US Military Designates Julian Assange an "Enemy of State" 805
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.'"
So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Can drone-strike him, with impunity, then?
America. It just keeps getting more like a bad Harlan Ellison story.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Informative)
I think he had a few 'trials', no?
Three to five, depending on whether you count a full hearing or just a review and then rejection - two in Sweden, three in the UK (the last in the UK being the supreme court). The ones in the UK were mainly about the extradition process, with the evidence only relatively minimally touched on. The ones in Sweden were specifically about the evidence, which stood up to review.
Also, from the sound of the article itself, its whole headline is hyperbole. They don't cite a single point in the FOI where they call Assange an enemy of state. They call an intelligence analysist attending a wikileaks rally and dealing with wikileaks supporters (of which we know Assange specifically was *not* there, since he was in the embassy) "communicating with the enemy, 104-D" because Wikileaks is ""anti-US and/or anti-military group" (which, all rhetoric aside, it most definitely is, and hardly even denies that anymore). However, the case was closed without laying charges, which could well mean that they don't think that claim would stand up in court. There's nothing at all in the article about "Assange being added to a list of enemies of state", despite the hyperbolic headline.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
As for US power.. it's difficult not to equate influence with power. Power, the US has got loads of. It has burned a great deal of goodwill over the years, that is true. Most countries meddle in the affairs of other nations, but the US is pretty obvious about it. That being said, I don't defend their actions in Afghanistan or Iraq... nor do I believe the US should be financing every two-bit dictator that shits between a pair of jackboots. The "political consequences" of the last decade or so of activity is that no one in the Middle East likes us (besides Israel I suppose). The fun fact is, they haven't liked us in decades. That doesn't excuse certain actions by past (and current) Presidents, but it is nothing new.
So, while it's fun to deride the US and all its "cowboy antics" as it strolls across the globe being nosy and pushy... we should really stop spreading FUD... I wonder if Tom Clancy would write a novel about Chinese drone attacks? Hell, Japan and China are in a pissing contest right now for some islands (I can't recall off the top of my head)... and there's always the Taiwan angle where the US is quite belligerent and China rattles sabers now and again... it amounts to a tempest in a teapot. We are smarter than this on
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
Asian countries aligned with China... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:4, Informative)
Strong USA Allies: Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea
Strong PRC Allies: Mongolia, Nepal, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea
Loose or tense relationship to both PRC and USA: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Brunei, Bangladesh, Papau New Guinea
Instead of taking an anti-China strategy, we need to do everything we need to do to woo India and Indonesia - the second and fourth largest countries in the world.
India is easy - they're practically British already, and our mutual business ties provide an easy inroad to strategic partnerships.
Indonesia? We have a sitting President who speaks Bahasa. Indonesia is the next sleeping giant and we squandered our opportunity to win Jakarta.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Interesting)
Strong PRC Allies: Mongolia, Nepal, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea
You obviously know NOTHING about Mongolia.
Mongolians are can be pretty racist about Chinese; Mongol politicians can lose votes for 'looking too Chinese'. If you actually do have Chinese blood you can forget about politics.
Mongol people hate and distrust China immensely. I don't know how you can put them in the 'Strong PRC allies' category. Its just nonsense.
China isn't a real military threat. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, nobody is scared of the US nuclear arsenal, because the US has made it abundantly clear that it is a deterrent tool. If you want to fight the US, you can do so without fear of nuclear retaliation, provided you don't engage in NBC warfare against them. Simply put, the political fallout over using nukes as anything other than a retaliation weapon would be catastrophic. As powerful as the US is, it cannot act against the will of the rest of the world.
Re:China isn't a real military threat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:China isn't a real military threat. (Score:5, Informative)
Germany was initially only limited to their own immediate neighborhood in Europe back in World War 2, right? How did that work out last time?
Germany had been a world power into World War 1, and had regained much of their might by World War 2, including a blue water navy. China is still working their way there for the first time.
China has a huge population that needs more resources. And this being a small planet, your resources are eventually on the menu, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
Do tell [washingtontimes.com].
I assure you, other countries have noticed China's rise, and its aspirations to hegemony, and are taking action.
Moscow plays on fears of China in global quest for naval bases [worldtribune.com]
Re:China isn't a real military threat. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Hitler's big mistake was invading the Soviet Union. Western Europe was a sideshow compared to the Eastern front.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't really do a like for like comparison of numbers as it's not that simple. You only have to look at why China already has an army that size to see the problem - it's because it needs it to supress internal dissent.
If China thins it's internal ranks to fight an external war you can guarantee some of that 4:1 population advantage will actually act in the US' favour - Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Inner Mongolia are all just waiting for such an opportunity to break away.
But there's also the logistics issue- how exactly are those 3 billion people or even a tiny proportion of them going to cross the ocean to the US where they can actually cause a threat? Or are they all going to go via Russia? There in itself lies a problem though, whilst Russia often aligns with China in UN security council votes because they both want to keep Europe and US influence in check, it doesn't make them friends. Russia and China have their own border disputes, and you can be rest assured a stretched China would give Russia the chance it's been waiting for to bolster it's claims on that disputed territory. For what it's worth, India, Vietnam, Laos, also have disputes with China on borders, so it can't count on their support for anything, and in fact similarly risks them taking territory from it if they weaken their military.
China is a threat to local nations offshore from it - Japan, South Korea, and so forth, but it's got a strong internal military for it's own security. It can't afford to weaken that with sizable external deployments, because just about everyone on all of it's borders and half of it's internal provinces are all just waiting for their opportunity to pounce and pull bits of both it's population and land mass away from it.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Interesting)
This probably isn't about Assange in it's intent. They most likely found issues with the Manning prosecution and decided to make it easier to to apply more stringent penalties and get easier convictions with less effort if someone discloses information again.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
If their intent was to make prosecution of other people easier, then they should have made a law to do so.
If the constitution would have prohibited them from making such a law, then that is a very subtle hint to them that what they're doing is wrong.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
The US military doesn't make laws. But it can designate an enemy to make existing laws come into effect when members of the armed forces contact them. Its even in the summery " military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with 'communicating with the enemy" as it claims that is in the article obtained.
The acts of disclosing information is already illegal. Now it can be treason or consorting with the enemy if it goes to wikileaks. I see no problem with that.
Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial (Score:5, Informative)
Now it can be treason or consorting with the enemy if it goes to wikileaks. I see no problem with that.
The only ones who view Wikileaks as enemies of the state are the ones involved in illegal activities they're trying to cover up. So we're letting those who are government-sponsored criminals warp the legal system to unjustly punish, and even kill, those who might even be thinking of revealing their wrongdoing? Yeah, no problem with that, indeed...
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Jullian did less, and had less effect on the war than that jackass hate preacher that burned the Koran.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Fuck you, you fascist piece of shit.
I hope you get terminal cancer this year and that it hurts a lot before you die.
That whoosh you heard was the sarcasm in the post you replied to fly right over your head, I'm fairly certain. Also, grow the fuck up.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Whistle-blowing is NOT a terrorist action in any way, shape or form. Information cannot hurt anyone.
Whistle-blowing is "here is the proof of a specific incident or on-going malfeasance". Whistle-blowing is not "here are all the documents and communications that we could get hold of." That's just espionage.
Information cannot hurt anyone just like guns have never hurt anyone. But it seems that just maybe, once in a while, a person uses a gun to hurt someone; and sometimes they used information that never hurt anyone to know where to point their gun that never hurt anyone.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:4)
Those damn war hawk liberal democrats constantly destroying our personal liberty.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
They *are*... Not sure how you meant that. The current "liberal democrat" in the executive office has a Nobel Peace Prize and has assassinated two US citizens.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean as opposed to Henry Kissinger who also won a Nobel Peace Prize, while managing Nixon's assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende, because he wasn't going to have a Socialist in the western hemisphere, even if the socialist was elected democratically. In its place we installed the Junta, who murdered, excuse me, disappeared over 3,000 people. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Whitehouse tapes [washingtonpost.com] now available clearly present Nixon and Kissinger discussing Chilean Assassination and CIA incompetence.
Just goes to show you what a Nobel Peace prize is worth.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Informative)
You mean as opposed to Henry Kissinger who also won a Nobel Peace Prize, while managing Nixon's assassination of Chilean President Salvador Allende, because he wasn't going to have a Socialist in the western hemisphere, even if the socialist was elected democratically. In its place we installed the Junta, who murdered, excuse me, disappeared over 3,000 people. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Whitehouse tapes [washingtonpost.com] now available clearly present Nixon and Kissinger discussing Chilean Assassination and CIA incompetence.
Just goes to show you what a Nobel Peace prize is worth.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a great book about the war crimes of Kissinger. This man is sub-scum level: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html [thirdworldtraveler.com]
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
They have to, or they'd all hang..
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
If it came down to two shitty choices, I guess I'd rather be waterboarded than blown up with a missile.
Did Bush execute any US citizens without due process? Hell, did he waterboard any US citizens without due process?
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm still waiting for that, too.
We don't know.
We don't know. With Obama, at least we found out that he executed American citizens. Who knows WTF Bush and Cheney did?
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
You elected a guy that is going to work with what he's got.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he just did it, illegal as it was. Obama seems to be attempting to create some sort of legal framework giving the president the right to do it. The difference between a faux-cowboy and a lawyer, I suppose.
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:4, Funny)
Bush never asserted the right to have US citizens killed at his own discretion
That's just cause he couldn't find anybody!!!
Re:So I suppose Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to point the finger at either since they're all guilty, but I think the Bush doctrine of preemptive war pretty much escalated things as far as you can go. Within that context it would seem that any 'enemy' or threat, foreign or domestic, is fair game.
But yeah, Obama didn't change a damn thing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Another one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another one... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Another one... (Score:5, Informative)
We're the only country in the world with a nuclear powered Navy.
Only if you don't count Russia, Great Britain, France, China, and India
100 years of war (Score:5, Insightful)
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:100 years of war (Score:4, Insightful)
law enforcement is a huge industry.prisons also
Re:Another one... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stay far away from him... (Score:5, Informative)
"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
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same tactic that is banned in the First Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory. Anyone ordering or carrying out those kinds of drone strikes is a war criminal.
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope I live to see those war criminals, Bush and Obama among them, hauled in front of the Hague and sentenced to spending the rest of their lives in jail.
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:4, Informative)
US does not recognize the jurisdiction of International Court. So US would never submit Bush and Obama to Hague. Besides only countries recognized by the UN can start proceedings at the International Court. I dont think the Afghanistan/Iraq govt will want Bush/Obama prosecuted, so I dont expect anything at all to happen.
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone ordering or carrying out those kinds of drone strikes is a war criminal.
Hahaha good one! Only losers are war criminals, winners are heroes. Commiting a war crime is a petty offense at best, it isn't worth pursuing. Better to focus the effort in fighting real criminals, like file-sharers.
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:4, Informative)
That's been fairly standard terrorist tactics for a while, actually.
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:5, Insightful)
America is very guilty of war crimes by now.
Re:Stay far away from him... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hollywood goes to great pains to portray enemy combatants engaged in this tactic.
In the movie "Saving Private Ryan", there's a sniper in a building with a Karbiner 98K, taking chunks out of one soldier in the middle of the street and dropping anyone who tries to go help him.
IIRC a similar scene in "Band of Brothers" when they're moving to secure a bridge (episode 3/4?)
Didn't Ed Harris' character do the same thing in "Enemy At The Gate"? If I remember correctly, the British media had joygasms reporting a similar situation in Afghanistan in April; a "Taliban sniper" was apparently picking off members of 3 Bat. Rifles (including taking a sniper out by shooting him in the eye - through his own scope). I don't buy him being a Taliban sniper personally; more likely he was an ex-British Forces sniper gone rogue or freelance (how many British servicemen have actually deserted during this campaign of terror, anyway?) or a local trained in another country (Bosnia?). Back to the movie; isn't it wonderful that Jude Law's character had nothing but one-shot-kills the entire movie? I wonder how the Germans would have portrayed him, had they made the movie instead?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012 [fbi.gov]
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011 [fbi.gov]
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011 [fbi.gov]
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the military's job. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you're wrong but not in a good way. After Vietnam Congress passed the War Powers Act which was supposed to severely limit the president's ability to wage war. Basically, the president could send emergency troops for 30 days then if Congress didn't declare war he had 30 days to bring them back.
However, at the behest of small-government president George W. Bush Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). It says, not joking, the president may use the force he deems necessary against those he determines to be terrorists. That's not an exact quote, but it is scarily close. It really does say the president can basically go to war, sans declaration of war by Congress, against those he determines to be terrorists.
So, unfortuneatly, the part your're wrong about is that Congress has to do anything at all. They've already ceded power to the president when it comes to war. Now, to me, this is an over delegation of authority and is unconstitutional. The power to declare war was vested in Congress for a reason, but it's not been brought to court to be struck down. The closest was Doe v. Bush but that was ruled to not be a case or controversy even though it was one week before invading Iraq. (And had they brought it after invasion it probably would have been moot).
*sigh* I just made myself sad.
Imagine that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Imagine that.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
How soon we forget: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Re:Imagine that.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The US Constitution is not a suicide pact (Score:5, Informative)
It just means now that US government employees and military personnel who leak information to him would be committing a crime.
air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London. ... The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".
Or, you know, any military personnel that expresses support for Assange (according to TFA).The analyst in question wasn't charged, but it seems that he did lose his access to classified information. But why let facts get in your way.
Re:The US Constitution is not a suicide pact (Score:5, Informative)
You are a bit too patriotic in this, but the love for your military is clouding your judgement slightly. Assange is not responsible for the leak. The responsible for the leak are, firstly, the unknown people who designed and implemented a system that could allow a rogue American to amass and leak this information, and, secondly, the person who actually leaked it.
Assange has nothing to do with either the group who built the system and the policies that allowed the leak, nor is he the person who actually released the data.
Hence, the troubles the US is giving him are as illegal as they are immoral. Or vice versa.
Also, imagine what treatment by the US would get someone who leaked Soviet secrets during the Cold War. Someone who would, you know, steal Soviet property and take it to Japan or something.
Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong way round.
You are rapidly gaining civil rights - via the internet - the only difference is you now know about how they have been curtailed for centuries.
It's not rights people are gaining. It's power.
Re:Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong way round.
You are rapidly gaining civil rights - via the internet - the only difference is you now know about how they have been curtailed for centuries.
It's not rights people are gaining. It's power.
And they are very much trying to take that away.
ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
after Obama yesterday's utopian freedom of speech [newyorker.com] speech at the UN.
US Military? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
They may never go after Assange. But the next Brad Manning may find him/herself swinging from the gallows.
Wouldn't it be easier to designate everyone as "enemy of the state"? Then the military could have unlimited flexibility.
It's not like there is an appeal process or even a publicly available list of these "enemies of the state"
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
"the next Brad Manning may find him/herself swinging from the gallows." ... and compared with what has happened to Manning, it might be a kindness.
Makes his life 'easier'... (Score:5, Insightful)
.. 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.
Freedom of Speech is such a smokescreen. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I donated to Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
TWICE. Never though I'd be a terrorist supporter so soon. I'm so fucking proud of myself.
Re:I donated to Wikileaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Never though I'd be a terrorist supporter so soon.
They didn't say Assange was a terrorist. They said he was an 'enemy of the state', a category which includes terrorists but is not synonymous with terrorism. Should I draw a Venn diagram?
The real reason for this action (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
Did I miss a memo where Congress declared a war or two?
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Sensationalist article (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
What's the point of WikiLeaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Association with him possibly treason? (Score:4, Informative)
no; guilt by association is not recognised in common law - the United States is, when all is said and done, a common law jurisdiction.
When the most used maxim in US judicial proceedings, whether military or civilian, is "Balance of Probabilities*" over "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", then it's time to start worrying. The UK is already there.
*Balance of Probabilities: based on the testimony of "experts", in an often biased proceeding, and where the decision is often already made before the "judge" even takes the Bench, a "finding of Fact" is made if the balance moves 1% over either way of the midline. A finding does not even need a witness to events; in fact, a witness is more often than not ignored by the *single "judge"* in favour of the State who pays him. The "judge" is also jury and executioner.
Re:This is actually good news (Score:4, Funny)
How are things in Russia?
You can't complain.
What's the biggest problem with Russia?
You can't complain.
Re:RIP Bradley. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the war on terror. It's mismanaged just like everything else the government does. I'm also not a fan of all the ugly baggage that goes with it. But to allow everyone to decide on their own that State Department negotiations and military operations are criminal or not when the law is certainly not clear on it anyway, invites chaos on an inimaginable order in the military. In fact, it makes military operations absolutely impossible. They might as well close up shop.