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 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
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.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
If they believe they can get away with illegal activities and blindly attempt to maim / capture / kill someone or someone(s) purely on the basis that they had the gall to stand up to them, and expose them for the mewling pieces of shit that they are, then they have become the enemies of this nation. They have become the terrorist organization they were supposed to defend this country from.
It's time for the leaders of the armed forces involved in this, along with the leaders of the FBI that were illegally and immorally entrapping citizens in fake terrorist plots designed and developed by the FBI to be arrested and sent to gitmo with no chance or hope of appeal or parole, or just line them up for summary execution, whichever is easiest and fastest. That is the only way we can re-secure out country.
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.
.. 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.
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 know this meme is a slashdot staple, but I wonder how long it'll be before we'll say, "In post-9/11 America, $X does you!" and it won't be hyperbole.
Article 104 is NOT restricted to the military, the army can arrest anyone under Article 104:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm
"Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission. "
What they're doing is to say "deal with Wikileaks and you're an enemy of the state", which is aimed at journalists publishing the leaks surely? This is an official leak, i.e. the kind the US Military does when it wants to send a message out. Assange isn't the leaker here, he's just a journalist in the chain. The major distribution is the 100s of newspapers who publish the leaks.
Gee, why not just make fake rape charges or something like they usually do?
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.
This is my first post on slashdot since I felt compelled to respond. I am surprised that this is the only post so far that is critical of both the US military and Wikileaks. Everyone seems to think that Assange could do no wrong, and that Wikileaks is a saint for revealing unto us the corruption of the government. I for one, am more skeptical. While I will agree with most comments about our government and its over reaching and almost tyrannical military and political prowess. There are some things that I don't want posted. I understand the importance of secrecy and of believing one thing but doing another. For instance, a know a good friend of mine is against homosexuality (rare where I am from), but he still votes for equal rights. If you leak his personal emails you might see his bigotry, but didn't the new batman teach us anything? It's not what you say, but what you do that defines you. And thus I think wikileaks has done wrong in some cases. Should he be an enemy of the state? No. But he shouldn't be considered some saint either. Some information should be kept classified and/or personal. In this day and age surely people can understand the importance of privacy.
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.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
We are not required to give free speech to citizens of foreign nations who leak diplomatic confidential communiques and battle plans.
They are not calling assange an "enemy of the state". They are calling him an enemy of the United States. It doesnt mean
the US is going arrest him anymore than the US would arrest an Iranian military attache. It just means now that US government
employees and military personnel who leak information to him would be committing a crime.
Leaking information to legitimate journalists regarding specific wrongdoing is protected , whats not protected is wholesale information dumps
regardless of sensitivity of the information or any sort of legitimate public interest.
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.
How are things in Russia?
You can't complain.
What's the biggest problem with Russia?
You can't complain.
It is also claimed that he is adept at voodoo and has his own personal zombie army. Sources indicate that his zombie forces are closely allied with organized werewolf and vampire cadres who are planning a global coup intended to bring the Apocalypse, institute the rule of Satan on earth, and overthrow heaven.
Plus, his mother dresses him funny.
Why is Snark Required?
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!
Link
Assange mocks Obama via video at U.N. event
UNITED NATIONS | Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:24pm EDT (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
As much as I believe that Manning is a traitor (and should be executed), Assange and wikileaks are NOT in the same arena. Basically, Manning is not just an American citizen, but also took an oath. Just to get back at the USA over our military policy towards gays, he released all sorts of document that threaten ALL Americans.
But, Assange/Wikileaks are not us citizens/located in America. Assange has not taken a loyality oath to America. The list goes on and on. There is no reason to list either of them as the enemies. At worse, Assange/wikileaks are serving as a fence of stolen info.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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?
I'm in the army but I also host an alias on my domain that points to wikileaks' site and a 301 redirect as well.
I've also got wikileaks' facebook page liked.
Julian Assange is a hero, and eventually will be seen at large as one. Exactly like Daniel Ellsberg was at first hated, condemned for the "pentagon papers" leak during Vietnam, but is now seen as a hero.
come and track my ip and figure out who I am Uncle Sam
China can out number us 10 to 1, but without the ability to project power with a blue water navy and air superiority, who cares? Give them all the guns in the world and if they are still limited to Eastern Asia it is basically meaningless. China will not invade Japan, because the US will get involved. They also will not invade Taiwan for the same reason. This is also why the US will not get involved in the Chinese occupation of Tibet.The tech edge isn't the only edge, they have a LOT of tech. China might be pouring money into its military, but they are probably decades behind the US in military tech and infrastructure and the US isn't standing still. As demonstrated in Kuwait and Iraq, superior numbers and dated tech do not win wars. Besides, China isn't interested in engaging in forign adventures, they have a HUGE population they need to keep happy. China has a tradition of violent insurrections overthrowing governments, and they are quite happy pretending to be 'communists' with a growing, rich middle class.
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.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Meanwhile, Julian Cook, professor of international news stories at Reading University, explained: "Everyone that America has been spying on would have already assumed that America was spying on them and if they didn't then they are even more cretinous than these leaks confirm them to be."
He added: "Nevertheless, the point about Wikileaks undermining the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would have some validity, if only it wasn't such a humongous vat of liquidised monkey-shit from start to finish.
"Because - and you might want to write this down and keep it somewhere safe - the key thing that has undermined the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is them firing their big fucking guns at Iraqis and Afghans.
"And of course that is usually on the orders of weasely little inadequates with penis issues who like to keep everything secret in a bid to make their imaginary cocks even bigger."
But sources at the Ministry of Defence confirmed that Professor Cook's comments had already put lives at risk in Belgium and Ecuador, adding: "And of course, he's also a rapist".
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
His Oath was to obey LAWFUL ORDERS. The UCMJ gives latitude for disobeying UNLAWFUL ORDERS. As does every other military code. Knowing complicity in the cover up of a crime is the obedience of an UNLAWFUL ORDER, one that I hope gives Manning room for mitigation.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
The article uncannily reminds me of this Schlock Mercenary comic, about the somewhat fuzzy line between journalists and spies. If the state considers Julian Assange an enemy, and Julian works to the benefit of the general public, does this make the state an enemy of the public ?
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Perhaps you left out Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, and Philippines with no special love for China in Indonesia either.
...friend of democracy. And the implications of that bother the hell out of me.
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.
1) WikiLeaks is an enemy of the United States.
2) WikiLeaks works to foster and encourage openness and transparency.
3) Does the United States consider openness and transparency its enemies?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Julian Assange HAS ALWAYS BEEN Emmanuel Goldstein.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
...and the FBI has no interest in making domestic terrorism a high-profile issue by exaggerating both the intent and abilities of 'terrorists'.
If every domestic terrorist plot foiled by the 'war on terror' had instead been wildly successful, where would we be?
Well, we'd be pretty vulnerable to threats like these from the Heritage Foundation paper listed above:
"He was arrested for conspiring to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge"
"His plans, according to authorities, were to kill President Bush and then establish an al-Qaeda cell in
the United States, with himself as the head."
"The JIS allegedly planned to finance its operations by robbing gas stations."
"Derrick Shareef was arrested on charges of planning to set off hand grenades in a shopping mall outside Chicago."
"Four men plotted to blow up “aviation fuel tanks and pipelines at the John F. Kennedy International Airport” in New York City. They believed that such an attack would cause “greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Authorities stated that the attack “could have caused significant financial and psychological damage, but not major loss of life.""
"Hassan Abujihaad, a former U.S. Navy sailor from Phoenix, Arizona, was convicted of supporting terrorism and disclosing classified information"
Setting aside the dubious competence and unbalanced mental state of the overwhelming majority of plotters, total success above and beyond what a reasonable person would expect given the actual capabilities of these groups would have resulted in negligible damage to society as a whole-- a couple planes bombed and a smattering of minor bombings if everything went perfectly for these disgruntled losers who are already unbalanced enough to be terrorists.
Surprisingly enough, most of these plots were 'revealed' by paid informants with a major financial stake in exhorting their idiot co-conspirators to plan something outrageous enough to warrant FBI attention and major payouts to the informants.
Modern democracies with strong civil society and no significant domestic conflict are inherently resistant to fringe nutbars-- all the 'war on terror' is getting for us is foreign oppression, dramatic restrictions on our own civil liberties, balooning 'security' spending and media scare tactics.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
....copyrighted. Sick 'em, Buena Vista Pictures!