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.'"

46 of 805 comments (clear)

  1. So I suppose Obama by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."
    1. Re:So I suppose Obama by Todd+Palin · · Score: 5, 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?

    2. Re:So I suppose Obama by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He already -can- drone strike him with impunity: who's going to charge Obama with anything? If we even question His Droniness, we're interrogated as to why we hate America, and put on a list of potential drone targets.

      Love the Ellison reference: "At which time he merely sang a song about moonlight in a place no one had ever heard of, called Vermont, and vanished again."

    3. Re:So I suppose Obama by jcr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      who's going to charge Obama with anything?

      Certainly not any Ruling Party politician. Obama let Bush's torturers walk, so it would seem that there's an agreement between the Ruling Party brands to let each other's crimes go unpunished.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:So I suppose Obama by Atzanteol · · 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.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    5. Re:So I suppose Obama by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have to, or they'd all hang..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:So I suppose Obama by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They are basically just two turds in the same cesspool."

      FTFY.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:So I suppose Obama by jhoegl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If telling the truth is terrorism and considered a "war crime", then holy fuck I am screwed.
      Jullian did less, and had less effect on the war than that jackass hate preacher that burned the Koran.

    8. Re:So I suppose Obama by Genda · · 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 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.

    9. Re:So I suppose Obama by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not just in foreign countries. There are still some questions about this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell

    10. Re:So I suppose Obama by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm more "anti-Republican" than I am "pro-Democrat," but I didn't see an immediate repeal of the PATRIOT Act after Obama was inaugurated, and was greatly disappointed that he not only didn't pursue justice for Bush and Cheney, but continued the warrantless wiretapping initiative. At this point, I see Obama as a slightly darker skin toned, slightly lesser evil Bush. In both senses, there's only shades of difference between them, and America is not better off for it.

    11. Re:So I suppose Obama by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Even if he was a US citizen.

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

      --
      This space available.
    12. Re:So I suppose Obama by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, Bush was the worst on this. Until Obama.
      Bush never asserted the right to have US citizens killed at his own discretion (though I doubt that his not claiming that right would have stopped him.)

      Obama DOES assert that right. That is an escalation.

      (R) or (D) is not a factor here. It's just that what is, is.

      --
      This space available.
    13. Re:So I suppose Obama by ToadProphet · · 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.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
  2. Stay far away from him... by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    1. Re:Stay far away from him... by dkleinsc · · 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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Stay far away from him... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Stay far away from him... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Not the military's job. by jcr · · 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.

    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."
    1. Re:Not the military's job. by Mitreya · · 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.

    2. Re:Not the military's job. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Not the military's job. by khallow · · 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?

    4. Re:Not the military's job. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Not the military's job. by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    6. Re:Not the military's job. by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      The damage the government is doing to individual freedoms and civil rights both within US and abroad by trying to "protect" its people from evil terrorists is by far worse than anything the terrorists could have done.

  4. Imagine that.. by GigaBurglar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a country that prides itself on freedom of speech - they like to tell people to shut up.

    1. Re:Imagine that.. by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

  5. Fascist America by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fascist America by ShieldW0lf · · 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.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  6. ironic by hype7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    after Obama yesterday's utopian freedom of speech speech at the UN.

  7. Interesting by PPH · · 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.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  8. Freedom of Speech is such a smokescreen. by TigerPlish · · 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.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  9. Re:US Military? by Mitreya · · 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.

  10. I donated to Wikileaks by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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*
  11. imprisoned indefinitely without trial by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He already is.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While it's fun to think that China's got a stranglehold on the US, the truth is the economies are so intertwined and dependent upon each other neither side would do anything other that a futile bit of posturing now and again for press points. The Federal Reserve holds most of the US government's debt, not China. So the "doomsday" scenario about China "cashing in" on US debt is unfounded as well, but hey, it sells newspapers I guess. (China has about 8% iirc.)

      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 /. (well most of us). We can see through the 24-hour news cycle hype machine. Are there problems? Absolutely. But let's not get ahead of ourselves... that's all I'm saying.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    2. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by sumdumass · · 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.

    3. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by mwvdlee · · 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.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by thej1nx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I will grant that your analysis is correct as things stand currently. But that kind of short-term thinking is the problem in the first place, isn't it? Intertwined dependent economies just mean that your ability to protect your interests in Asia is heavily compromised. If you actually took any real action whatsoever against China, your economy is toast. They will survive without you regardless, even if they will damage themselves too in the process. I mean isn't this exactly what happened in World war 2? USA was actually supplying Germany for its war machinery and let it grow unchecked. It just stood by and watched, till Germany actually became a serious potential threat. And now you want to do the same thing all over again with China. I mean most of the countries in Asia are already aligned to China, with exception of India, Japan and Korea. And if China starts a war against either, your only real option left is now to either do a Kamikaze with your economy or just let China do whatever it want, in order to buy some more time, at end of which USA status will simply be same as that of Japan, in relation to USA... an unofficial province/lackey. The real solution was to play the good guy card to marshal world support against China, and to shield your economy from Chinese influence. And you guys have already failed on both ends. You do have the option to wait till the end. But problem is that it will by then, be too late and just that for you... the end.

    5. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by The+Rizz · · 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...

    6. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by Xest · · 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.

    7. Re:imprisoned indefinitely without trial by myowntrueself · · 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.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  12. 100 years of war by OrangeTide · · 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.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. Re:The US Constitution is not a suicide pact by Mitreya · · 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.

  14. Re:Another one... by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The vaporous enemy in this case is not Julian Assange, it is anyone who releases the truth. This is a declaration of war on all whistle blowers, a message to people all over the world, should you release the truth about the United States of America, the United States of America, corruptly and with full intent to pervert the course of justice, will hunt you down, not just for what you have done but as a continued reminder for others.

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

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

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

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

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  15. China isn't a real military threat. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!