WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sought asylum from the Ecuador Embassy in London. As a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Embassy has an obligation to review his application and should grant it.

Asylum eligibility has three requirements, all of which Assange meets: 1) a fear of persecution, 2) on account of a protected ground (in Assange's case, "political opinion"), and 3) a government is either involved in the persecution (in Assange's case, the United States) or unable to control the conduct of private actors.

After Britain rejected Asange's bid to reconsider extradition to Sweden to face questioning over sexual misconduct allegations (Assange has not been charged with any crime by any nation), Assange sought asylum from the Ecuador Embassy in London.

Under the criteria that even the U.S. follows, he qualifies. Few would contest that he has a valid fear of political persecution. And certainly a government, primarily the United States, is behind it.  The Pentagon launched a world-wide manhunt against Assange. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote an Op-Ed stating conclusively that

Mr. Assange continues to violate the Espionage Act of 1917

, a law the United States has used in a brutal crackdown on whistleblowers, often involving trumped up criminal charges. (See the case of my client and fellow Kossack Tom Drake.)

On Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) called for resurrecting a broad anti-leaks law that would be a de facto Official Secrets Act. (I warned that the result of the recent hysteria over leaks could be such a broad anti-leak measure that would no doubt stifle legitimate dissent.)

The law would criminalize any disclosure of classified information, despite the fact that all experts agree that the classification system is plagued by rampant overclassification, and that far too much information is deemed classified. Worse, the law would remove the intent requirement of the Espionage Act, despite the fact that the intent to harm the United States or benefit a foreign nation requirement is the only thing making the Espionage Act constitutional.

Lieberman's proposal would chill First Amendment-protected activity, criminalize whistleblowing, and cover everything from whistleblower disclosures, press briefings, and anyone who repeats or reprints previously leaked classified information.

I discussed Lieberman's misguided proposal on RT yesterday:

I was on Democracy Now! this morning around discussing the latest in "leak" hysteria, which I've written about on Kos this week. (here and here).

Watch Democracy Now! here or below:

Yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder defended his choice to appoint two U.S. attorneys to investigate the latest "leaks" and again rejected calls from Committee Members to appoint a more independent special counsel. Congress is understandably outraged at the Obama administration's hypocrisy of waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers using the archaic Espionage Act while feeding pro-government information to the media.

In 2000, Congress created and passed a broad anti-leak measure without holding public hearings. President Clinton vetoed the bill because, although the bill was well-intentioned, it would

. . . chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy.

The difference between 2000, when Clinton vetoed the bill, and now, when the Obama administration has waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers and Congress is again considering creating anti-leak legislation, is the 9/11 attacks. But just because 9/11 happened does not change the relevancy and power of Clinton's warning against broad anti-leak measures. We have already given away too much of our freedom because of 9/11.  

Back in 2000:  

Both conservatives and liberals condemned the [anti-leaks] bill.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) said the provision amounted to an "official secrets act" that would "silence whistle-blowers." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Congress was "foolish to give a blank check to the executive branch" that would allow it to punish its internal critics.

Considering some of the rhetoric surrounding Congress' understandable indignation at the Obama administration's hypocrisy of prosecuting low and mid-level officials while feeding the media pro-government information that the administration continues to claim is classified, Congress is in danger of making the same mistake it did in 2000.

I've been saying from the beginning that the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers is a back door way of creating an Official Secrets Act, something this country has managed to go without for over 200 years.