The Espionage Act is notoriously wide. Moreover, an executive order
is currently being drafted to establish indefinite detention without
charges or test for those the White House designates; the White House
alone would control any review process. The political atmosphere may
well allow for an expansion of the Espionage Act sufficient to cover
Assuage by stretching it to clearly include anyone who publishes,
circulates, or discusses already leaked information.
Indeed, stretching the Espionage Act seems to be the purpose of the
Shield Act, recently introduced into Congress to facilitate
prosecution of those who issue “cryptographic systems and
communications intelligence.” It amends the Espionage Act with wording
that reads,
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or
otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or
uses in any way prejudicial to the safety or attention of the United
States or for the benefit of any foreign government or trans- national
threat to the detriment of the United States any classified
information ... concerning the human intellect activities of the
United States or any overseas government [or] concerning the identity
of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence
community of the United States ... [s]hall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or together. [Emphasis added.]
Since leaking classified information is by now a crime, the amendment
appears to specifically target those who issue or description on such
information.
Pages - Menu
▼
Assignee would be charged with publishing information
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.
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.
As safeguard to rub out terrorism
According do a Wall Street Journal editorial (December 7, 2010),
“Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein called
for the prosecution of Wick Leaks founder Julian Assuage because he
‘continues to violate ... the Espionage Act of 1917.’” Assign’s sin?
He escaped thousands of diplomatic cables that embarrassed the American
government, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Many
politicians and media figures have joined Feinstein’s cry for “spy
charges,” with Sen. Joe Lieberman calling additionally for an
investigation into prosecuting the New York Times under the Espionage
Act for having available some of the leaked documents.
From Britain, Assign’s lawyer recently informed the media that he
expected “spying charges in the U.S. related to the Espionage Act” to
be soon brought against his customer.
Such charges would lift many legal questions, one of which strength
involve sedition, which is the crime of betraying one’s own nation, as
the United States Code, Title 18, Part I clearly states: “Whoever,
owing loyalty to the United States, levies war alongside them or
adheres to their enemies....” Since Assuage is Australian, however, he
owes no such legal allegiance to the United States.
In this, Assuage differs from PFC Bradley E. Manning, the American
soldier who is accused of providing classified fabric to Wick Leaks.
Since May 2010, Manning has been held in solitary confinement at
Quantico pending a court-martial; it is not known whether he will be
charged below the Espionage Act.
“Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein called
for the prosecution of Wick Leaks founder Julian Assuage because he
‘continues to violate ... the Espionage Act of 1917.’” Assign’s sin?
He escaped thousands of diplomatic cables that embarrassed the American
government, particularly in the realm of foreign policy. Many
politicians and media figures have joined Feinstein’s cry for “spy
charges,” with Sen. Joe Lieberman calling additionally for an
investigation into prosecuting the New York Times under the Espionage
Act for having available some of the leaked documents.
From Britain, Assign’s lawyer recently informed the media that he
expected “spying charges in the U.S. related to the Espionage Act” to
be soon brought against his customer.
Such charges would lift many legal questions, one of which strength
involve sedition, which is the crime of betraying one’s own nation, as
the United States Code, Title 18, Part I clearly states: “Whoever,
owing loyalty to the United States, levies war alongside them or
adheres to their enemies....” Since Assuage is Australian, however, he
owes no such legal allegiance to the United States.
In this, Assuage differs from PFC Bradley E. Manning, the American
soldier who is accused of providing classified fabric to Wick Leaks.
Since May 2010, Manning has been held in solitary confinement at
Quantico pending a court-martial; it is not known whether he will be
charged below the Espionage Act.
Rong - Habib Ft. Nancy (2012) HD Quiality Mp3 free Download
128Kbps
01. Birohi Purnima
02. Jhora Pata With Habib
03. Megh Badol
04. Bondhur Lagaia
05. Dubechi With Mithun
06. Jhorna Pahar Nodi
07. Pashe Tumi Nei
08. Icche
09. Maya
320Kbps
01. Birohi Purnima
02. Jhora Pata
03. Megh Badol
04. Bondhur Lagaia
05. Dubechi
06. Jhorna Pahar Nodi
07. Pashe Tumi Nei
08. Icche
09. Maya
128Kbps
Click Here To Download
320Kbps
Click Here To Download
Album: Rong
Artist: Nancy
Music: Habib
mediafirelink, free download habib nancy, latest album 2012 pohela boishakh special.