to all the talk radio neocon fools who say Julian Assange should be put to death for treason, Jesse Ventura makes a very good point…
you cannot commit treason unless you’re a citizen of this country, correct?
Sure, but then they just accuse you of spying.
It’s tragic how the messenger is invariably the one who gets shot. It’s also tragic that there doesn’t seem to be much of a public backlash against the very things the government was going.
“It’s tragic how the messenger is invariably the one who gets shot.”
news companies have whistleblowers as sources all the time…and they don’t get shot…
news companies have whistleblowers as sources all the time…and they don’t get shot…
Perhaps I should clarify; I was using it as an expression, not literally. There might be some truth that the government is coming down hard on wikileaks b/c it’s not an American outlet, but I think the real irritant behind this whole thing is that it caught the government off guard. Most of the articles critiquing government go after specific politicians or just knock wasteful spending, as if government spending wasn’t inherently wasteful to begin with. The State Department didn’t see this coming and it makes the Administration look bad, which is half of the reason for the gov’t uproar. The other half is because Republicans are using this as an outlet to keep the cameras fixed on them so they can keep plugging their own nonsense.
Unfortunately there is precedent for prosecuting a foreignor acting outside the US under the 1917 Espionage Act.
Technically it’s for spying rather than treason, but whatever. Assange’s only hope is that he doesn’t get extradited, which he wouldn’t if he were in a country which wasn’t a glorified American missile base, but there’s nothing one can do about that now.
I suppose in theory the state is supposed to prove that Wikileaks harmed the operations of the US Armed Forces beyond reasonable doubt, but I get the impression the state courts will find in the state’s favour. Just a hunch.
Sometimes they do. It depends on whether they get caught. Most newspaper sources are smart enough to keep their whistleblowing secret and anonymous, but that’s not how a man gets laid, is it Mr Assange?
Yes, you cannot commit treason unless you are a citizen. But… how often do governments bother with such fancy things as following their own rules? How often are those same rules changed on the go (or ad personam) to suit the needs and whims of the moment? At the moment I don’t believe the US will ask for extradiction on charges of treason or spying, mostly because it would turn in a lenghty and embarassing (for the US and the EU) legal struggle. I believe attempts will be made discrediting Assange (see the recent allegations of having been received money from Israel to delete some documents) while trying to downplay the whole thing. I personally believe in the end he’ll be disgraced and forgotten.
Much more dangerous is what could happen to the Internet in the wake of the WikiLeaks saga, But that’s another matter completely.
Greenwald explained they cannot get him with espionage, wikileaks is doing basically investigative journalism. They can only get Manning probably.
There is no such thing as a citizen. Check out Marc Stevens.
Those who declare that a non-citizen can be accused of treason are just plain ignorant. You have to be a member of a nation before you can betray it. PFC Manning, however, is probably screwed, since he is not only a citizen of the U.S., but took a formal oath to defend it, and fully understood what he was doing. A firing squad, in my opinion, would be a military death, and thus too good for him. If there’s any justice, he’ll spend the rest of his life as Johnny Walker’s bitch, but I digress.
Let me further digress and explain the whole matter in non-government terms. If you work for Coca Cola and decide to steal their secret formula, you are committing a crime. Pure and simple. You might think Coke tastes like crap, that it is unhealthy, or that is a useless product. You may hate the fact that they changed the formula, then changed it back, but still not quite the same as before. You may disagree with Coke’s business plan, their treatment of their employees, the fact that they and Pepsi form a worldwide cartel structure that corners the soft drink market and squeezes out all competition, leaving the distributers of its products virtual slaves to its whims, using its leverage to influence all related commerce, forcing people to buy its products if they want anything at all.
Where was I…?
The point is that the secret formula was produced by Coca Cola and belongs to that company alone. If you steal it, you are not a whistleblower, you are a thief. If you publish the formula on the internet, you are not exercising First Amendment rights, you are violating Coke’s patent and copyright.
Screw that- everything the US government does they do in OUR name with OUR money. Stealing from coke is wrong because they don’t force people to buy coke or go to jail. The analogy is terrible.
If theres any justice, he would be freed and people would celebrate him as a national hero that wanted to bring some truth out. Why would you want a man who risked everything to bring people the truth to be punished for life? Nothing he released endangers anyone because the US gov’t endangers themselves with their actions
Especially since the US gov’t members constantly talk of us being a democratic nation, by the people for the people- and all that. Then the people should know what they’re doing above all else.
Free speech and open societies do not include the right to steal secret information. Te point was that property is property, however much you disagree with its owner. If George Washington had allowed his battle plans to be captured, or if he’d not had his extensive spy network, we’d all be drinking tea through crooked teeth right now.
Free speech and open societies do not include the right to steal secret information
In an open society with free speech who decides what should be deemed a secret. If you commit a crime you want to keep it a secret. If the FBI discovers your secret you would be exposed publicly. If the FBI or the State Dept. commits crimes they are state secrets. You would be imprisoned for exposing their crimes. The founding fathers didn’t trust government the way you do. That’s why they established a system of checks and balances. It’s no accident that freedom of speech is the first amendment.
I do not trust the Government, but I do know the Government. It’s not that they would not conspire against individual citizens if they could, but they are far too disorganized to do so. There are not CIA assassination squads who silence U.S. citizens because they know too much, or secret prisons for enemies of the state. I am so tired of people treating this fruit like he’s some kind of hero trying to bring down the system. Manning’s aim was to commit a crime, not to expose one.
Tell that to JFK. Try black sites.
If he did it, he is a hero. His crime was exposing the truth. I don’t know what kind of free and open society you envision, but truth telling is essential if people are to be informed enough to make good decisions.
How do you know?
I, and many others, believe patents and copyrights are illegitimate, so that portion of your argument doesn’t sway me. Manning is in trouble, and rightly so to some degree (but murdering him would be an injustice and disproportional). However, publishing the information is not a crime (in the true sense).
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” - 18 U.S.C. §2381.
A person does not have to be a legal citizen of the United States (whether you agree on the concept of citizen as legitimate or not). Owing allegiance to the United States is what is called for. Nationality, or lack of nationality, have nothing to do with it.
Summary of Specifics of the Espionage Act as written into 18 U.S.C. Chapter 37:
791. [Repealed.]
792. Harboring or concealing persons.
793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid
foreign government.
795. Photographing and sketching defense installations.
796. Use of aircraft for photographing defense
installations.
797. Publication and sale of photographs of defense
installations.
798. Disclosure of classified information.
798A. Temporary extension of section 794.
799. Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
I would argue that classified information is intellectual property. If you are against IP, then you should be against classified information. That same truth applies to trade secrets. The topic of IP has been covered on the Mises Institute website and in these forums.
Journalists have been protected by the U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment in publishing classified information provided to them. To be granted such protection, they must be a third party. For this reason, the United States Department of Justice is attempting to link Assange directly to the act of pulling classified data from U.S. classified servers.
Now, whether Assange has or has not declared allegiance to the United States of America has yet to be proven. I’m almost certain, however, that the U.S. DoJ will make their own determination that he has declared allegiance just by living and breathing.
The danger we are witnessing is the attempt by the U.S. Government to deny 1st Amendment rights to those exercising freedom of speech. Of course a lot of us here really aren’t surprised that the State would violate their own constitution, especially by those who also believe it’s a living, breathing document.
To clarify allegiance:
Lysander Spooner addresses this subject in his essay No Treason II. I cite part III of this essay because he writes directly to the point that “Treason Requires Breach of Allegiance.”
The U.S. Constitution does not define “allegiance”, and it’s for precisely this reason the State can manipulate their own statutes to such a degree.
The second great abuse being witnessed in the present Assange case is the attempt by the U.S. Government to bind men to their allegiance without consent.
Consent is not necessary for allegiance. Assange was never an american, so he cannot be a traitor.