Slashdot Mirror
US Military Designates Julian Assange an "Enemy of State"
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.'"
Can drone-strike him, with impunity, then?
America. It just keeps getting more like a bad Harlan Ellison story.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
We seem to like waging war on vaporous enemies don't we?
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
For a country that prides itself on freedom of speech - they like to tell people to shut up.
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.
after Obama yesterday's utopian freedom of speech speech at the UN.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
.. 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.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
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.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
America is very guilty of war crimes by now.
zosxavius photography
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.
I am officially gone from
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 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.
So the rules are:
1) Out an undercover spy (Valerie Plame) and directly or indirectly causing the death and/or compromising of countless intelligence sources -> Penalty = nothing
2) Out the US government's dirty laundry list -> Penalty = being set up for the death penalty...either officially or through a drone strike
I think Jon Stewart was right...anyone wishing to create a Constitution for their country should use ours...we aren't using it...
TWICE. Never though I'd be a terrorist supporter so soon. I'm so fucking proud of myself.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
He already is.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
Yes, it is a sad state of affairs when US will have to chose between a complete moron and a war criminal.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
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.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
Of course you're "allowed" to mention it. At most you'll suffer a negative moderation. Even that you can combat by showing evidence.
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 and the massive disproportion in wealth in the US 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?
America is very guilty of war crimes by now.
No, just the USA.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
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? 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.
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.
No, Hitler's big mistake was invading the Soviet Union. Western Europe was a sideshow compared to the Eastern front.