia, don't have the public interest at heart. The classified
nature of these comms IMO is purposefully designed to be a grayer area and
thicker line than it needs to be.

In that light I don't think he should be reprimanded for any charges
surrounding political/cable leakages (which exposed some of the issues I just
listed) as much as any journalist would be for exposing mal-intent of an
elected official or diplomat.

------
the_watcher
He has First Amendment protections. That doesn't apply to what he's being
charged with, which is conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to US military
systems.

~~~
cphoover
As far as I understood WikiLeaks was purely a publishing platform. Not sure if
this is the case back then but they have had claimed anonymity through the
submission process (via proxies, and encryption)... to protect both themselves
and whistle blowers.

If all they were doing was publishing... that should be protected by first
amendment.

If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it
doesn't seem to be the case.

I have a lot of issues with Assange, particularly as it pertains to Wikileaks
handling of the DNC leaks, and Assange's collaboration with nationalist
parties around the world... but despite my distaste for the guy...in this case
I don't think he committed a crime.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it
> doesn't seem to be the case.

That's literally the exactly what he is charged with.

------
chiefalchemist
First, I want to say I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault
charge. That's a serious change, and it should be addressed via proper legal
channels.

That said, having watched (the film) "Untouchables" for the Xth time, it's
certainly possible given the powers involved he could be getting the Al Capone
treatment.

Put another way, how or why he ends up in jail isn't nearly as important as
him ending up in jail. The 1A issue is a non-issue in the sense it's also part
of the reason for getting him locked down for some other reason(s).

~~~
Theodores
I think we have a lot of growing up to do regarding the Swedish law concerning
equality. My suspicion is that Sweden are 50 - 100 years ahead of the UK and
the rest of the English speaking world when it comes to treating women with
respect as a society and in law.

In our own mis-spent youths we assume some laws don't apply to us, it can be a
simple thing like riding a bicycle on a pavement (sidewalk). Then we might
flatten an elderly person as they step out their door, putting them in
hospital and to no longer have their health. Only then does the penny drop and
that the law is not a petty thing. Before that happens we might assume the
policeman ticking us off for riding on a pavement is a 'jobsworth' who should
be 'out catching murderers'. But no, the law - even this small one does
matter.

I am hoping that aside from the Wikileaks circus that something good can come
from this regarding how we see women. 'Well, she was asking for it' attitudes
should not wash, regardless of how big the ego is. There was no evidence that
the original charges were a pretext to nab Assange and send him off to some US
courtroom. Assange should have faced the music and apologised for his conduct,
then moved on as a free man having paid whatever fines/community
service/prison spell the judged deemed appropriate.

If you are in a hole, stop digging. Assange kept digging.

Much has been made of the benefits of the Wikileaks sideshow but I don't see
it that way. If someone had some important information to leak they might
easily be discouraged to do so given how Wikileaks had monopolised that
'business' (and made it into a monetized business).

It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the
idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous. But
Wikileaks created a black hole where any secret documents had to go to in
order to be perceived by journalists and the public as a legitimate scandal
worthy leak.

The idea that Assange has a 'dead man's switch' is also interesting. Imagine
that he did have the crown jewels of leaked information stashed away, let's
imagine it was something like the identity of the killer in a murder case,
withholding that information from the family of the deceased would put him on
the same side as the murderer, harbouring them in effect. This would be
morally wrong. So we will see what the leverage he has turns out to be.

~~~
ShamelessC
> It is not rocket science to create a web page and post documents online, the
> idea you need Wikileaks for that - to filter it for you - is ridiculous.

It seems doing so anonymously might be a bit tricky for folks without
technical knowledge. Hell, I'm a programmer and I still would be afraid to
publish without the guarantee of anonymity provided by a "trusted" third
party.

They also provide protection for people who they deemed to have aligned
interests - e.g. Snowden.

I agree though that there shouldn't be a filter on what gets leaked. But it
may be necessary given the fact that the US government has the resources and
laws that it does.

~~~
Theodores
Internet cafe - create throwaway account to HN - post.

Job done.

Wikileaks don't guarantee anonymity, that is something you have to take care
of yourself.

------
artur_makly
Julian explains it himself:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgU-L8oOFtA)

------
ezoe
While those who commit the war crime is walking the public street freely,
those who reported the war crime was tortured. Another ordinary day in US of
A.

------
peter_retief
Whistle blowers almost always pay a huge price for uncovering corruption. Let
me give a quick example, the two people who uncovered massive international
racketeering in an expose now known as guptaleaks [http://www.gupta-
leaks.com/](http://www.gupta-leaks.com/) had to flee their homes and country,
paid for by "private money", to protect them from government. I have huge
sympathy for Assange

------
thatoneuser
Dark day to see so many people willingly claim assange deserves punishment.

~~~
belltaco
In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he
was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign. And that he
delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage to
Trump, instead of just releasing them when ready.

Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government
officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later was asking
Trump Jr to ask Trump to recommend himself as the Aussie ambassador to the US
as payment for helping Trump win.

~~~
thatoneuser
Showed Hillary was cheating the dnc which she lied to the public about.
There's plenty more justification but thats enough for me.

~~~
roguecoder
There he was just doing oppo research for Trump, corrdinated via Roger Stone.
We don’t know whether he also conspired with that crime, as he is alleged to
have done here, but we do know that if it was about public information we
would have seen the RNC and Conway’s emails too. Since it was a crime and a
possibly-unrelated disclosure both of which were acts of propaganda and
information warfare and he has said it was motivated by his personal desire to
change the outcome of the election, it is by definition neither motivated by
not in service to educating the public.

~~~
thatoneuser
Conway or the rnc had zero impact on people's perception of trump. Trump was
the forerunner and eventually became president and it was clear that was the
only way a republican would be president by the time the dnc emails were
leaked. What would it have accomplished to release those docs, assuming
assange had possession of them?

What exactly was the crime you're referring to and saying he's guilty of? If I
have information about two candidates I can give it to others however I'd
like.

------
kstenerud
The problem is that Assange repeatedly angers and alienates his friends. The
journalistic establishment won't support him because they don't like him.

An unliked person is the worst thing for a constitutional test, because almost
no one can separate their ideals from their emotions. There were similar
likability problems with Larry Flint.

~~~
luckylion
Wouldn't that person would be the best to test the constitution? If everybody
loves you, you don't need the protection of the law. And if the law only works
when everybody likes you, what good is it?

------
dragonwriter
Everyone deserves First Amendment protection, but what Assange is accused of
is not protected.

------
chmaynard
When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon
Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope.
My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information
laws.

~~~
Lowkeyloki
When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to
its people?

If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my
short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.

~~~
raxxorrax
more speedy automatic declassification without exceptions would be nice.

Retrospective control is better than nothing.

Although if you commit benign computer sabotage and happen to acquire
information about war crimes, that should be a freebee.

------
fallingfrog
Woodward and Bernstein would never have been able to do what they did in 2019.
They would have vanished into the secret court system, put in solitary for
life, and we never would hear what happened to them.

------
roguecoder
The problem is that not only did he do something politically unpopular, he
also allegedly conspired to commit a crime. If you know the cops are after
you, don’t ride dirty kids.

------
tyingq
Likely why he was specifically charged with the narrow accusation of a hacking
conspiracy. That's easier to separate from the 1st amendment.

------
jeffdavis
I'm trying to understand the various ways lines can be drawn.

One line is passive versus active gathering of classified information. It's
clear that the article doesn't think the line should be drawn here.

But where then? The article says: "If he explicitly agreed to act as a Russian
agent, he should lose his First Amendment protection," but I don't understand
what line is being drawn.

------
dzonga
issue here is someone is getting arrested for exposing war criminals.

------
8bitsrule
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be
counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be
consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not
determine what’s true."

------
kushti
I dunno how to handle this situation for those who are unlucky to live under
US war-criminal regime. For others, I would like to propose to consider the
following:

\- convert your USD savings into other assets (e.g. EUR)

\- sell US-related stocks

\- boycott US-produced goods and services if there are replacements

------
taxidump
Is there anymore information about the jabber conversation being exposed
between Manning and Assange? I assume they has some sort of OpSec in place, I
am curious how this was picked up.

------
number6
Julian Assange would not need the first amendment rights if - with according
to international laws - he would not be extradited to a country where he could
face torture or the death penalty.

~~~
swish_bob
He is not being extradited under charges that could lead to the death penalty.
If he were, British law is very clear that he could not be extradited.

------
sneak
> _Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his
> current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK
> attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden
> dropped the charges._

This is factually inaccurate - Assange has not been charged with a crime by
any country. There was an investigation in Sweden but no charges were brought.

Presumably he will be indicted in the US momentarily.

As yet, not a single country has charged him with a crime.

Edit: yes, the US has now indicted him on a conspiracy charge—his first.

~~~
favorited
He was charged and convicted of skipping on his bail in 2012.

------
Fjolsvith
Assange is being brought back to provide testimony to US Senate investigations
into Ukrainian interference in elections.

------
Simulacra
I use to go back and forth on Julian, but at this point I think he should be
punished, but what that punishment should be I don't know. I think Manning
stealing the cables was an absolute wrong, and Assange facilitating that shows
a level of culpability. He should not be afforded American protection. Crimes
were committed, even if they were done with the best intentions, it was still
a crime. We all count, or no one counts.

~~~
ehsankia
I would like to know what the Mueller report and US intelligence has on him
and his involvement with Russian interference is US elections. Assange was
pretty active during the 2016 election and I'd like to see what his
involvement was.

~~~
betterunix2
I am going to guess that he was an unwitting stooge of the Russians. Assange
has been in over his head for a long time -- the "insurance file" fiasco
should have been your first clue:

[https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-
wikileaks...](https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-
accidental-release-of-us-cables-endangers-sources-a-783084.html)

------
dalbasal
When WikiLeaks published their big "collateral murder" and this while
shitstorm started, I happened to be in Melbourne. I came across a "free
assange" petition manned by student activist types... and I assume WikiLeaks
people. It think it's near their offices.

My take was that WikiLeaks is just doing what journalists do. Sourcing
newsworthy information and publishing it. All the major papers, channels and
such were republishing, in my mind proving the point. Meanwhile, assange
was/is an Australian citizen and the efforts against him are clearly two
faced. The charges against him weren't the reason for the charges against him.

Anyway... I walked over and read the petition, intending to sign it. Free
Afghanistan! US out of Saudi Arabia. Down with the patriarchy! Capitalism must
go! Fuck the zionist-imperialist deep state Etc^... it also had some stuff
about assange.

My (long winded) point is that this is a microcosm of the wider affair.

WikiLeaks, assange and the leaks that got him in trouble are journalistic. I
don't think _he_ sees it that way though. I think he sees it in more
political-activism terms. The journalism defense is mostly made by other
people, for him.

I still think he should go free though.

^Made up specifics. I don't remember what all the stuff was. Just that it was
typical left-radical student politics of the time and place. Iircc, voluntary
student unionism was the (sort of parochial-australian-student issue of the
day).

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
One part of the indictment is very troubling: #5 Assange, Who did not possess
a security clearance or need to know, Was not authorized to receive classified
information of the United States.

------
peteradio
Is anybody arguing he shouldn't?

To my knowledge that's never been seriously questioned.

What is he being charged again?

~~~
waffleguy
He already has first amendment protection. You have an article above that
explains the charges... you don’t even have to google and you’re lazy

~~~
peteradio
My questions are rhetorical read between the lines.

~~~
waffleguy
Rhetorical questions don’t work online. Read a book.

------
hsnewman
Why would a Australian be provided the rights of an US citizen?

~~~
ikeboy
Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.

~~~
belltaco
Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own
guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.

~~~
throwawayjava
Green card holders may own and purchase guns, and non-permanent residents may
also own and purchase guns (but it's complicated).

This isn't really relevant to the point you're making in this thread, but
figured I'd point it out anyways

------
sys_64738
Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction.
Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.

~~~
bhelkey
> Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy on Thursday by the
> ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737)

~~~
sys_64738
The U.K. Police are civilians in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was assaulted
and illegally deported to U.K. Territory. That is an illegal arrest at best.

------
Causality1
I was a huge fan os Assange back when wikileaks was an equal-opportunity
expose of government secrets. Unfortunately it didn't stay that way, and over
time seemed to largely function at the behest of the Russian government.

------
syntaxing
When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not
protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects
national security which I assume his case falls under.

Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I
believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new
at that time [1].

[1][https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-
amendmen...](https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendment-
espionage-case/)

~~~
dragonwriter
> When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not
> protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects
> national security

You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment
protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably
the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what
allowed their publication.

~~~
otterley
Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though - consult a licensed
attorney in your state.)

They key phrase here is "prior restraint." That's not the issue here; the
information has been published already. So the holding in the Pentagon Papers
case (aka _New York Times_) doesn't apply to this set of circumstances.

Moreover, the Pentagon Papers case made no law. The opinion itself only
reversed an appellate court decision and affirmed the judgment of a district
court.

Read it yourself: [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab-
opi...](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/#tab-
opinion-1949387)

First Amendment law respecting the dissemination of classified information --
by "journalists" (whatever they may be), or otherwise -- is not as settled as
people think, and it's my personal view that unless the Supreme Court
concludes otherwise, Mr. Assange could find himself in very hot water, as
Chelsea Manning did.

~~~
dragonwriter
> They key phrase here is "prior restraint."

Right, I'm not saying Pentagon Papers is applicable precedent in the Assange
case, just that it stands against the notion that national security magically
waves away the First Amendment.

------
Lowkeyloki
This wasn't mentioned specifically in the article, but this reminds me how we
have some legal protections for whistle-blowers in the United States (not
nearly enough, IMHO) but none of those protections extend to government
employees. It's as if the government thinks they're incapable of breaking
their own laws.

If you do it to a privately held company, it's whistle-blowing. If you do it
to the government, it's treason.

~~~
tssva
This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under
the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in
2012.

~~~
Lowkeyloki
Unfortunately too late for Chelsea Manning.

~~~
tssva
Chelsea Manning's release would still be a crime and not afforded
whistleblower protection under current law. There were and are specific
processes to be followed to qualify for whistleblower protection.

------
Tsubasachan
Uhm what? Non US citizens aren't covered by the Constitution.

Its why you never ever do anything illegal when you are in the US. I would try
to smuggle a bag of heroine into Singapore before ignoring a red light in New
York.

~~~
jessaustin
Please don't give travel advice (or legal advice I guess?) to anyone.

