Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Media The Military United States

US Military Designates Julian Assange an "Enemy of State" 805

Posted by samzenpus
from the not-a-good-list dept.
First time accepted submitter Cute and Cuddly writes in with some new Julian Assange news. "The U.S. military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States — the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency. Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with 'communicating with the enemy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Military Designates Julian Assange an "Enemy of State"

Comments Filter:
  • So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:30PM (#41472915) Homepage Journal

    Can drone-strike him, with impunity, then?

    America. It just keeps getting more like a bad Harlan Ellison story.

    • by Todd Palin (1402501) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:44PM (#41473049)
      If the drone strike won't work, he can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. Considering his war crimes and terroristic actions could we expect any less?
      • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:18PM (#41473343)
        He already is.
      • by jhoegl (638955) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @12:12AM (#41473847)
        If telling the truth is terrorism and considered a "war crime", then holy fuck I am screwed.
        Jullian did less, and had less effect on the war than that jackass hate preacher that burned the Koran.
      • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @07:55AM (#41476005) Journal

        What's funny is I've been telling people for years that all these efforts to "help people in oppressive countries get around The Great Firewall" (via TOR etc) are technically an "act of war," and people keep telling me it's not an "act of war" because they're just "restoring basic human rights." Well here we have a man "restoring basic human rights" for us, giving us access to information -that- -the- -government- -doesn't- -want- -us- -to- -have-, and ... it's an act of war!

        Part of state security is keeping information out of the hands of its own people so they don't turn against the state. In China, they have site filters to keep news about bad shit their government does or political opinions they don't favor out of the public mind. In the US, we have all this classified information that we don't see a strategic reason for classifying. In both cases, the strategic reasoning is that the government doesn't want its people to know!

        Not that that's a good thing, but it's still an act of war to disseminate information against the national security interests of the state.

    • by evil_aaronm (671521) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:57PM (#41473161)
      He already -can- drone strike him with impunity: who's going to charge Obama with anything? If we even question His Droniness, we're interrogated as to why we hate America, and put on a list of potential drone targets.

      Love the Ellison reference: "At which time he merely sang a song about moonlight in a place no one had ever heard of, called Vermont, and vanished again."
    • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @12:37AM (#41474019) Homepage Journal

      Don't be silly.
      Obama could already order him killed without any official designation as enemy of state.

      Even if he was a US citizen.

      I realize that our civil rights are changing rapidly, Do please try to keep up.

  • Another one... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stairmaster (2652939) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:34PM (#41472929)
    We seem to like waging war on vaporous enemies don't we?
    • Re:Another one... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:25PM (#41473399)

      We seem to like waging war on vaporous enemies don't we?

      It's the American way. We fear that if we're not killing people, no one would take us seriously.

    • 100 years of war (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:36PM (#41473499) Homepage Journal

      There has to be a reason we pick fights that we can't win. War on drugs, War on poverty, war on terrorism, ...

      It has been almost 100 years since the start of the War on Drugs.

    • Re:Another one... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtb61 (674572) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @01:18AM (#41474289) Homepage
      The vaporous enemy in this case is not Julian Assange, it is anyone who releases the truth. This is a declaration of war on all whistle blowers, a message to people all over the world, should you release the truth about the United States of America, the United States of America, corruptly and with full intent to pervert the course of justice, will hunt you down, not just for what you have done but as a continued reminder for others.

      This act more than any other speaks of the corruption of the United States, of it pursuit of political gain regardless of the lies, the lives lost or the corruption of justice. The speaks of a United States that goes out of it's way to hide incompetence because it looks better regardless of how much incompetence results. All leading to escalating failure until it no longer can be hidden.

      This is bureaucracy at to protect it's criminality and corruption, of individual who have gained position of power through political appointment, seeking to keep that power by hiding their failures and corrupting the government departments they are meant to serve.

      There is a war going on, an insane war, where criminals in government service in associations with criminal contractors and desperately trying to keep the billion dollar gravy train flowing with false intelligence, by hiding crimes, by making false claims of national security, by creating the illusion and lie that should the truth be known the US will suffer.

      The truth is, the public demonstration of the willingness to investigate and prosecute your own, publicly demonstrates integrity and proves the value of democracy and justice. That has always been the truth, there will always be failures, there will always be criminals who gain position of power and those shit heads will always spread the lie that should you publicly punish them it will make everyone look bad, lie, lie, lie. No greater proof exists of the value of justice than it's unwavering application. No greater lie exists than crimes must go unpunished in order to protect your reputation, once you do that, than in truth you no longer have something to protect. The United States is now the evil that they claim to fight, they have sullied themselves as a child dirties it nappy and by refusing to remove that soiled garment they continue to fill it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:34PM (#41472945)

    "The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’.

    And the authors lay much of the blame on the use of the ‘double-tap’ strike where a drone fires one missile – and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

  • by jcr (53032) <jcr@mac.cEINSTEINom minus physicist> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:35PM (#41472953) Journal

    The constitution places the power to declare war and issue letters of marque with the congress, not the executive. It's up to the congress to tell the military who's an enemy, not the other way around.

    Whoever has taken it upon themselves to do this has libeled Assange.

    -jcr

    • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@gmail . c om> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:42PM (#41473021)

      The constitution places the power to declare war and issue letters of marque with the congress, not the executive. It's up to the congress to tell the military who's an enemy, not the other way around.

      We have a "legal" category called "enemy of the state"? How does that work? What are their rights and responsibilities in US?

      Despite the whole "War on Terror" thing, I don't think there is a war declared on al-Qaeda seeing how that is at best a loosely connected organization rather than a sovereign entity.
      Well, at least "War on Assange" has an interesting ring to it.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:50PM (#41473099)

        We have a "legal" category called "enemy of the state"? How does that work? What are their rights and responsibilities in US?

        Apparently you're new here. Let me fill you in. They're making it up as they go along. Republics don't collapse according to rules. Treason in high places doesn't follow orders.

        • by khallow (566160) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:08PM (#41473257)

          They're making it up as they go along.

          I agree with this. There's an interest excerpt from the constitution for the state of Massachusetts:

          Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

          This is precisely what the action of the US military preempts. This is far from the first such abuse, but it should be resisted. Why should a citizen of a peaceful ally, conducting his business legally, even though it be to the disadvantage of the US or the US military, be classified as a "enemy", especially, when it is not within the authority of the US military to make such a designation?

          • by Daemonik (171801) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:51PM (#41473649) Homepage

            Perhaps because a citizen of a foreign country, a country that might in all other ways be a friend or neutral to the US, might form a group for the purposes of directing weapons at the United States intended to do physical harm to it's citizens or it's government.

            I do agree that the idea of drone strikes and "enemies of the state" is frightening. But we're not living in 1917, we're not even in 1960. The world, and how wars are fought, has changed drastically.

            State or private sponsored terrorism can do significant damage these days with increasingly cheap & available tools. We can't invade the world, so we do what we have to do. I'm sorry that we have yet to build a bomb that can only explode in the presence of undeniable guilt.

            What amazes me is that people like you think any of this is new. Oh drone strikes are sloppy, but governments have been assassinating nuisances for all of history. If anything we've shown a great deal of restraint in not having had this guy killed already. Everyone with any bit of sense knows somebody's going to sooner or later. If not us then the Russians or the Chinese.

            Nothing in this article even says the US is targeting him for death. It's more about letting US Service people know that giving him documents will have some very serious blowback. Which it should.

            • by fredprado (2569351) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @01:44AM (#41474437)
              The chances of a person being killed by a terrorist attack are by far lower than the chances of dying from a traffic accident or a heart attack. Actually they are far less than the chances of an innocent person to die accidentally shot by a police officer.

              Taking extreme actions against vaporous threats is the best way of turning a democracy into an authoritarian regimen, and if you feed enough fear to the population you may even have general support in the process, until it is too late.

              The damage the government is doing to individual freedoms and civil rights both within US and abroad by trying to "protect" its people from evil terrorists is by far worse than anything the terrorists could have done.
              • by cold fjord (826450) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @07:18AM (#41475837)

                The chances of a person being killed by a terrorist attack are by far lower than the chances of dying from a traffic accident or a heart attack. Actually they are far less than the chances of an innocent person to die accidentally shot by a police officer.

                Tell that to the Iraqis, who suffer bombings and assassinations daily, and for whom truck bombings in market places was a regular hazard for years.

                Or maybe you can tell it to the FBI for that matter. The make regular arrests and attain convictions for plot after plot after plot. I will show a few at the end of the post.

                The only reason it is rare, is the United States takes active, effective measures against it, not because there aren't people trying to conduct attacks. Frankly, your post makes as much sense as saying that statistics show so few deaths from food poisoning that it obviously isn't a problem, so we should do away with refrigeration.

                40 Americans Have Joined Al Qaeda Group [house.gov]

                FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012 [fbi.gov]

                Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

                Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

                Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

                U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story

                Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

                Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story

                FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012 [fbi.gov]

                1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

                A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story

                2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

                A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story

                FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011 [fbi.gov]

                Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

                A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle. Full Story

                FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011 [fbi.gov]

            • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@gmail . c om> on Thursday September 27, 2012 @02:02AM (#41474553)

              The world, and how wars are fought, has changed drastically.

              I honestly want to know what do people mean when they say "the world has changed" or use the term "post-9/11 world".
              The world has not changed. Terrorism (as a vaguely defined concept) existed before and it will continue to exist in the future.

              State or private sponsored terrorism can do significant damage these days with increasingly cheap & available tools.

              How is this new these days? I think that people who seriously invested in this had access to all the damaging tools they need for a long time. The increasing availability mostly affected people who lack the skill, resources and discipline to actually perpetrate a terrorist act. Have you seen the people who got convicted in the last 10 years? Without 9-11-based interest, they'd probably still be sitting in their basements dreaming of being terrorists.
              Is there any data to prove that terrorists attacks do more damage now than they did 50 years ago?

      • by DerekLyons (302214) <`fairwater' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday September 27, 2012 @12:49AM (#41474109) Homepage

        We have a "legal" category called "enemy of the state"?

        No, we don't. That's a term made up by the author of the article in order to sell papers and generate clicks. In true Slashdot fashion, the inflammatory summary is being treated as if were unbiased reporting of the facts. In equal adherence to tradition and customs, they're not reading the article (or at least not past the opening paragraphs) and noting how it fails to support it's claim.
         
        It's a chance for a Two Minute Hate on the US Government, and that's enough for Slashdot. When an article conforms to the groupthink bias, there's no need for actual facts.

  • Imagine that.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GigaBurglar (2465952) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:36PM (#41472961)
    For a country that prides itself on freedom of speech - they like to tell people to shut up.
    • Re:Imagine that.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:26PM (#41473411) Homepage

      Since when has classified material ever been included under free speech?

      There are all sorts of restrictions on so-called "free" speech. Racism, hate, right-wing rhetoric, Islamophobia, all these have been banned at one time or another, with the approval of the courts and to the applause of the American public. Heck, just last week the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon called Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones and told him to shut up. Here's another one: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." Spoken by the US State Department. Heck Obama himself last week reached out to Youtube in an unprecedented move and asked them to block a trailier of a satirical film of Mohammed (Youtube denied the request). So, I'm not sure where this freedom of speech pride is coming from. You sure this isn't some Hollywood fiction that you believed?

      • Re:Imagine that.. (Score:5, Informative)

        by russotto (537200) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:31PM (#41473457) Journal

        Since when has classified material ever been included under free speech?

        How soon we forget: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

      • Re:Imagine that.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Tastecicles (1153671) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:39PM (#41473547)

        Since misprision of crime trumps compartmentalisation? To conceal evidence of a crime behind "military secrets" - remember this shit has already happened - is a penal offence almost as serious as the act itself.

        Assange did the American People a favour by exposing what their Government were doing in their name. The Joint Chiefs should all be sacked, all elected officials impeached, house cleaned and a paper election called immediately. And while we're at it, let's have a full and public paper audit of all intelligence services, starting with the CIA.

        Come get me, Obama.

  • Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danbuter (2019760) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:36PM (#41472965)
    Stories like this are really starting to worry me. Our country is rapidly losing civil rights, not to mention disregarding international laws regarding things like drone strikes in other countries.
  • ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hype7 (239530) <u3295110@[ ].edu.au ['anu' in gap]> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:37PM (#41472973) Journal

    after Obama yesterday's utopian freedom of speech [newyorker.com] speech at the UN.

  • US Military? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PPH (736903) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:40PM (#41472995)

    That's not their job, is it? Wouldn't this be up to Congress, the courts, the State Department?

    I guess its official. We are being run by a military junta.

    • Re:US Military? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by atriusofbricia (686672) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:51PM (#41473101) Journal

      That's not their job, is it? Wouldn't this be up to Congress, the courts, the State Department?

      I guess its official. We are being run by a military junta.

      I'm going to go with "Alarmist and Misleading Title"

      There was an investigation into a contractor who expressed support of Assange and Wikileaks and attended rallies supporting same. Given that said contractor had access to classified material, I can't say that it is entirely unreasonable to launch an investigation to determine whether or not this person decided to cross the line from mere expressions of support to leaking data. The suspected offense was "communicating with the enemy". Perhaps not the best choice but I'm not sure they have a better sounding title/rule to do the investigation under.

      That's a extreme far cry from designating anyone anything. Of course, we can't have a story about Assange and/or Wikileaks without the requisite amount of drama and puffing up so you end up with "Enemy of State". On slashdot we're also not "allowed" to mention the massive amount of harm that Wikileaks has caused. Only the good. So, I'll just leave that part alone.

      • Re:US Military? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@gmail . c om> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:03PM (#41473223)

        That's a extreme far cry from designating anyone anything.

        reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

        The article claims (and that's TFA not the summary), that technically any military personnel communicating with Wikileaks/Assange may be charged with a crime that goes all the way to death as penalty. That does seem alarming.

        • Re:US Military? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by atriusofbricia (686672) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:27PM (#41473423) Journal

          That's a extreme far cry from designating anyone anything.

          reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

          The article claims (and that's TFA not the summary), that technically any military personnel communicating with Wikileaks/Assange may be charged with a crime that goes all the way to death as penalty. That does seem alarming.

          The article does claim that. However, that too is alarmist. If you're a member of the military and you send an email to Wikileaks from home, it is likely nothing would ever happen. If you send one from your jrandomguy@army.mil address then can we really say it is shocking if that might get some attention at this point? The part that is alarmist though is that merely communicating with them isn't going to result in anyone getting even remotely close to the death penalty.

          If such a person passed operational secrets that could reasonably lead to US or other forces being compromised then it should be no surprise at all if said person ended up making little rocks out of big rocks or worse.

          Sometimes I think people get so caught up in the Wikileaks/Assange is awesome thing that they forget that actions have consequences. They get so caught up in the idea that "information wants to be free" and some variation of "the US is evil!" that they forget that sometimes releasing such information can do far far more harm than good. The people in the States may not be at war, but those guys over in Afghanistan sure as hell are. I hope that makes sense.

          To directly address your point about it being alarming, passing military secrets to the enemy has always meant serious punishments. This is nothing new. Dressing it up as something else doesn't change what it is, no?

      • Re:US Military? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @12:37AM (#41474017) Homepage Journal

        Of course you're "allowed" to mention it. At most you'll suffer a negative moderation. Even that you can combat by showing evidence.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:49PM (#41473093)

    It appears that this might be designed to prevent further leaks by military personnel.

    Ftom TFA:

    Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

    They may never go after Assange. But the next Brad Manning may find him/herself swinging from the gallows.

  • by craznar (710808) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:53PM (#41473127) Homepage

    .. in a way.

    Now that the US has designated this status, it gives many more countries the freedom to protect him. It gives him official 'political' refugee status in way more places.

    Of course - it also paints a big target on his head, but everything has a down side.

  • by TigerPlish (174064) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @10:54PM (#41473133)

    When what you're talking about is things businesses and governments wish to keep secret, there is no such thing as free speech. You pay for it in blood.

    Were I Assange, I'd be far more worried about a bullet in my head or a mickey in my drink than a legit arrest.

    Am I insinuating that a government or business would kill over information they wish to keep secret for legitimate reasons, or otherwise?

    Hell yes, I am.

    I'm sure there are many secrets that should remain so -- but buried in that pile are atrocities and behind-the-scene dealings that impact people like you and I in the worst ways -- and those are the dirty bits of laundry that need to get out.

    Frankly, I still think the Internet is nothing but television magnified by 1000, with all the lolcatz and pr0n and myface and spacebook and all that -- but the ability to shed light on nasty, shady dealings -- that's what I had hoped the Internet would be able to do.

    We need more of this. We need to know more about what businesses and governments do in secret to line their pockets by picking ours. The mainstream media can't quite be trusted to do so, I feel they're in the payroll of government and business -- so the last resort is.. this.

    But, who vets this kind of leaks? Who can assure the reader that it isn't misinformation? Wow, paranoids are right, I think!

    Still, there's a little place in my heart that tells me.. we really don't want to know. I think it could be that revolting, that repulsive.

  • by jesseck (942036) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:03PM (#41473221)

    The United States was embarrassed by WikiLeaks, and they are looking to "fix" that. The problem is, they can't take any of it back. This is all reactionary, and not real rational. If anything, they need to review how/why Bradley Manning had access to the State Department cables, since it doesn't make sense Manning would have had that access in the first place (just because people have a security clearance doesn't mean they have a need-to-know- and the information system should enforce that). They need to put blocks in place to prevent future problems.

    The US can't change the past this early- they need to wait a long time to spin this (probably a couple generations). Punishing WikiLeaks won't accomplish much in this case, because the next time a leak happens another proxy will be used. They are trying to punish Assange, as they punished Manning, to deter future "leak" hosts. It won't work- while the US can control the military personnel and their actions, they can't change the rest of the world.

    The US is acting like a child- "I told Timmy a secret, and he told Jeff, and Jeff told the rest of the school. I'm no longer going to be Timmy's friend, and I'll tell the teacher to suspend Jeff. That way, the school will know not to tell my secrets." It doesn't work- everyone knows, and you can't wipe the world's memory with legislation or prison.

  • by future assassin (639396) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:16PM (#41473329) Homepage

    TWICE. Never though I'd be a terrorist supporter so soon. I'm so fucking proud of myself.

  • by stox (131684) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:29PM (#41473441) Homepage

    They're doing this to go after Bradley Manning. If they don't, no crime, or at least a lessor one, was committed by Manning.

  • Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brit74 (831798) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:38PM (#41473539)
    I'm not surprised. Assange released a bunch of classified military documents - at a time when two wars were going on. Now, a lot of people might disagree with those wars and would, therefore, agree with Assange releasing the information. Assange, himself, has said it was his mission to end the wars - presumably, he meant that the release of classified US documents would damage the war effort so badly that the US would withdraw.

    Although, I have to wonder what our response would be if this was the early 1940s, the US was fighting Germany and Japan, and a character named 'Assange' released a bunch of documents relating to the US war effort. Would this be the same thing? Would we label Assange a hero or a traitor if he was degrading the US war effort against enemies which we all hate? I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 1940s-era Assange released this information (he talks about how he'll release anything), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US labelled him an enemy of the state, either. I would hope that people's outrage over this didn't seem to hinge on whether or not you agree or disagree with the US war.
    • Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rastos1 (601318) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @02:49AM (#41474777) Homepage

      Assange released a bunch of classified military documents - at a time when two wars were going on.

      Did I miss a memo where Congress declared a war or two?

    • Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tastecicles (1153671) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @04:24AM (#41475217)

      I'm not surprised. Assange released a bunch of classified military documents detailing crimes committed by elements of the US Military and by legislative and executive branches of same - at a time when two illegal incursions into sovereign territories were going on. Now, a lot of people might disagree with those illegal incursions into sovereign territories and would, therefore, agree with Assange releasing the information. Assange, himself, has said it was his mission to end the illegal incursions into sovereign territories - presumably, he meant that the release of classified US documents would damage the illegal incursions into sovereign territories effort so badly that the US would withdraw.

      FTFY

      Although, I have to wonder what our response would be if this was the early 1940s, the US was fighting Germany and Japan, and a character named 'Assange' released a bunch of documents relating to the US war effort. Would this be the same thing? Would we label Assange a hero or a traitor if he was degrading the US war effort against enemies which we all hate? I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 1940s-era Assange released this information (he talks about how he'll release anything), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US labelled him an enemy of the state, either. I would hope that people's outrage over this didn't seem to hinge on whether or not you agree or disagree with the US war.

      There is a difference which you have conveniently omitted - that the United States legally declared war on the Empire of Japan following Pearl. Please adjust your argument accordingly.

  • by Pecisk (688001) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @11:59PM (#41473735)

    US has no problem with WikiLeaks here, but with Jullian, who knowingly worked to release secret materials. However, It is interesting because if he was seriously considered a threat, he would be already in US, because of time in freedom he was in UK. However, there's still no extradition requests. They sure think he is annoying, and probably wonder what military secrets (including spec ops and agents) he still has. They're nervious, and it tells with this language about enemies and terrorists (in some sense, Jullian terorises US goverment, and think it's fun. I don't think it was very smart idea if you were about to release such serious leak).

    This charge is actually more or less to prevent anyone with access to secret government/military networks in US to cooperate with WikiLeaks. For Good or for bad, but that's how any military would react. They don't have a 'annoying activist' paragraph. From their POV, all this information can be used against military in active operations, so you are a threat.

    And freedom of speech - Jullian has it, tons - from outside, from inside, Jullian that, Jullian there, he even has live video stream with UN. Show me another journalists or unfortunates who had problems with arrests and "enemy of the state" tags, for example, in Russia. You can't, because most of them are just dead - mostly without court. No US government has closed any newspaper because they printed leaked material - in detail. Was Swedish situation just a coincidence or they really trying to extract him to US? Personally I don't think so. Any backslash it's not just worth it.

    I'm getting tired of all this WikiLeaks BS. It supposed to be recover corruption, company dirty secrets, etc. Instead I get "US is teh max evil". Sorry, world isn't black and white, and sure change within it doesn't work like you have imagined it do. I just hoped that geeks are better. I guess we humans after all.

  • by Gob Gob (306857) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @12:57AM (#41474151)

    If you look up stuff on the Internet or watch mainstream media and choose to remember the stories then you get a pretty clear picture of "Blood for Oil" and "Too big to fail" stories. You balance that out with candidates saying money for influence [rawstory.com] and the massive disproportion in wealth in the US [wikipedia.org] and it paints a grim picture.

    A few people with a disgusting amount of money make decisions that impact the rest of the world and none of them are elected.

    The bad part is that we know all this already and no doubt when troops hit the ground in Iran, Somalia, etc, we will continue to rage on the Internet while ours sons go and kill someone else's sons......Wikileaks rocks but unless we are using the information at our disposal for change then what's the point?

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...