I'm not familiar with any invasion that was "legally justifiable" including the Allied invasions of France, Italy, North Africa, various islands in the Pacific, or many more that took place in the 1940's. Some countries thought these military operations were justified, others did not.
The military operations in the early 20th century that were undertaken by the US did have a declaration of war to back them up so they were "legal" in the US. There haven't been any such declarations since then so does that mean that military operations in Korea were illegal, making the Allied soldiers who fought there murderers as well?
The famous saying by Clauswitz, "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means," pretty much puts armed conflict in the hands of the diplomats, not the lawyers. Agree or not, it's reality.
Being a good libertarian, I agree 100% with what you said about statism and the inherent untrustworthiness of governments, but keeping military information under wraps during a war is not statism.
If I remember my history correctly, there were, for example, many military secrets kept by those founding fathers during the war between the American Colonies and the British Empire. Some of ours were almost sold to the British military by one of our more capable generals, Benedict Arnold, who had won several battle for the US, some of which took place in what is today Quebec and Ontario.
The US Constitution was supposed to prevent the mission creep of which you write, but unfortunately, in my opinion, this hasn't been enforced by the citizens. Maybe we'll head back in that direction soon...
BTW - I'm from a state that borders a couple of your provinces. You guys make good beer!
Mr. Assange and Wikileaks, a non-US organization, have decided that they do not agree with certain US governmental actions and have also decided to bypass the system set up within the US legal system for relief.
That is because they are not subject to US law. Just as a cartoonist in a non-Muslim country is not subject to a law in some Muslim country making it a crime to draw a cartoon of Mohammad. But I suppose you would disagree with that too.
Just because Mr. Assange and Wikileaks are operating outside the jurisdiction of the US doesn't mean that they can't use the US legal system to remedy a situation that they don't like. The US does allow non-citizens and foreign companies to file suit.
This is no more censorship than any other responses made to previous espionage cases.
The hell it isn't. Yeah, I know your type. Go take a hike.
espionage: "the practice of gathering, transmitting, or losing through gross negligence information relating to the defense of [a nation] with the intent that or with reason to believe that the information will be used to the injury of [that nation] or the advantage of a foreign nation." (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 15 Oct. 2010)
...And Beck gets to ridicule the guy who made the videos just as most of the comments to this blog ridicule him. That's not the point.
I think the discussion started out about his lack of knowledge about "fair use". If he's right (and quite often he has his facts right, it's just that his conclusions are often not on target) about federal funding going to an organization that promotes videos such as this, that would be bad, regardless of the argument about "fair use".
It's not only Beck. From Rupert Murdoch on down, News Corp (and it's Fox subsidiaries) seem to have a problem understanding fair use, copyrights, trademarks, etc...