wikileaks and the united states first amendment to ...

WIKILEAKS AND THE UNITED STATES FIRST AMENDMENT TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IT APPLY? by Peter Holt

1. INTRODUCTION On 5 April, 2010 WikiLeaks released a classified U.S. military video showing the slaying of over a dozen people, including two Reuter’s news staff in the suburb of New Bagdad.1 This was followed on 28 November 2010 by the release of 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables and other sensitive information.2 The U.S. administration moved swiftly after the release of this information and in a press statement issued on 29 November, 2010, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton responded with: “The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems”.3 The U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder was coy about the likely U.S. response, but has commented that he authorised "significant" actions aimed at prosecuting the WikiLeaks founder over the release of thousands of diplomatic cables.4 At the time of writing this paper the U.S. Department of Justice has made no definitive statements about what charges may be laid against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but in the absence of any proof of complicity the general consensus is that charges would most likely be brought under the Espionage Act 1917.5 There has also been considerable debate in the Press about whether WikiLeaks is a bona fide media outlet and whether the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would therefore apply. This is an interesting question, but it is not the only one. There is also the question of U.S. Constitutional reach and the extent to which the U.S. Constitution and its subsequent amendments apply to foreign nationals. One would normally expect that where charges were laid under U.S. law, the Constitutional Amendment rights would naturally follow. However, history would suggest this is not always the case,6 and this has important implications for Julian Assange. This paper examines these and other issues in relation to the U.S. Constitutional Amendment rights and the extent to which these may or may not apply to the WikiLeaks disclosures.

2. WIKILEAKS THE O RGANISATION Any prosecution of WikiLeaks or Julian Assange needs to start with an understanding of the organisation, where it is situated and who is its “directing mind”. It would appear from the structure of the organisation that this issue was well understood by its founders. While WikiLeaks is clearly an organisation of some kind, it has been described as a “non-national”, “non-organisation”7 It is not clear which nation it belongs to, who are the principals behind it or what role, if any, Julian Assange plays in the running of the organisation.8 Wikileaks operates from a number of countries and under a number of different and separately registered organizational structures. These include non-profit organizations, foundations and a newspaper organisation in Sweden to name just a few.9 This has been done deliberately to protect the organisation, its sources of information, finance and the principals behind WikiLeaks – including Julian Assange who seems to have earned the title of founder and director.10 However, it is not clear which organisation he is a

WikiLeaks downloaded 11 September, 2012. Ibid. DipNote, US Department of State Official Blog . 4 Ewen MacAskill, US looks to prosecute Julian Assange (The Guardian 6 December, 2010). . 5 Washington Post The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks downloaded 14 September 2012. 6 Strangers to the constitution: immigrants, borders, and fundamental law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). 7 Suhaib Riaz, Wikileaks and Anonymous: Rise of non-organisations downloaded14 September 2012. 8 Ibid. 9 Wade Rathke, Wikileaks complex financial and organizational structure downloaded14 September 2012 10 Ibid. 1 2 3

Wikileaks and the 1st Amendment.doc 1

director of, whether that organisation was instrumental in the release of classified documents and what role he may or may not have played in the release. The structure of the organisation raises a number of questions in relation to jurisdiction, applicable law11 and who should be charged. This is one of the likely reasons why the U.S. Department of Justice has not yet announced who would be charged and under what statutes or laws these charges would be brought. Nevertheless, the general consensus seems to be that Julian Assange is the target and that if he were to be charged, this would most likely be under the Espionage Act 1917.12 This is the basis on which U.S. Constitutional protections are considered in this article.

3. IS WIKILEAKS A BONE FIDE MEDIA ORGANISATION? Much of the commentary in the media has centred on whether WikiLeaks is a bone fide media organisation and whether or not Julian Assange is a journalist. The importance of this question depends on whether charges are to be laid with the view to enforcing disclosure of WikiLeaks sources,13 or to prosecute Julian Assange for publication of classified information.14 Under the First Amendment protections, reporters and news organisations can claim what has become known as the Reporter’s Privilege. This provides immunity from the need to disclose sources. To qualify for this privilege, reporters and news organisation must satisfy certain test criteria that were established in Branzburg v Hayes,15 Papas and United States v Cladwell16 and in Shoen v Shoen.17 These test criteria are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The medium alone does not determine whether person is a journalist; Intent to disseminate information to the public is pivotal; The person must engage in investigative reporting and this is also pivotal; and Content disseminated must be news.18

While it is clear that WikiLeaks would meet the criteria 1 and 2, in the opinion of Jonathan Peters, it is not likely to satisfy criteria 3 and 4. Peters argues that what WikiLeaks does is neither investigative journalism nor news. There is no assessment or interpretation of the material19 and no contextualising, or explaining of the meaning of the released documents.20 However, the First Amendment protections do not only apply to media organisations and journalists; they also apply to other persons and their right to free speech.21 In part, the First Amendment provides that: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”22 Nevertheless, it is also understood that certain disclosures may be detrimental to national security and may cause harm.23 The right to freedom of speech has been challenged from time-to-time under the Espionage Act 1917 and the U.S. courts have had to establish certain principles in order to resolve the obvious conflict between the national security and the First Amendment protection in relation to free speech. These principles were first established in Schenck vs United States24 and have since been reaffirmed in Brandenburg v Ohio25 and New York Times Co. v United States (Pentagon Papers).26 The two principles are:

John Mo, International Commercial Law (LexisNexis Butterworths 4th ed 2009) [11]. Tom McSorley, Criminal Liability for Wikileaks American Criminal Law Review < http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/Drupal/blogs/blogentry/criminal-liability-wikileaks-01-31-2011>. 13 Jonathan Peters, Wikileaks would not qualify to claim federal reporter’s privilege 676 < http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v63/no3/Vol.63-3_2011May_Art.-04_Peters.pdf>. 14 Jonathan Peters, WikiLeaks, the First amendment and the press (Harvard Law & Policy Review, 11 April 2011) < http://hlpronline.com/2011/04/wikileaksthe-first-amendment-and-the-press/> downloaded 17 September 2012. 15 408 U.S. 665 (1972). 16 Ibid. 17 5 F.3d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1993) 18 Jonathan Peters, Wikileaks would not qualify to claim federal reporter’s privilege 676 < http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v63/no3/Vol.63-3_2011May_Art.-04_Peters.pdf>. 19 Ibid 678. 20 Ibid 688. 21 Jonathan Peters, WikiLeaks, the First amendment and the press (Harvard Law & Policy Review, 11 April 2011) < http://hlpronline.com/2011/04/wikileaksthe-first-amendment-and-the-press/> downloaded 17 September 2012. 22 The Constitution of the United States, First Amendment. 23 Espionage Act 1917. 24 249 U.S. 47,52 (1919). 25 395 U.S. 444,477 (1969). 26 (403 U.S. 713). 11 12


1. 2.

Will disclosure of information result in “clear and present danger” to the national interest? and Is the claim sufficiently narrow to warrant censorship or prosecution?27

These are very difficult tests to prove and as a consequence, there has only ever been one successful prosecution of a private citizen (non-government employee) in the history of the Espionage Act28 29 and this was a former government employee, with top secret clearance who had access to top secret military information. The circumstances in the Pentagon Papers case was very similar to the WikiLeaks disclosures. They involved the release of a sensitive government report related to the Vietnam War. The U.S. administration obtained an injunction preventing the release of the document by the New York Times and Washington Post, but this was quickly overturned by the courts because the government’s claim was too broad to warrant censorship.30 Based on the historical record and other similar cases it does not seem to matter whether the disclosing person is a media organisation or a reporter; the free speech provisions of the First Amendment still apply. What is less certain is whether U.S. Constitutional protections apply beyond the U.S. continental borders and whether foreign nationals can avail themselves of these provisions. Case history would suggest that this is not always the case and this should therefore be of greater concern to Julian Assange.

4. EXTRATERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Can Julian Assange avail himself of the U.S. Constitutional protections? The answer to this question is not as clear-cut as one might think. There are certain constraints on U.S. Constitutional law that affect its territorial reach and how it is applied to foreign nationals.31 This is true even when foreign nationals are subject to U.S. judicial proceedings within a U.S. sovereign territory.32 To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand how U.S. Constitutional law is administered and how its extraterritorial application is interpreted by the courts. U.S. Constitutional law operates on the principle of precedence and prior judicial decisions therefore have presumptive authority. 33 This has led to a number of differing interpretations by the courts and academia on exactly how U.S. Constitutional law should be applied in the case of foreign nationals. Some argue that the Constitution is a social contract between U.S. citizens and the government i.e. in exchange for complying with the laws of the United States, the government grants its citizens certain rights. Under this scenario, only parties to the social contract can avail themselves of these rights.34 Others argue that anyone, including foreigners, who are subject to U.S. law, including those who might be prosecuted under U.S. law, should also be afforded its protections – the principle of mutual obligation.35 But this has not always been the case. African slaves, native Americans and even citizens of U.S. offshore dependencies such as Puerto Rico and Guam have from time-to-time been denied some or all of these rights.36 Under certain circumstances, even U.S. citizens have been denied their Constitutional rights.37

5. CASE EXAMPLES Balzac v. People of Porto Rico The United States acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines in 1898 during the Spanish-American War.38 The Jones Act of 1917 subsequently granted the residents of these territories U.S. citizenship and created a new framework of local government. Jesus M. Balzac, a resident of Puerto Rico and citizen of the United States was charged and convicted by a United States District court in Puerto Rico on two counts of Jonathan Peters, WikiLeaks, the First amendment and the press (Harvard Law & Policy Review, 11 April 2011) 674 < http://hlpronline.com/2011/04/wikileaks-the-first-amendment-and-the-press/> downloaded 17 September 2012. 28 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Letter to the President, September 29, 1998. downloaded 11 September, 2012. 29 Morison v. U.S, 486 U.S. 1306 (1988) 486 U.S. 1306. 30 New York Times Co. v United States, (403 U.S. 713). 31 Gerald L. Newman, Extraterritorial rights and constitutional methodology after Rasul v Bush ,(Neuman153U.Pa.L.Rev.2073(2005).pdf). 32 United States v Verdugo-Urquidedez, 494 U.S. 259 33 Neuman, Gerald L, Strangers to the Constitution : Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law 6 (Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2001. p vii.) 34 Ibid[1]. 35 Ibid[6]. 36 Neuman, Gerald L, Strangers to the Constitution : Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law 3 (Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2001 p vii.) . 37 Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). 38 Mary Wood, “Insular Cases” Made Puerto Rican Status Unclear, Panel Says, (Virginia Law, 2 April 2007) . 27


libel for material he published in a daily newspaper in Arecibo, Puerto Rico in 1918.39 Balzac appealed the conviction in the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis of First and Sixth Amendment rights – free speech and the right to be tried by a judge and jury. The court affirmed the original convictions on the basis that Puerto Rico had never been formally incorporated into the United States and that U.S. Constitutional rights did not therefore apply to U.S. citizens resident in Puerto Rico.40 This is a situation that continues to this day and has been the subject of a number of cases (see Insular Cases41) and ongoing academic debate in relation to the Constitutional rights of its citizens in offshore U.S. sovereign territories.42 United States of America v. Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul In February 2008 Ali Hamza Bahlul, a Yemeni citizen was charged with conspiracy, solicitation to commit murder and attacks on civilians and providing material support for terrorism by a Congressional Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where he had been held in detention since 2002.43 Bahlul was captured in Pakistan and subsequently classified as an Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatant (AUEC). He was alleged to have been a media secretary for Osama bin Laden and challenged his conviction and life sentence in a Court of Military Commission Review on the grounds that he was convicted of political speech in violation of the First Amendment and other U.S. Constitutional rights.44 In rejecting the appeal for First Amendment protection, the court cited the following precedents: It is well established that “the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.” Roth v United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483 (1957).45 In Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), the Court concluded that 21 German citizens, who had been captured in China, tried and convicted of war crimes by a U.S. military commission and incarcerated in a prison in Germany, had no right of habeas corpus46 – another provision of the U.S. Constitution under the Suspension Clause which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.47 The court also cited the Insular Cases dicta that: “aliens receive Constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and [have] developed substantial connections with the country.”48 Finally, the court in Bahlul’s case found that his only connection with the U.S. was when he was arrested and brought to the U.S. for trial, that the crimes of which he was convicted were committed at an earlier time when he had no connection with the U.S. and that Bahlul is not entitled to and does not therefore have a right to First Amendment protections.49 The other appeals, also relating to Constitutional rights were similarly denied. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259(1990) The Verdugo case relates to a Mexican resident and citizen who was believed to be the leader of an organisation that smuggled narcotics into the U.S..50 He was apprehended by the Mexican authorities and transported to a U.S. border post where he was arrested by U.S. Marshals and charged with narcotic related offences. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) subsequently arranged with the Mexican authorities to search Vurdugo’s residences in Mexico. Here they seized certain documents that were subsequently presented in evidence against him in a U.S. District Court. Verdugo challenged the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the DEA had not obtained a search warrant and had therefore violated his Fourth Amendment rights which protects "the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures.51 The District 39

Ibid.

40 Balzac

v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). The Insular Cases were a series of court cases brought by U.S. offshore sovereign territories in relation to Constitutional rights. 42 Mary Wood, “Insular Cases” Made Puerto Rican Status Unclear, Panel Says, (Virginia Law, 2 April 2007) . 43 Drew Singer, Military Court upholds sentence of al Qaeda media director (Jurist 13 September 2011)< http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/09/military-courtupholds-sentence-of-al-qaeda-media-director.php>. 44 United States of America v Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul,CMCR 09-001. 45 Ibid 112. 46 Ibid. 47 The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. 48 United States of America v Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul,CMCR 09-001at 114. 49 Ibid 115. 50 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259(1990) . 51 Ibid. 41


Court granted the suppression motion, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appeals Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the appeal, holding that: the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a non-resident alien and located in a foreign country.52 Chief justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court citing a number of reasons for this decision. But the three most relevant reasons were: “The Fourth Amendment uses the phrase “the people” and “This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”53

“Indeed, the claim that extraterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment - which speaks in the relatively universal term of "person" - has been emphatically rejected. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 .”54 “Respondent, however, is an alien with no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States, and his legal but involuntary presence here does not indicate any substantial connection with this country.”55

Although different in type and scope, these cases demonstrate the importance of the connection with the United States, the fact that not all U.S. Constitutional protections are available to foreign nationals, even in overseas sovereign territories and that the term “we the people” relates primarily to U.S. citizens within U.S. continental boundaries. The rulings in these cases strongly support the “social contract” or “compact” ideology between the U.S. citizenry and the U.S. government – everyone else is effectively a “Stranger to the Constitution”.56 But this ideology is not without its critics. Some have argued that anyone subject to U.S. judicial proceedings is entitled to the full extent of the law, including its Constitutional protections.

6. EXTRATERRITORIALITY AND THE RIGHTS OF ALIENS The Constitutional rights of aliens were first tested in response to the Alien and Sedition Act 1798. This Act was designed to restrict speech critical of the federal government and allowed the President to imprison or deport aliens considered to be "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".57 The Alien and Sedition Act was challenged by the States as being unconstitutional and was eventually allowed to lapse.58 Nevertheless, it was the first time the Constitution had been debated in relation to aliens’ rights. In these debates the States argued that the Constitution referred to “person” rather than “citizens” and therefore applied equally to aliens. The Federalists countered with: aliens were not parties to the Constitution, it was not made for their benefit and that it was made by “we the people” [of the United States], not the whole world.59 They also argued that not being a party to the Constitution, they [aliens] were not bound by it and could not therefore avail of its rights.60 The States further argued that those subject to U.S. law were entitled to the whole of the law, including its Constitutional protections.61 This debate primarily related to aliens living within the United States continental borders. It did not address Constitutional extraterritoriality. In fact, it was generally believed that the Constitution could not operate extraterritorially, in part because of conflict of laws. This all changed with Read v Covert which firmly established the principle that the Constitution applies wherever the government of the U.S. may act,62 thus extending its reach.

7. DISCUSSION It is clear from the foregoing that the Constitutional rights of aliens are far from settled. Much depends on the circumstances, their location and the nature of the crime. It would appear that the concept of a social contract between the citizens of the United States and the government has largely persisted to the present Ibid 264-275. Ibid 264-266. Ibid 268-269. 55 Ibid 269-273. 56 Neuman, Gerald L, Strangers to the Constitution : Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law 3 (Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2001. p vii.) . 57 Alien and Seditions Act,(Library of Congress)< http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html> downloaded 6 October, 2012. 58 Ibid. 59 Neuman, Gerald L, Strangers to the Constitution : Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law 54 (Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2001. p vii.)< http://site.ebrary.com/lib/deakin/Doc?id=10035791&ppg=62>. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid 59, < http://site.ebrary.com/lib/deakin/Doc?id=10035791&ppg=67>. 62 354 US 1. 52 53 54


day. This is not difficult to understand because aliens resident in the United States do not have the same rights as citizens. They cannot vote or hold public office and they cannot stay indefinitely – these rights are the exclusive preserve of citizens.63 It is not surprising then that 56% of Americans feel that aliens resident or living in the U.S. should not have the same rights as citizens.64 But this is also likely to vary depending on what rights are being considered or the nature of the crime. Under normal circumstance most people would argue that everyone should be entitled to a fair trial and due process. However, where the crime is a particularly heinous one, as in the case of terrorism, certain limitation on ones largess can be justified, as evidenced in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez ,65 or in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. This then raises the question: what about free speech, or in this case the release of classified documents? Is that a heinous crime? In five or ten years from now when we look back at the WikiLeaks disclosures, will it be seen as a heinous crime that “puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security” as suggested by Hilary Clinton, or one that brought about a higher level of transparency and accountability in government – I suspect it will be the latter and if that is the case, it will have achieved the objectives the First Amendment was intended to.

8. CONCLUSION In summary, it would appear that it does not matter whether WikiLeaks is a media organisation or Julian is a journalist; what is more important is whether Julian can avail himself of U.S. Constitutional rights should he be brought to the U.S. for trial. If the WikiLeaks release is seen as a particularly heinous crime or the courts continue to adopt the concept of a “social contract”, then it is likely that he will not be able to avail himself of these protections. If the concept of “mutual obligations” prevails, then he probably will. But one thing that is reasonably certain is that: if Julian is brought to the U.S. for trial, the U.S. administration will do everything within its power to deny such protections. As for whether the WikiLeaks disclosure put people’s lives in danger or threatened U.S. national security, I think we just need to look at the Pentagon Papers example. This was an internal U.S. Department of Defence report that cast serious doubt on the validity of the objectives in continuing the Vietnam War. The U.S. administration tried to suppress its publication citing similar national security concerns to those stated above in the WikiLeaks release. Forty years on and the only thing that can be said about the release is that it uncovered government duplicity and probably brought the War to a speedier end. The WikiLeaks release could well have a similar outcome.

David Cole, Are foreign nationals entitled to the same Constitutional rights as citizens,373 (Georgetown Law, March 2010) . 64 Ibid 369. 65 494 U.S. 259(1990). 63


Bibliography Books Mo, John, International Commercial Law (LexisNexis Butterworths 4th ed 2009) Neuman, Gerald L, Strangers to the constitution: immigrants, borders, and fundamental law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996) Krensky, Stephen, Bill of Rights (Benchmark 1 January 2012)

Articles & Journals Constitutions - Social Contract or Natural Rights Compact? United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez l downloaded 10 October 2012 Cole, David, Are foreign nationals entitled to the same constitutional rights as citizens, (Georgetown Law, March 2010) DipNote, US Department of State Official Blog Karhula, Paivikki, What is the effect of WikiLeaks on freedom of information (IFLA 19 January 2011) MacAskill, Ewen, US looks to prosecute Julian Assange (The Guardian 6 December, 2010) Martin Kate & Onek Jo, “Enemy Combatants” The Constitution and the Administration’s “War on Terror”, (American Constitution Society for law And Policy, August 2004) Wood, Mary, “Insular Cases” Made Puerto Rican Status Unclear, Panel Says, (Virginia Law, 2 April 2007) McSorley, Tom, Criminal Liability for Wikileaks (American Criminal Law Review) Newman, Gerald L, Extraterritorial rights and constitutional methodology after Rasul v Bush, (Neuman153U.Pa.L.Rev.2073(2005).pdf) Peters, Jonathan, Wikileaks would not qualify to claim federal reporter’s privilege Peters, Jonathan, WikiLeaks, the First amendment and the press (Harvard Law & Policy Review, 11 April 2011) 674 < http://hlpronline.com/2011/04/wikileaks-the-first-amendment-and-the-press/> downloaded 17 September 2012 Rathke, Wade, Wikileaks complex financial and organizational structure downloaded14 September 2012 Riaz, Suhaib, Wikileaks and Anonymous: Rise of non-organisations downloaded14 September 2012 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, Letter to the President, September 29, 1998 downloaded 11 September, 2012 Shatnor, Charles A. Counterterrorism Law: Case materials August 2012 Supplement (Emory University School of Law, Atlanta Georgia, August 21 2012) Singer, Drew, Military Court upholds sentence of al Qaeda media director (Jurist 13 September 2011)< http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/09/military-court-upholds-sentence-of-al-qaeda-mediadirector.php>


The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks, (Washington Post 17 August, 2012) downloaded 14 September 2012 Vladeck, Stephen I. Military Jurisdiction, the Right Not to be Tried, and the Suspension (Human Rights Brief, Vol. 16, Issue 1, Article 2, American University Washington College of Law, 2008) Zick, Tomothy, Territoriality and the First Amendment: free speech at and beyond our borders (William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-49 Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 85:4, 2010)

Cases Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) Morison v. U.S, 486 U.S. 1306 (1988) 486 U.S. 1306 New York Times Co. v United States, (403 U.S. 713) Roth v United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483 (1957) United States of America v Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul,CMCR 09-001 United States v Verdugo-Urquidedez, 494 U.S. 259

Laws & Statutes Espionage Act 1917 The Constitution of the United States, First Amendment The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2

URLS WikiLeaks downloaded 11 September, 2012
