.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

The world's "most wanted" journalist

by M. Stewart
The WikiLeaks Crisis, as it is being called, is a strange case indeed. In the U.S., it pits the need for government military and diplomatic secrecy against freedom of speech.

There are legal issues here that make the situation more complex than merely finding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, although that seems to be the primary focus. If or when Assange is captured, what will he be charged with, and under what jurisdiction will he be charged?

Assange isn't a U.S. citizen, so if he ends up in American hands, the National Espionage Act of 1917 may not work. Because he is Australian, he can't be charged with treason in the United States. The Fox Tea Party channel's Bill O'Reilly has called for Assange's execution, and he doesn't appear to be the only one. Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor and adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told the the CBC that ". . . Assange should be assassinated. Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."

For his part, Assange has called for the resignation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He told Time magazine the Clinton should resign "if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations." Pretty cheeky for a guy who has become the enemy of governments around the world.

The key point is that people within our own government are giving Assange the information, and it is they who should be tracked down and charged with treason. Does anyone know what happened to U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning after he was caught releasing thousands of pages of classified military documents to WikiLeaks last summer? Once he was identified, the story died. As for this new round of leaks, clearly someone within the State Department is working as a WikiLeaks spy. With all the attention this story is getting, it should only be a matter of time before the rat is identified, right?

Assange himself is acting as an investigative journalist. That government officials are embarrassed and compromised by what he has made public is hardly enough to warrant his assassination. Major news organizations throughout the world have spread the WikiLeaks material far more than Assange ever could. Does that make them an accessory to a crime?

Right wingers tend to like only the part of the First Amendment that protects the exercise of religion, and typically only as it applies to Christianity, but they often are the first to deny the constitutional rights of "the press" when it comes to situations like this. From a legal standpoint, however, we should remember that the Constitution protects the rights of American citizens, not foreigners. So the question of what to do about Julian Assange remains unclear.

Any way you cut it, Assange is the world's "most wanted" journalist. Up next for WikiLeaks is the release of thousands of internal documents from "a major U.S. bank." That should be interesting, dontcha think?

41 Comments:

Anonymous Comment on Comment said...

Why the comment about right wingers? It has nothing to do with this story.

8:20 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Look a little closer. Bill O'Reilly called for Assange's execution. Though I didn't mention it, Sarah! said we should treat Assange the same as bin Laden. Of course Palin doesn't understand the situation and is just mouthing what she's been told will be politically popular with her followers, but O'Reilly isn't stupid. He knows what he's saying.

8:40 AM  
Anonymous Observer said...

M,

Julian is anti-American and basically running a smear campaign against the US.

If I heard he was mysteriously gunned down today in Europe, I wouldn't think much of it.

9:44 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Doesn't Fox News orchestrate a national smear campaign against the government on a daily basis? Should Rupert Murdoch be gunned down too?

9:54 AM  
Blogger bud said...

Matt, When I first read this story I thought of the old adage: if one other person knows your secret it's not a secret anymore. The news that I have seen on T.V. and read is three million people had access to the cables. That seems to me like a lot of potential leaks. I guess there is another batch comming out about American banks and their dealings. Gee I wonder if there will be any surprises there.

10:18 AM  
Anonymous The Un-Original Wiz said...

From a legal standpoint, however, we should remember that the Constitution protects the rights of American citizens, not foreigners.

So what you are saying is that Pres Bush was right, that terrorists captured abroad have no rights and can be held indefinitely at QitMo. Why, according to you, the Constitution protects only citizens and any non citizen captured even within the borders of the US can be sent off to QitMo and detained without trail. Even illegal immigrants since they are not US citizens.

Geez M, you sound more right wing than even those crazy assed Tea Baggers!!!! But its nice to see that you agree that Pres Bush was right!

10:38 AM  
Anonymous Comment on Comment said...

I don't follow Fox, Palin or O'Reilly. Apparently you do. You need to be more specific with you left handed comments.

11:02 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Comment--
Yes, I do follow Fox, O'Reilly, and Palin. I apologize for being informed.

11:35 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Wiz--
I have no problem with detaining enemy combatants, but not indefinitely. There is an international treaty (Geneva) the United States recognizes that determines how prisoners of war should be treated. Holding non-combatants indefinitely doesn't necessarily adhere to that agreement. The Gitmo situation is more complex than just being for or against it.

11:40 AM  
Blogger The Groom said...

A big misperception in America is that we have absolute free speech. But we don't, and in my opinion, we shouldn't.

Your freedom of speech ends when it begins to infringe upon other persons' rights and liberties.

For example, you can't get away with the freedom of speech argument if you run into a crowded movie theatre, scream "FIRE!", and then watch as the crowd panics and tramples over one another. That's a crime.

Likewise, you can't just walk up to someone, call them a bunch of offensive names, get punched in the face, and act like you are innocent because of the freedom of speech. You provoked them, although you both could be charged with a crime.

Safety is the same justification for this issue, I believe. And its a very big issue because national security means safety for every American, not one individual. That's why treason is our nation's highest crime, and why Benedict Arnold and the Rosenberg's were executed.

I'm not sure what they'll do about this journalist - in the Bush days we would throw him in Gitmo for eternity - and I actually liked when we did that.

But whoever leaked this info within our government should meet the fate of Alger Hess: death. The punishment fits the crime.

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Yes Us Can said...

M - I agree with the premise of your post, but I think you are off on the charge that the Constitution only protects American citizens. It's pretty clear on the rights afforded to all, and those afforded to strictly citizens - mainly voting rights, the ability to run for office and such. The equal protection clause makes clear that the rights provided by the Constituion are afforded to all persons, not citizens.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Even the current right-leaning Supreme Court upheld that precedent.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Comment on Comment said...

So, how does this relate to the church and state issue? Buckeyeelo?

12:41 PM  
Anonymous bub said...

Matt, I'm glad you've decided to follow FOX. It still amazes me how people from your side continue to call people names that disagree with you.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous the oracle said...

The first question that came to my mind was how does a Pfc have access to such information? The simple truth is he doesn't. The information was fed to him. The next question is, who will be hurt by the release of this information? At first blush it appears to be the President, so I'm naturally suspicious when it appears the right wing pundits are up in arms over something that serves there ends quite well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it wouldn't be the first time the tail wagged the dog.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous The Un-Original Wiz said...

But what about your statement? According to you, even people in the US with work visas have no Constitutional rights. That is an interesting legal position.

1:36 PM  
Blogger M. said...

Wiz--
I didn't say that at all. What I did say is that the Constitution of the United States offers its protections to U.S. Citizens. I'm not sure how it extends to green card or work visa holders. Maybe it does; I don't know. Besides, in the case of Gitmo, it's not a Constitutional issue, but one of international treaty. It's also a matter of national security during a time of war. It's a complex situation.

1:41 PM  
Blogger M. said...

Yes Us Can--
Thanks for the correction!

Groom--
Yes, the government needs to find the leakers and prosecute them for treason. Does anyone know if Assange pays for this information?

1:45 PM  
Anonymous The Un-Original Wiz said...

Observer; note the sleight of hand there. You said Julian is anti-American and basically running a smear campaign against the US.

and M switched that to government.Doesn't Fox News orchestrate a national smear campaign against the government on a daily basis?

The government and the US are two different things. The US is the country as a whole while the government is just one part of it.

And Fox News, even allowing for the misrepresentation of Fox News as a Republican tool, doesn't smear government as an institution but rather the liberal version of governance.

1:48 PM  
Blogger M. said...

Bub--
What names do you mean? There is a difference between citing a category and calling names. But I'm not above calling names for effect. It's a time-honored tradition in American politics.

1:50 PM  
Blogger M. said...

To all--
This story is getting bigger by the hour. Maybe some of you have heard this already, but I just read where the Russians are now in the "find Julian" game. Apparently he has threatened to release information on corruption within Russian government, and the Russians are not happy about it. Interpol is after him for extradition to Sweden on two rape charges, and I'm sure the CIA isn't exactly sitting on its hands. Sooner or later, Mr. Assange will either be nabbed and/or disappear forever. I'm guessing the latter. Or will he escape? Some south American country--I forget which--has offered him asylum. Will he find his way there before it's too late? This is real James Bond stuff, especially now that the Russians are in it.

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Comment on Comment said...

Gee, corruption in the U.S. government, corruption in Russia. Why is this news? Everything that was leaked we already knew.

2:56 PM  
Blogger M. said...

Comment--
I agree with you for the most part. We didn't know some of the details, but everyone knows what goes on. One of the ways people are looking at the recent leaks is that the state department is doing its job well.

3:16 PM  
Anonymous The Un-Original Wiz said...

M; you specifically stated "From a legal standpoint, however, we should remember that the Constitution protects the rights of American citizens, not foreigners."

Yes You Can corrected you which you graciously accepted said correction. My point is that you were wrong and if I were to lower myself to your level, I could have posted a long rant ridiculing you for "idiocy," "profoundly ignorant," "a joke" and a host of insults. Afterall, It's a time-honored tradition in American politics. One that you practice so well.

3:31 PM  
Blogger M. said...

Wiz--
I'm wrong plenty of times; everybody is. I'm not afraid or ashamed to admit errors. I guess you're not used to dealing with people who readily admit errors. Of course you're not. Besides, the question originally was whether the Constitution protects non-citizens outside the country--as in the case of Assange--and there is no question about that.

As far as lowering yourself to my level, you can always stay away if you choose. What draws you to this error-ridden level day after day? Are there not web sites that exist on your plane? Maybe someday I'll have a chance to peak into your realm.

4:43 PM  
Anonymous make it public said...

Why isn't every bit of this information public? It deals with public entities conducting public business.

11:43 PM  
Blogger weaverdelooh said...

M.

How about addressing the issues Americans are facing as they face security screening while traveling through airports?

Why is it that we as a nation have gotten to such a point of panic that we must either go through a whole body scan, which leaves nothing to the imagination, or go through a physical pat-down, as if we are criminals who have lost their rights?

Check out this video of a woman in a wheelchair going through security. Honestly, does it take THAT long to pat down someone in a wheelchair? Does it REALLY take 2 1/2 minutes to check around her body to make sure she's not concealing anything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muALqbTf95s

How about this woman, who appears to be putting on a show for the camera?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zFi18ioqYk

9:57 AM  
Blogger The Groom said...

National Security issues are exempt from public record laws.

Courts can and have decided on what is and is not a matter of national security.

You may recall during Watergate that Nixon tried to classify many of the incriminating documents at matters of national security, and as such, not open for public examination.

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Observer said...

M,

Julian Assange is NOT a journalist. To call him such is a disservice to journalists everywhere.

10:47 AM  
Anonymous The Un-Original Wiz said...

M; Nice job playing the victim. If Liberals...uh...Progressives..do anything well, its playing victim or making personal attacks.

But your opening line,Wiz--
I'm wrong plenty of times; everybody is.
is exactly the point I have been making. But the difference is is that when Pres O or the walking gaffe machine called VP Biden makes one, its just over looked. When a conservative as Pres Bush or Ms Palin makes one, you guys on the left chortle and snicker and giggle like little schoolboys.

Consistency is all I am asking for.

10:48 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Wiz--
Consistency is all you ask for? Is that your word for it? Ok, I've been absolutely consistent in my attitude toward Sarah! Palin. I've seen her as a complete idiot since John McCain trotted her out. The only thing that has changed is that I like her less every time she opens her mouth.

You seem to think that I'm under some obligation to treat every famous person and politician even-handedly, but no such obligation exists. I make fun of the people I don't like. That's just the way it is. Sorry if that doesn't meet your high standards of discourse, but this is a blog--MY blog--so I'll do whatever I want.

7:27 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Weaverdelooh--
It's crazy, I know, but it's all about safety in a world controlled by Muslim terrorists. My response to all the post 9-11 airport stuff is that I simply don't fly.

7:33 AM  
Blogger bud said...

Matt, Did you read the article about Rep. Elect Bill Johnson and his plan to not take the congressional health care? He says he has health as a retired Air Force officer.He is against Obamacare because of the cost.He wants every working stiff to pay for their own health care all the while he and the rest of congress enjoy government health care on the stiffs dime. He looks like another theiving, lying, double dipping hack to me.

9:20 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Bud--
No, didn't read it, but I'll try to get to it sometime today.

10:17 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Matthew, this comment here tightened my knickers:

"Right wingers tend to like only the part of the First Amendment that protects the exercise of religion, and typically only as it applies to Christianity, but they often are the first to deny the constitutional rights of "the press" when it comes to situations like this."

As a "Christian" and a right winger I resnet the absurd generality. Particularly coming from a "journalist" who deleted my 'comments' defending Mr. Smith's Constitutionally guaranteed private property rights against your employer, the 4th St. monster.
However, I've forgiven you because we are, as you've mentioned, all flawed, and consequently in need of redemption and forgiveness.

10:22 AM  
Blogger M. said...

Bob--
I didn't delete anything of yours. A while back I refused to post some of your more ridiculous insults, but that's my option. I didn't delete anything that was posted regarding Mr. Smith's property rights.

I don't know what you're squawking about anyhow. Kent State purchased the building from Mr. Smith for the purpose of tearing it down. As far as I'm concerned, the university paid him way more money than the property was worth and also paid for the razing costs. Smith made out very well. So what's your beef?

Lastly, I'm so glad you have forgiven me. Otherwise, I couldn't stand the guilt.

10:28 AM  
Blogger bud said...

Bob, Kent State East Liverpool Campus has been providing quality education to the tri state for more than thirty years. A good many of the graduates would not have been able to afford another school of Kents caliber if they had to leave the area. For you to refer to KSUELC as the Fourth Street Monster shows to me and anyone else who read your comment that there is no limit to your ignorance. You need to wise up and grow up and shut up.

10:49 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

bud, thanks for your comments.
Only a complete moron such as yourself, no doubt a KSU graduate, would refer to one of our combat veterans as someone who "... looks like another theiving, lying, double dipping hack to me." But, perhaps, you were referring to that paragon of virtue, who did so much for da workin' people of East Liverpool, Charlie Wilson.

Matthew, I was referring to your refusal to publish my rebuttal to your defense of KSU and my stand in defending Mr. Smith's property rights which you failed to defend, something of a shock to me considering you made your living within the context of the 1st Amendment. I beleive you also refused to post another, similar, comment

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Yes Us Can said...

Bob - Get off your high-horse. Bud was obviously speaking in a political context. Not once did he disparage Johnson's military service. That's the Republican's domain. See: Kerry, John; Cleland, Max; Sestak, Joe;

And let's not pretend that each and every person serving in the military is a high character individual. There are liars, thieves and hacks in every profession. For instance, Charlie Rangel was a Korean War hero. But, given the D in front of his name, I gurantee you would say he's a lying, thieving hack. Correct?

Therefore, let me preemptively say that only a complete moron such as yourself, no doubt a high school dropout, would think such a thing about one of our combat veterans.

3:00 PM  
Blogger bud said...

Bob, You are welcome you earned them. Combat veteran or not does not change my mind about Rep. Elect Johnson.As for Rep. Wilson I don't know if he is a double dipper or not.

3:32 PM  
Anonymous Comment on Comment said...

What exactly do you mean by double dipper?

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

هذا هو مثل رائع الموارد المفيدة التي كنت توفير وتعطيه مجانا غائبة مقابل. أحب رؤية المواقع التي فهم قيمة توفير الموارد نوعية مفيدة مجانا. ذلك؟ ق القديم ما يدور حولها ويأتي البرنامج.

10:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home