[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/10/jul
   ian-assange-wikileaks
   (apparently from 2010)
   [quote begins]
   [2]× (BUTTON) (BUTTON)
   There's been lots of talk about [3]US authorities prosecuting Julian
   Assange of WikiLeaks, but it has posed a big question: Assange did all
   his leaking while remaining outside of the United States, so is it
   constitutional to extend America's criminal laws to activities beyond
   its shores?
   It's well established that the [4]due process clause places limits on
   such sweeping assertions of power. For example, when foreign monopolies
   manipulate prices overseas, it's not enough to show that they have hurt
   American consumers. Courts insist on evidence that they had fair notice
   that American anti-trust laws would govern their activity.
   This basic point has been missed because cases like [5]WikiLeaks are
   relative novelties. During the first two centuries of the American
   republic, the justice department only prosecuted extraterritorially for
   crimes involving recognition that American law was in play – offences
   that involved direct dealing with the American government or crimes
   like piracy that were universally condemned by all nations. It was only
   in the 1980s, and especially since 11 September 2001, that the United
   States has increasingly used the criminal law as a weapon abroad.Up to
   now, these constitutional requirements have been developed most
   elaborately in anti-trust and other areas, which involve civil damages,
   not criminal punishment. But [6]due process is even more important in
   criminal procedure, where the Constitution has always held America to
   more demanding standards.
   As a consequence, courts are only beginning to grapple with the fair
   notice problem. In 2003, for instance, the second circuit considered
   whether due process allowed the United States to prosecute [7]Ramzi
   Yousef, a non-citizen, for hijacking a Phillippines airliner en route
   to Japan. The court allowed the proceeding to go forward: given that
   Yousef's hijacking was a test run for a similar attack he planned for
   the United States, he should have "reasonably anticipate[d] being haled
   into court in this country".
   But, on the surface at least, Assange could not be charged under a
   similar rationale. He does not seem to be planning to enter the United
   States anytime soon. His actions undoubtedly damaged the interests of
   the United States, but this is true of countless foreigners who release
   information about America in foreign countries. Surely, it would be
   unconstitutional for American criminal law to threaten prosecution
   against every foreigner in the world who denounces the United States?
   The Espionage Act of 1917 is the most frequently cited authority for a
   criminal prosecution. In its 90-year history, it has only once been
   used against a foreign citizen for an extraterritorial violation. That
   was in 1985. The case involved [8]Alfred Zehe, who had transmitted
   classified information about US anti-submarine warfare to the East
   German government. In defending himself in court, Zehe did not raise
   any constitutional objections, and so the district judge did not
   consider them in convicting him. Since Zehe didn't appeal, no higher
   court has ever ruled on the crucial due process questions.
   But that doesn't mean that the justice department should proceed as if
   the due process clause didn't exist. Unless it can uncover clear and
   convincing evidence that Assange could reasonably foresee liability
   under American law, it should not give way to the passions of the
   moment and launch a criminal prosecution.
   [end of quote]
   More:
   [9]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-legal-idUSTRE6B00F020101
   201
   and
   [10]Wikileaks Has Committed No Crime - Legal As She Is Spoke
           Jim Bell

References

   1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/10/julian-assange-wikileaks
   2. file:///var/lib/mailman/archives/private/cypherpunks/attachments/20170421/8bdd5ce0/attachment-tmp.html
   3. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/10/julian-assange-lawyers-us-charges
   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#In_the_U.S.
   5. https://www.theguardian.com/media/wikileaks
   6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_Process_Clause
   7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef
   8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Zehe
   9. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-legal-idUSTRE6B00F020101201
  10. http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/