Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Constitution Will Be Victim In Zealous Effort to Go After Assange and Wikileaks



Kurt Nimmo
December 13, 2010

It looks like Obama’s Justice Department may not prosecute Julian Assange. Fact of the matter is that Assange and Wikileaks are beyond the reach of the Justice Department.


Experts on whistleblower leaks and internet security issues say the Obama administration faces a daunting and perhaps insurmountable series of legal and practical challenges if it wants to take out Wikileaks.

Because the the 1917 Espionage Act is problematic and its use failed when the government tried to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case, a number of politicians have decided to enact legislation criminalizing the act of whistle-blowing.

The so-called Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination (Shield) Bill was introduced by Peter King, a Republican from New York, who will become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when the new House of Representatives with a Republican majority convenes in January.

The bill is ostensibly designed to make it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants. It mirrors a previous bill introduced by in the Senate by Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown and Susan Collins. Both bills seek to criminalize ex post facto the activity of Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

Hearings on the bills will not begin until a new Congress convenes in January. However, according to officials, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to begin work this Thursday on how the Espionage Act might be modified to give prosecutors the ability to go after enemies of the state who dare leak information to the American people.

“The difficulty of using the 93-year-old Espionage Act against Assange may be that what he and WikiLeaks have done are protected under America’s freedom of expression traditions,” notes David Usborne for The Independent. “This could force the Justice Department to explore other laws, for example on computing, to prosecute him — or alternatively to wait for Congress, as Mr King suggests, to forge new laws for this purpose.”

In other words, the establishment will once again attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They will attempt to further erode the protections afforded under the First Amendment. In the Pentagon case, Justice Hugo Black wrote in his majority opinion that “[o]nly a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

Since September 11, 2001, and the false flag attack on America by the global elite and the military-industrial-intelligence complex, the ideas of an unrestrained press and vigilant exposition of government deception and crimes have gone by the wayside.

“If the government were to prosecute the person who received and disseminated the classified information — as opposed to the individual who leaked it from within the government — mainstream media would express the concern that they could face prosecution for reporting information they routinely receive from government insiders,” Kenneth Wainstein, former assistant attorney general in the national security division of the Justice Department, told the Washington Post.

It is not the mainstream corporate media the government is targeting, but the alternative media primarily on the internet. The New York Times and the Washington Post have little to fear in the way of prosecution. The propaganda services offered by the corporate media are simply too valuable to the state and will not be seriously endangered.

In addition to attacking the ability of a free press to publish information about the government, establishment politicians are also in the process of attacking Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states that “[n]o bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In short, you cannot prosecute someone after the fact for what you believe should have been a crime. An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The founders were vehemently opposed to such extralegal behavior. “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers in 1788. “The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights.”

The Constitution and personal rights are anathema to the globalists and their minions in the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Justice Department and the White House.

Alex Jones: “Welcome to the new America where telling the truth is a crime and keeping corruption and lies secret is a virtue.”

Congressman Ron Paul speaks on the house floor on December 9, 2010:

No comments:

Post a Comment