Hide Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'

from the uh...-what? dept

Back when Wikileaks first released some State Department cables, creating quite the uproar among government officials, the Treasury Department was clear that it would not declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization or list Julian Assange as a “Specially Designated National” on the list, because it did not meet the proper criteria. However, a document from the Air Force, released under a Freedom of Information Act request, has revealed that Assange and Wikileaks have been declared “enemies of the US” in a specific investigation into a cyber systems analyst who dared to “express support for Wikileaks” and attended a pro-Wikileaks demonstration. By designating Wikileaks an enemy of the US, the military is effectively declaring that any contact with Wikileaks or its supporters could be deemed “communicating with the enemy” — which can be punished severely (even death). For all sorts of reasons, this seems like a ridiculous and horrific overreaction. Even if you disagree with Wikileaks or how Assange goes about what he does, having the US government declare you an “enemy to the United States” for seeking to increase transparency seems both extreme and completely out of proportion with the reality of the situation.

Meanwhile, Assange himself was able to address the UN via video, in which he lashed out at the hypocrisy of the US government, defending freedom of speech with one breath, while at the same time seeking to bring down Wikileaks.

While it’s no secret that Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed the US, it’s a massive leap to go from that to claiming that it is an “enemy” of the United States. Just doing so could put incredible chilling effects on all sorts of journalists. The idea that leaking relevant and newsworthy information can get you classified as such has incredibly scary implications. It broadens the definition of an “enemy of the state” to ridiculous proportions, and begs to be abused by a government that doesn’t seem to handle embarrassment particularly well. Even if you think Wikileaks goes too far or that Assange himself is an egomaniac, it seems that we should all be quite worried about the implications of declaring him and the organization enemies of the state for merely leaking information that they felt was newsworthy.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Pseudonym (profile) says:

Re: Re:

One key thing that you need to understand about modern governments is that they are not conspiring against anyone. They can’t, because that would require some degree of cooperation, agreement, and competence.

If I’m understanding TFA correctly, the US military has declared Assange an “enemy of the state” for the purposes of deciding who you (as a member of the military) are allowed to talk to. That’s it. They can’t attack Assange on the basis of this ruling, they can only prosecute anyone who works for them and talks to him.

Everyone in the government probably has their own list of bad guys. There are many like it, but this one is theirs.

Anonymous Coward says:

‘i want the truth’

‘you cant handle the truth!’

must admit i am curious as to who is going to hold their hand up and take ‘credit’ for this classification of Wikileaks. it just goes to show the mentality of those in charge of what at least was, the greatest nation on the planet. something happens that deserves to be made public, after using the protection of whistle blowers as one of the original campaign subjects, then drastically penalizes those concerned when it happens. talk about taking the ball home ’cause you’re better at the game than me! unbelievable really.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“why do you people ask for citations from the website we’re currently talking about”

People are asking for citations because you have presented your opinion as fact. They want you to prove your statement to be true, if you believe it is, by providing links to evidence and data supporting your statement.

“Citation needed” is just the common term now for “proof or gtfo”.

“what do you think i’m going to cite, wikipedia?”

No, but you could if you wanted to. As Wikipedia provides links to it’s information, thus “citations” or “citation needed”. And people can then click on said links to go back to the source for the information.

If you have relevant information, that is verified, you can present it. Doesn’t have to be from Wikipedia, it can be from any credible and verified source.

However, the truth is you have no such citations because what you stated is false. Someone has already provided a link from a source much better than you which states there was no damage caused by the Wikileaks leaks. None whatsoever.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It helps if you actually read the article…

Second and third paragraphs:

‘A defense lawyer for US Army private Bradley Manning argued that his client took care to disclose files that would not harm US interests and subsequent government reports have shown no major ?injury? was caused.

But prosecutors countered that the potential harm caused by the disclosures is irrelevant to the court-martial and that Manning committed a crime simply by leaking classified information without permission.’

The government itself isn’t able to prove that the leaks caused any major harm(other than making some high ranking people look less than stellar), and so find themselves having to fall back to ‘it doesn’t matter, because the information was classified anyway’.

You can bet that if they had any verifiable proof of harm caused by the leaks they would be shouting it from the rooftops, as it would make their case a slam-dunk.

greenbird (profile) says:

Re: Re:

may have contributed

They also “may have contributed” to fairies coming out my ass. Although many have dug, no one yet has presented any reasonable evidence supporting either of those that I’m aware of.

In a free and open society anything like Wikileaks would be condoned and supported. Let me explain the reasons why.

First Wikileaks simple allows a channel for people to anonymously release information at least somewhat protected from retribution. The press use to be the channel for allowing this thus the protections for a free press in the US constitution as a check on government for it keeping it free and open. Unfortunately technology is changing the nature of how information is distributed. The main stream media is no longer the primary and exclusive means of distributing information. Because of this disruption of the gatekeeper role the main stream media has held in the past they are pushing the government to pass laws to help them slow down and/or stop the disruptive process. This pretty much negates the “free press” as being free from government interference as intended by it’s constitutional protections. Add to this that even given the protections of the free press provided by the constitution the government has always had at least some limited ability to control the press. Historically they exercised this control often (likely far more often than we are aware of). How justified they were in doing this is no doubt variable and arguable. I have no doubt in many cases there would be a strong case it was justified. I also have no doubt there would be strong arguments in many cases the suppression was bordering on criminal. With Wikileaks they lose all control whether justified or not. In a free and open society, in my mind at least, the occasional release of information that would have been justifiable suppressed is far out weighed (I’ll support this more below) by the suppression of information that exposes at best government inefficiencies or at worse down right criminal behavior by the government.

Now there are occasions where the suppression of information may be justified. The case I’ll make here is that if such information has made it way to Wikileaks most likely the people who could use this information for nefarious purposes already have access to it (unless of course the nefarious purpose is to expose questionable actions by the government). Those people are going to typically be far more motivated to gain access to the information. In a free and open society, although there may be a significant cost, the information leaking to Wikileaks exposes weaknesses in how information is protected. This should allow the government to fix these holes in their security. This also helps fix a governmental problem. Although, again, there may be a cost associated with this it may also allow fixing the security thus eliminating a continuing information leak or an even more costly leak later.

The big problem with the recent documents Wikileaks published isn’t that they “may have contributed to the death of soldiers” but who the government was trying to prevent from seeing those documents. First, given the obscenely piss poor security protecting those documents the information was likely already available to those who could use it to “contributed to the death of soldiers”. Now obviously I have no way of supporting that assertion other than by general assertions as to the ease of which the security measures were circumvented. I will assert though that the primary person the government was trying to prevent from seeing those documents wasn’t people who could use it to “contributed to the death of soldiers” but to the general public who would see many of the questionable things our government was doing. The rather scary part, other than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn’t be trying to hide anything it does. Nothing functional was exposed that I’m aware of and Wikileaks tried to redact any operational information that could have put anyone in danger. And they would have been able do this much more effectively if our supposed “free and open” government had cooperated with Wikileaks in the redaction rather than working to attack them any way they could get away with. Wikileaks didn’t leak the information. They just published it. But it’s much easier to attack the message than to fix the source of the message they brought.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The rather scary part? Other [sic] than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn’t be trying to hide anything it does.”

This is an obvious truism. What does it tell you about a society that calls the only journalist willing to mention the idea a terrorist? I’m telling ya man, scary times are ahead.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“The rather scary part? Other [sic] than operational and functional secrets our military shouldn’t be trying to hide anything it does.”

This is an obvious truism. What does it tell you about a society that calls the only journalist willing to mention the idea a terrorist? I’m telling ya man, scary times are ahead.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It means the military gets to do some extra special things to you. Once designated as a terrorist or associated forces get ready to enjoy:

Indefinite Military Detention (without trial, or even accusation of a specific crime)
Summary Execution (via drone strike as already mentioned or by other means)

Gonna be some interesting times ahead. At this point I’m not sure if our children are really gonna understand all this, but after a few days in the freezer cell I’m sure they will understand.

angrywebmaster (user link) says:

Enemy of the state? yes

Once again people who think Wikileaks is harmless need to talk to those who know better.

I have spoken with people who were literally waiting for the order to terminate Assange. They know just how “harmless” Wikileaks really was. Thanks to Assange people helping the United States were “disappeared” and yes, they were killed.

Now as to the designation.

1) Assange is NOT a United States citizen.
2) Assange has never been in the United States to my knowledge.
3)The Wikileaks servers are not in the United States
4) Assange has NO rights under American law.
5) Because of his releases, he has actively aided and abetted enemies of the United States.

Long story short, he is considered an enemy agent or spy. He can be killed on sight if we so choose. (Won’t happen with the current administration of course)

Those of you attempting to extend United States constitutional rights to those who aren’t U.S. citizens and have never been in the United States totally misunderstand the nature of national sovereignty.

If Assange wants to avoid a visit from Mr. Hellfire, all he needs to do is go to any US embassy and turn himself in. Then he will have certain rights. (Lawyer, trial, etc)

As to the deliberate targeting of U.S. Citizens in foreign countries, according to some lawyers I’ve spoken with, the answer is “It depends.”

In the cases of the two that I know of, (The names escape me), they have definitely committed treason as defined by the United States constitution. (Look it up) They took up arms against the United States Government and gave aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

They became legitimate targets in the same way the Confederate Soldiers were legitimate targets. They could have surrendered themselves and they would have been accorded all the rights of any U.S. citizen.

They didn’t and paid the price of their decisions.

drewbach (profile) says:

Re: Enemy of WHICH state?

For someone who likes to talk about the law, it’s funny how you didn’t talk about WHICH law applies and where.

1. Assange is not a US citizen, but he does NOT live in the US. This is a worthless argument.
2. It’s of no consequence.
4. Valid and relevant point.
4. Assange has no rights under US law? That’s questionable as he’s a non-combatant in a foreign country. The UN Charter of Human Rights applies (Right to Life, Justice etc). The jurisdictional issue is key!
5. He has the right to aid his own interests, he may oppose the US freely – without consequences! The US does not have the right to attack him or detain him abroad. Only if he chooses to visit the US, or can be extradited after having been charged with a [valid] crime (subject to conditions).

You seem to forget that Mr. Hellfire is AN ILLEGAL ALIEN in the UK, Sweden and Australia. You and the US would have NO RIGHTS under their laws to do anything! Did you forget this? It would be an act of WAR! Pakistan is an exception, not the rule.

Your national sovereignty, as you refer to, means nothing in a foreign jurisdiction. The key word being “national”. He has plenty of rights as it stands, you can’t take away rights you have no authority to grant him.

You obviously have no legal degree, and not enough knowledge of international law or human rights.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Enemy of WHICH state?

The US Constitution is pretty miraculously good. Unreasonably effective, indeed. You may not want to make every law sacred — I certainly don’t. But texts are powerful. We need their poetry, authority, and logic. They give cultural and institutional strength to our rightful convictions. You do worse than export the 1st Amendment, for example.

Your_point? says:

Re: Enemy of the state? yes

Thanks to Assange people helping the United States were “disappeared” and yes, they were killed.


Didn’t the people involved understand the risks before taking such a position?

Then he will have certain rights. (Lawyer, trial, etc)

And yet – 1) Assange is NOT a United States citizen.

And as a ‘US Citizen’ my “rights” have been ignored/violated by Judicial officials. Had said official complain about my case being “too much work” and said official would not actually take the time to read the casefile – claimed the conditions for a Default Judgement were not met.

So, exactly, how is Assange to expect a fair and just trial when I can’t get one over an under $5000 a deadbeat did not pay?

M Lauer says:

Assange says he's an enemy

I don’t have the quotes at hand, but Assange states in so many words that he is an enemy of the US. Look it up, in his opinion the US is the evil empire or whatever and he feels it is his job to take us down, his opinion, not mine.

From what I recall, he is not saying that his job is to publish the information, but to achieve a destructive effect. So, when someone declares themselves to be my enemy, I think it prudent to take them at their word and not ignore it.

Jeremy says:

People heard the Treasury department say they would never classify Wikileaks/Assange as a terrorist organization, and they somehow thought this applied to the U.S. government? Why weren’t red flags immediately raised when it was realized this message was coming from a department that has absolutely nothing to do with issues of national defense or foreign policy? Anything the Treasury Department says on this issue would by default be completely meaningless

Jeremy says:

Re: Re: Re:

Then why the correlation between internal DOD documents and the treasury department? The DOD has no authority to influence the Treasury Department decisions, AFAIK. And the DOD, even individual branches of the DOD, can put out notices/bulletins/warnings to any of it’s members of severe consequences for communicating with people it feels are a threat. Simply telling your personnel not to communicate with someone is not the same as declaring them a terrorist.

This is not to say that Assange isn’t being persecuted. But internal memorandum informing personnel of severe consequences for communicating with a known agent of espionage is simply not the same thing as declaring them an enemy of the US.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Not defending or condemining anything about that story you posted. But I will say that it has nothing to do with a branch of the US military establishing a policy of no-communications-allowed with specific organizations or individuals, and then internally prosecuting it’s own associated employees/soldiers/contractors for violating said rule.

Again, this says nothing about whether or not the military or politicians are or are not capable of horrible abuses of power in violation of law. All I’m saying is that branches of government can indeed have internal policies forbidding communication for those who it has effectively established non-disclosure-agreements with, and prosecute violations of those rules.

That is all I see here. I see no evidence that Assange has been officially declared a terrorist or enemy of the U.S. Whether or not Assange actually is being persecuted unjustifiably is a different matter entirely (and frankly that situation existed before).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Assange willingly solicited leakers from the U.S. This is no different from any other spy agency in the world trying to recruit assets in a nation it wishes to gain secret information from.

I agree with Assange’s words on free speech, as I do on Obama’s. If I were in charge, I would not be persecuting Assange as he’s being persecuted. He was the journalist/messenger, not the leaker.

However, Assange is a tremendously arrogant and hypocritical person. The US is hardly the most secretive nation on earth, not even close. Where are wikileaks pages from inside china’s government about China’s military buildup? Where are the wikileaks pages on China’s abuse of it’s own citizens and the systematic way it is done? Where are the pages on what is going on in Russia’s government? Where’s the leaking on improper elections and intimidation in Russia? Assange is deliberately targeting one of the most open nations on earth, you would have to ask him why he does this. He likely has no good answer. Certainly there are plenty of other nations with state secrets that constitute greater violations of human rights than the US has, but Assange is fixated on America.

Ask yourself why that is. Is it perhaps because Russia and China would actually spend money/effort to kill Julian to shut him up whereas the US would just try to imprison him? To me, that seems quite likely. He’s a man operating like a spy agency, without the backing of any government, and he’s somehow surprised with being hung out to dry by everyone? He’s probably lucky someone in Russia didn’t leak anything serious on his site, or he’d certainly have been disappeared by now.

Again, I would never persecute Assange. But if I were in charge, I would try to prevent him from ever getting secrets from my nation. If that meant telling everyone with clearances that they are forbidden from speaking to wikileaks, so be it.

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Assange willingly solicited leakers from the U.S. This is no different from any other spy agency in the world trying to recruit assets in a nation it wishes to gain secret information from.

I paraphrase:
The New York Times willingly solicited whistleblowers from a company. This is no different from any other news agency in the world trying to recruit assets in a company it wishes to gain secret information from.

You miss one crucial bit: Public. So they would solicit “spies” for the public (which, by the way, includes you)?

I repeat here what would really work:

Fixing the problem would be minimizing the amount of people who have access to classified material. Since they tend to over-classify, nobody can work without that classified-access, so there’s a huge amount of people who need that access.

The only rational course would be the declassify 90% of what gets classified right now, since it’s not really important. And for the rest, you would not have to give 2 Million people access, but maybe only 50’000, so the chance of leaks would be very much lower.

But bureaucracies don’t really work like that, since bureaucrats get power over other bureaucrats when classifying things. So everyone classifies and thus ever more people need access to that material…

Another AC says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

internal memorandum informing personnel of severe consequences for communicating with a known agent of espionage is simply not the same thing as declaring them an enemy of the US.

Semantics. In the same sentence he’s a “known agent of espionage” but he’s “not a terrorist”. Yet the consequences of being either are the same for anyone that talk to him.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Semantics. In the same sentence he’s a “known agent of espionage” but he’s “not a terrorist”. Yet the consequences of being either are the same for anyone that talk to him.

No. You say “anyone” meaning anyone in the world, but that simply is not true. When you sign a non-disclosure agreement with an entity, they generally can ask you not to talk to certain people they are in competition with. Asking DOD personnel or those granted clearances not to talk to Assange or wikileaks personnel is simply not the same thing as you are talking about. You’re exaggerating in a paranoid fashion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

What about whistleblowing? Some of the leaked “secrets” to Wikileaks were just that–whistleblowing. Non-disclosure agreements can be helpful, but that doesn’t mean one should ignore the illegal activities of one’s organization. Whistleblowing is an effective means to stopping said activities.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

If the US citizens want protection for whistleblowers in the military, they are free and perhaps even encouraged to solicit such legislation from their elected representatives. But lets be real here, the military operates a certain way, and no one is forced to work for them. They aren’t nice to people who violate their secrets, but neither is any other federal entity. The only people who were instructed not to talk to wikileaks were people who willingly forfeited the right to speak on certain subjects, that was their choice.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

That is all well and good, but does not change that they should still be free to point out criminal actions. We want people to report illegal activity. We have a right to know what the government (and by extension, the military) is doing in our name. Especially when what they are doing is explicitly illegal or downright evil.

Another AC says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You’re making incorrect assumptions about what I said. I said ‘anyone’ meaning anyone in the DOD. So we are in fact talking about the same thing.

It’s also funny that you claim I’m exaggerating yet I’m using your exact words. I don’t think ‘exaggerating ‘ means what you think it means.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

So you care whether or not 1% of the US population who willingly applied for clearances (and hence gave up some freedom) has to follow a rule not to talk to Wikileaks or lose their clearances + jobs? This is some heinous violation of freedom of speech/due-process/find-a-right to you? If so, your priorities are screwed up.

You need to be clear when you’re making points, or you’ll come off like the idiot you came off as.

Another AC says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

First of all, your 1% is probably off, it’s likely way less than 1%.

Second, yes following a rule my boss just added to not talk to someone who is pointing out how corrupt and unethical my boss is, is in fact a heinous violation likely many rights and certainly ethics.

The fact that talking to them could mean indefinite jail time (which would be against the law) and/or death in this circumstance only makes the ‘heinous violation’ that much more egregious.

But I don’t really need to mention those facts because you resorted to name calling, which means you’ve run out of arguments and I win. Thanks!

Now that I’ve won, I’ll end with the suggestion that maybe you need to be more open minded, because you are coming off as a close-minded idiot who doesn’t seem to understand the topic under discussion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Second, yes following a rule my boss just added to not talk to someone who is pointing out how corrupt and unethical my boss is, is in fact a heinous violation likely many rights and certainly ethics.

The fact that talking to them could mean indefinite jail time (which would be against the law) and/or death in this circumstance only makes the ‘heinous violation’ that much more egregious.

Did you agree to not discuss certain topics outside of work on pain of prosecution for violating federal laws when you took the job? If you agreed to such a thing, you should honor that agreement, shouldn’t you? You should also expect consequences when you blow the whistle, and be willing to pay those consequences to enact positive change in the world. It’s called civil disobedience for a reason, it’s not “get-out-of-agreement-and-jailtime-because-ends-justify-means disobedience”.

you resorted to name calling…

Actually no, I didn’t call you anything. You read that in because you’re just incapable of seeing anything in color. Black and white is fine if you want to be an extremist, but it wins you no points when dealing with reality. Enjoy your ignorance.

Anonymous Coward says:

Once again, Mike overreacts to the government overreacting.

“The idea that leaking relevant and newsworthy information can get you classified as such has incredibly scary implications.”

What he leaked was classified information which he knew was classified. This isnt about transparancy or freedom of speech. Anybody who has or gets access to classified information and leaks it is an enemy.

If your best friend told all of your secrets would you defend it as freedom of sppech or call it transparancy? No, he would become your enemy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Your appeal to authority in an attempt to prove your point is quite cowardly. You assume that just because a person in power has deemed something as “classified” that it should be kept secret. The only acceptable reason for the government to keep information secret is to protect people from harm. (i.e. keep the identities of secret agents hidden) The documents released by wikileaks contain information about how the government functions, information which is essential to a meaningful democracy. They should never have been classified in the first place.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Does it make it right when one if your ambassadors dies because of the information he releases? Great Henry Kissinger’s Ghost Batman!!!! If that information gets out in an unstable region where people are dumb enough to think ambassadors are there to force US policies on others, the very lives of those ambassador’s would die for something they never did!!!!

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

One, it’s been pointed out here that no one died due to this information being released.

Two, in your hypothetical, there is a deeper problem then releasing embarrassing documents. Those people got that idea for a reason and declaring war on everything and classifying everyone as enemies of the state won’t fix that. If our government was doing what it should have been doing, people wouldn’t think that of us.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This again? It’s already been proven that NO ONE has died from any of the information released.

Secondly, you’re going off on an insane hypothetical. Hey, Wally, what if tomorrow some guy you pissed off years ago decides to pump you full of lead when you leave your house? Are you going to stay in all day or maybe just go about your business? You don’t know, he could be there, I bet you’ve pissed off people with your silliness.

See how that works?

There are tons of “unstable” regions around the world already. If they’re unstable right now and as is, I doubt a little bit of mostly irrelevant information is going to make anything worse. Your hypothetical scenario notwithstanding.

People die every day though. When you start pouring your bleeding heart out for every single death happening right at this moment, I personally might care. But this [points at your comment] is just a bit much and just an attempt to further sling mud at Julian Assange and Wikileaks. The evidence is greatly against you. When government reports are out saying “no harm has been done, no deaths can be attributed” you’ve effectively lost the argument and only look foolish.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You’re wrong on this. Sometimes revealing classified information reveals what our intelligence capabilities are. Our adversaries come to understand that we have solid intel on their weapons program or their own intel assets. Then they cover their tracks and do their dark deeds and we end up with an unpleasant surprise. Stick with your job at Wal Mart, this shit is way past you.

Anonymous Coward says:

The original article kicking off this stupidity debunks all of this.


He was called an enemy indirectly during an investigation into an analyst for leaking information. The analyst was fired, no charges were laid. A couple prosecutors being creative with charges is not exactly what I’d call the U.S. government declaring someone an enemy of the state.

Wally (profile) says:

Jesus H. Christ on Earth, when are the large majority of you going to learn that Assange doesn’t just post “Embarrassing News” on WikiLeaks. Some of you forget he releases what HE considers newsworthy. This includes Ebassador Estimated Times of Arival. He’s put US Ambassadors and Ambassadors of other nations lives in danger….notice how many bombings are happening at Ebassy’s throughout the Middle East? He’s an enemy of the state not due to embarrassment at all, but bevause he has broken several international espionage laws put forth by the Geneva Convention. The US isn’t the only country that has him on their shit-list and to say that he shouldn’t be an enemy of the state for endangering US dignitaries and US soil is highly misguided and wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Well Wally, I regret to inform you that some of those international laws, or better said ALL, mentioned in the Geneva Convention DO NOT apply to Julian Assange.

Now, before you get in an uproar and further make a fool of yourself, let me explain why.

Those laws pertain to, and ONLY to, soldiers. Julian Assange is not a soldier of any country, as such he cannot violate the protocols and what have you addressed specifically in the Geneva Convention.

Also, he is NOT an enemy of the state. Your beliefs not withstanding. Putting information online is just that. Putting information online.

Also, that you try and conflate attacks on U.S. Embassies in the Middle East with Wikileaks and what Assange has published is a bit much. This topic has already been discussed and covered a ridiculous amount, but most of the attacks happening lately stem from that video that was on Youtube. NOT Wikileaks/Julian Assange.

Maybe you weren’t aware of it, but a lot of countries don’t like the United States. So just being an ambassador for the country while working out of a hostile country is dangerous, yet again you seem to overlook that fact to go on a further tirade and attempt to lay the danger Ambassadors and embassy staff face on a daily basis at the feet of Assange.

Sorry, but in this case you’re very much in the wrong. Now, you’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t try and conflate issues or misrepresent what is actually in the Geneva Convention, because it only applies to A. countries who voluntarily agreed to abide by what is stated therein and B. soldiers serving on behalf of countries who voluntarily agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention. (Also, if memory serves me correctly, I believe the U.S. DID NOT actually agree to abide by the Geneva Convention. However, we do follow some of the things set out in it, but we did not actually agree to anything in it or sign it or whatnot. Which while seemingly a small difference is a difference nonetheless and one worth pointing out, should you try and bust that nonsense out again.)

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“He’s put US Ambassadors and Ambassadors of other nations lives in danger….notice how many bombings are happening at Ebassy’s throughout the Middle East?”

Nice credibility-killing conflation of two completely different events there Wally. Why use facts to make your point when you can just make stuff up!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The NY Times wouldn’t publish information that puts people’s lives at risk. They would face legal consequences if they did.

Kinda funny then, that the State Dept leaks that have caused all this trouble… were published *by the NYT* (and a few other newspapers) in conjunction with Wikileaks, with all of them redacting sensitive info.

In other words, your suggestion that the NYT would act differently is disproved by the fact that both acted the same, because they worked together.

heres something says:

if this had been some guy in iran showing how bad things are there he whould not be hiding in an embassy. he whould be shaking hands with every leader in the west and they whould be calling it free speech an issue of human rights and all that BS hey love to trot around. but as soon as its them then he is one of the most dangerous people in the world and anybody that even has contact with him should be killed or arrested.

in some ways thats even more terrible. iran executes whistleblower? evil and demented. US does the same? national security issue.

Richard peacefulman says:


It’s seems odd that the issuses raised by Wikileaks are ignored even tho they expose crimes on a colossal scale! Are we too afraid to draw comparisons with the rise of the third riech? Sort the problems not the reporters!! Or get ready for the jack boots otherwise!! My father, along with millions served our country to defend the freedoms that are being stripped in the name of security!! From third world nations without our technologies of death? Stop drone attacks! Have you seen the results?? Get the baddies, don’t be them!!

Bill W (profile) says:

Wow, 60's all over again

Back in the roaring 60’s my brand new wife and I were fed f’ing up with the US of A. The gom’nt was f’ing everything up, we had the “war” (Viet Nam), Nixon/Watergate, and we just figured we would emigrate to Australia which had a bounty of computer techs. We didn’t go. But it is looking really good about now!

american who notices they hypocrisy in america says:

julian assange the hero

most people dont know that the us government is the only government besides israel that starts wars and 1.7 million german pow soldiers were killed by eisenhauer his true name not eisenhower he was ashamed to be german and also ww2 was started by FDR our first dictator welfare starting president see when other countries speak the truth the jewnited states of america cannot handle that so they will cause wars to please the jews of israel well its not assanges fault for talking if you dont like it dont complain to others about your freedom of speech then want to kill another because you disagree

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...