December 05, 2010
WikiLeaks is Now A Terrorist Organization
I've been critical of WikiLeaks in the past for several reasons, from the fact that they are pursuing a clear political agenda designed to harm the United States to the highly inflammatory language and distorted context of some of the illicitly garnered information under their control.
I've also been quite clear that I consider Bradley Manning one of worse traitor's in American history (easily the worst in terms of volume) who deserves nothing less than the death penalty for passing along classified information during wartime.
I've been a bit more forgiving of Julian Assange, the glory-hounding promoter and leader of Wikileaks, and of Americans invovled with Wikileaks, but now that I've read of their "Doomsday device" containing unredacted information that assuredly will put lives in danger, I view the group—and individuals in possession of the file who intend to release it—as nothing more or less than information terrorists, and urge that our military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets treat them as such.
At over 1.4GB of information, the NSA and other federal agencies should have no problem identifying and tracking who has downloaded the file, the release of which constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States. All overt official and covert extrajudicial remedies should be authorized by the President to reacquire control over this information.
This is classified information that enemies of our nation are threatening to use against us during wartime, risking the lives of our soldiers and operatives worldwide. They should be hunted with the same vigor as al Qaeda, and offered the same mercies if they resist.
maybe if you spend the time to actually read some of the information that is becoming available due to the 'terrorist organization' Wikileaks, you will see that the great America has a lot to answer for.
Posted by: jihadman at December 5, 2010 01:13 PMI am with you CY. This is just the information campaign of America's enemies.
What we have to answer for is why we haven't carpet nuked the whole Islamic world yet. Our enemies depend on us to behave civilized despite the fact that they do not.
Posted by: Professor Hale at December 5, 2010 01:43 PMNo, he's not a terrorist. He's something even worse: a common criminal who disguises himself as a terrorist, because he thinks that 'terrorist' is more attractive to the masses than 'two-bit blackmailer.'
Posted by: wolfwalker at December 5, 2010 01:55 PMThe one commodity missing from all the WikiLeaks documents .. anything resembling "Smart Diplomacy"
Posted by: Neo at December 5, 2010 04:41 PMIN MY OPINION: wIKILEAKS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ABU GARAB LEAKS. THE DIFFERENCE IS WHO IS POTUS. THEY SHOULD BE RELEASED TO HELP STOP ABOVE THE LAW CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
Posted by: lazrtex at December 5, 2010 10:39 PMPosted by jihadman at December 5, 2010 01:13 PM
Like that Hellfire missile coming your way, jihadboy? Naw, we aren't sorry at all about that.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 6, 2010 07:30 PMHaving "read of" the Doomsday device and having actually read it are two different things. You don't know that the information will actually put lives in danger.
From what has been released so far, it appears that Assange's primary crime has been simply embarrassing government officials. He has exposed what we are saying about them all the time - that they are two-faced, untrustworthy, and double-dealing.
As for Manning passing on classified information during wartime, when did Congress declare war and against what nation?
Posted by: Sol at December 8, 2010 09:36 AM"As for Manning passing on classified information during wartime, when did Congress declare war and against what nation? "
Authorizations for the Use of Military Force -- one for Afghanistan/worldwide against terrorist organizations and supporters, another specifically for Iraq.
Rob,
It would be interesting to see if the Government could make a death penalty stick under an AUMF. They have tried to push the limits of AUMF here and there with varying success. Given that the AUMF Against Terrorists is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future, I'm guessing there will be lots more opportunities to test it further.
My point is that without an actual declaration of war, the punishment available against Manning may not be so clear cut. I would add that it is probably best kept that way, as I would be uncomfortable with AUMFs mutating their way into the legal system like a retrovirus.
Posted by: Sol at December 11, 2010 10:28 AM
