First of all I feel so much more confident that the TSAs nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldnt even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks proprietor Julian Assange just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs.
These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple of Elmer Fudds who cant find their own butts without a map.
Since Holder apparently wasnt watching Fox News a few weeks ago Ill repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holders legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the As.
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e) which provides:
Whoever having unauthorized possession of access to or control over any document writing code book signal book sketch photograph (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it or willfully retains the same (etc) ...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.
As is evident merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony.
Theres no exception for albinos with webpages -- or journalists. Journalists are people too!
Depending on the facts adduced at trial there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump including 18 USC 641 which provides that any person who receives or retains a thing of value of the United States knowing it to have been embezzled stolen purloined or converted is also guilty of a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Classified information is valuable government property.
The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment as if that matters. Is Assange a journalist? What kind of journalist? Who is a journalist in the world of the Internet?
Assanges lawyer naturally wraps his client in the First Amendment saying Assange is entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks.
Even Sen. Diane Feinstein who wants Assange prosecuted -- bless her patriotic Democratic heart -- has responded to Assanges free speech defense by saying But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government whose policies he happens to disagree with regardless of who gets hurt.
All this is completely irrelevant.
New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government and theyre considered journalists. That doesnt mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isnt a Star Trek energy field that protects journalists from phasers photon torpedoes lasers rockets and criminal prosecutions.
Its possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving national security information just as its possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving the Montgomery County (Ala.) public safety commissioner.
This isnt that case.
The government isnt trying to put a prior restraint on Assanges publication of the documents as in the Pentagon Papers case (though it probably could have). It wouldnt be punishing Assange for his opinions. The government wouldnt be prosecuting Assange to force him to give up his sources -- and not only because we already know who his source is (a gay guy in an awkward place) but because it simply doesnt matter.
Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime so whether or not Assange is a journalist is irrelevant.
The problem here is that people get their information from the media which is written by journalists and journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws dont apply to them.
If a fully certified bona fide grade-A journalist rushing to get a story swerves his car onto a sidewalk and mows down 20 pedestrians hes committed a crime. It doesnt matter that he was engaged in the vital First Amendment-protected activity of news-gathering.
If Paul Krugman shoots his wife because shes talking too much when hes engaged in the First Amendment activity of finishing another silly column about the economy hes committed a crime.
Journalists cant run red lights they cant print Coca-Colas secret formula they cant torture sources for information and -- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists cant misappropriate lost property.
Fox News Alan Colmes said he checked with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano who told him theres no case against Assange because the government cant punish the disseminator of information. They should have been on Gawkers legal team!
If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it Assange committed a felony and it wouldnt matter if he were Lois Lane my favorite reporter.
As I have noted previously the only part of the criminal law that doesnt apply to reporters is the death penalty at least since 2002 when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that its cruel and unusual punishment to execute the retarded.
Also journalists can slander people at will. That ought to make them happy.
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
First of all I feel so much more confident that the TSAs nude photos of airline passengers will never be released now that I know the government couldnt even prevent half a million classified national security documents from being posted on WikiLeaks.
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be getting around to WikiLeaks proprietor Julian Assange just as soon as they figure out which law the New Black Panthers might have violated by standing outside a polling place with billy clubs.
These legal eagles are either giving the press a lot of disinformation about the WikiLeaks investigation or they are a couple of Elmer Fudds who cant find their own butts without a map.
Since Holder apparently wasnt watching Fox News a few weeks ago Ill repeat myself and save the taxpayers the cost of Holders legal assistants having to pore through the federal criminal statutes starting with the As.
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e) which provides:
Whoever having unauthorized possession of access to or control over any document writing code book signal book sketch photograph (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it or willfully retains the same (etc) ...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.
As is evident merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony.
Theres no exception for albinos with webpages -- or journalists. Journalists are people too!
Depending on the facts adduced at trial there are about a half-dozen other federal laws that might apply to the WikiLeaks document dump including 18 USC 641 which provides that any person who receives or retains a thing of value of the United States knowing it to have been embezzled stolen purloined or converted is also guilty of a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Classified information is valuable government property.
The entire public discussion about prosecuting Assange has been neurotically fixated on the First Amendment as if that matters. Is Assange a journalist? What kind of journalist? Who is a journalist in the world of the Internet?
Assanges lawyer naturally wraps his client in the First Amendment saying Assange is entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks.
Even Sen. Diane Feinstein who wants Assange prosecuted -- bless her patriotic Democratic heart -- has responded to Assanges free speech defense by saying But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government whose policies he happens to disagree with regardless of who gets hurt.
All this is completely irrelevant.
New York Times reporters are agitators intent on damaging our government and theyre considered journalists. That doesnt mean they have carte blanche to hunt endangered species refuse to pay their taxes or embezzle money. The First Amendment isnt a Star Trek energy field that protects journalists from phasers photon torpedoes lasers rockets and criminal prosecutions.
Its possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving national security information just as its possible for the First Amendment to be implicated in a case involving the Montgomery County (Ala.) public safety commissioner.
This isnt that case.
The government isnt trying to put a prior restraint on Assanges publication of the documents as in the Pentagon Papers case (though it probably could have). It wouldnt be punishing Assange for his opinions. The government wouldnt be prosecuting Assange to force him to give up his sources -- and not only because we already know who his source is (a gay guy in an awkward place) but because it simply doesnt matter.
Assange would be prosecuted for committing the crime of possessing and releasing classified national security documents that could do this country harm. The First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on whether Assange has committed this particular crime so whether or not Assange is a journalist is irrelevant.
The problem here is that people get their information from the media which is written by journalists and journalists have spent the last half-century trying to persuade everyone that laws dont apply to them.
If a fully certified bona fide grade-A journalist rushing to get a story swerves his car onto a sidewalk and mows down 20 pedestrians hes committed a crime. It doesnt matter that he was engaged in the vital First Amendment-protected activity of news-gathering.
If Paul Krugman shoots his wife because shes talking too much when hes engaged in the First Amendment activity of finishing another silly column about the economy hes committed a crime.
Journalists cant run red lights they cant print Coca-Colas secret formula they cant torture sources for information and -- as Gawker Media recently discovered when it published a story on the new iPhone before it was released -- journalists cant misappropriate lost property.
Fox News Alan Colmes said he checked with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano who told him theres no case against Assange because the government cant punish the disseminator of information. They should have been on Gawkers legal team!
If Assange had unauthorized possession of any national defense document that he had reason to believe could be used to injure the United States and he willfully communicated that to any person not entitled to receive it Assange committed a felony and it wouldnt matter if he were Lois Lane my favorite reporter.
As I have noted previously the only part of the criminal law that doesnt apply to reporters is the death penalty at least since 2002 when the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that its cruel and unusual punishment to execute the retarded.
Also journalists can slander people at will. That ought to make them happy.
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
