If Manning is charged, it will be for illegal use and revelation
of classified information; such “leaking” is clearly a criminal
offense. Assignee would be charged with publishing information; it is
far from clear that such publication is a crime. Historically, even
American publishers have been able to appeal to the idea of
“freedom of the press.”
With potential prosecution resting on the Espionage Act, it is useful
to review the Act’s contents and consequences, especially with
reference to liberty of speech.
Today’ “high-tech terrorist”
Through World War II to the present day, the Espionage Act has been
both amended and consistently invoked to quash political disagree and
discussion.
In June 1971, at the peak of the Vietnam War, military analyst Daniel
Ellsberg and his coworker Anthony Russo were charged under the
Espionage Act for publishing the classified documents that came to be
known as the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times was threatened under
the Act for having in print the documents. In the end, Ellsberg and
Russo were freed owing to irregularity in the government’s case, which
led to the declaration of a mistrial.
Almost 40 years later, the spying Act once again hangs over the New
York Times and another whistle-blower, Julian Assuage.
It is tricky to predict who, if anyone, will be charged under the
Espionage Act of 1917 ... or when. A political hysteria and oppression
akin to the one that produced the Act seems to be currently gripping
America. Prominent political voices have gone so far as to argue for
extra-judicial implementation of Assuage. For example, the former governor
of Alaska, Sarah Plain, accused Assuage of a “treasonous” act, saying
America should “use all necessary means” to hunt him downward like an
al-Quad terrorist.
