Now, before people crucify me for saying what’s ahead, I want to make it clear that I do not support the Espionage Act; it is a terrible attack on our Freedom of Speech and the Press. However, I am simply refuting a point using the law as it stands today. Also, IANAL.
> he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that.
The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it.
As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says:
> That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...]
It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue.
Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state.
Extradition laws are usually limited in that they only cover crimes with is illegal in both countries. As far as I know, no other country except the US has a law that say "is to be used to the injury of the United States".
Moreover, other countries have laws analogous to provisions of the Espionage Act, and it's hardly impossible that some alleged act could be viewed as detrimental to the security of both the US and another country.
Note that I'm speaking generally here, and not in reference to the facts of this particular case.
Yes fair enough. I'm not trying to offer a legal opinion, just noting that there is some precedent for journalistic privilege in releasing such information (e.g. the Pentagon papers).
That is actually a very valid argument/question: Is Assange (through WikiLeaks) “press”? I feel that he is, but the US is claiming he aided Manning in hacking; In that case, he (Assange) isn’t innocent (whether it’s true or not is a different question).
> he was unlikely to be extradited to the US for leaking classified information, as it would be hard to prosecute someone in the US merely for doing that.
The Espionage Act of 1917[0] covers that situation quite well. It’s what all whistleblowers are charged with. We’ve even put a few people in prison for it, and the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in two cases in 1919[1][2]. Snowden is wanted for it.
As for how it covers this situation, the text of the act[3§1] says:
> That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or [...]
It does list other reasons such as aiding the enemy, but I feel that this part is what the prosecution would argue.
Now, would the US have jurisdiction to even argue this as the crime happened outside the US? That I do not know, but I have a feeling the courts would say they do as the crime was against the (federal) state.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States
[3]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Lar...