..prosecuting Assange for publishing the War Logs or Cablegate documents is a challenge for the government, which has nevertheless convened a grand jury to look into the matter. Countless news organizations similarly published entire WikiLeaks documents or relied on their contents for reports. So the federal government may instead try and prove that Assange worked with Manning in leaking the documents.
Why does it matter that Assange did something extra? Of course, the simple answer is that this way the government isn't logically required to also prosecute, say, the New York Times. But that begs the question: so what if they were? The government obviously engages in highly selective applications of the law all the time. Just compare the treatment of baseball players who lie before Congress or to federal investigators, to that of FBI or CIA agents who lie before Congress, or even destroy evidence sought by federal investigators. Prosecutions of Bush Administration torturers? Non-existent! And our government is now blatantly violating the War Powers Act, and not even pretending otherwise.
So, the idea that our government and its prosecutors are bound by logic and fidelity to a fair application of the law is surprisingly and exceptionally heartening in this (apparent) case, but is not all that reassuring. I think it's just as likely to come down to whether or not they think Julian Assange is an even bigger dick (somehow) than Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. (And, he just might be so he's probably fucked.)
Which is to say, if you believe the lack of connection or conspiracy between Manning and Assange is ultimately going to make the feds call off the dogs because god-forbid they treat one arrogant prick differently than other folks who did the exact same thing (gasp!) then you're simply not paying attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment