US calls Assange 'enemy of state'
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
THE US 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", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" not releasable to non-US nationals record a probe by the 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.
...
US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html
This article speaks for itself.
msongs
(67,502 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Your blatant opposition to our chosen presidential candidate is a violation of TOS.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Censorship would be if I personally deleted her post.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have even the remotest effect of silencing people in this country who are concerned about these issues. A far more sensible solution, since people all over the world are rising up in case you haven't noticed, would be for Democrats to engage those who have concerns about the direction in which this country is going.
See the huge demonstrations in Spain and Greece this week. And they are only going to get bigger, and spread to more countries, including this one. The people have had it with the same old 'be quiet' and 'let us decide what is good for you' rhetoric. We are in an election season, NOW is the time to let our politicians know what we want.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Has the US been known to kill women and children and has anyone in the US won the Noble Peace Prize of late .
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...put a cork in it until after the election.
- Of course you must realize that after the election is when truth will matter even less than it does now......
''Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'' ~George Orwell
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)Enjoy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Can you explain that logic to me please? Aren't elections supposed to be ABOUT ISSUES?
Have you asked Corporate Lobbyists who are currently making sure they do NOT remain silent about the issues their bosses want to see taken care of, to remain silent also? I'd love to see someone ask them to 'wait until after the election' to push their issues, but so far I have never seen a single request to them to be quiet.
Is there some reason why the people should be quiet about the issues that concern them at the only time when it actually matters? While Corporate Lobbyists are all over DC making sure the same politicians know exactly which issues are important to them?
Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)Claiming that you are not allowed to criticize.
I am stating that you can criticize all you want, in the proper venue.
Nobody is stopping you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attention of our Elected officials to get their 'issues' heard which they work harder than ever at during election season, while the American people should just shut up and vote without letting those same Elected Officials know what issues they, the People, care about. That leaves the field open to Big Corporations without any challenge.
I have noted this 'tactic' now for the past few election cycles, and I have begun to wonder where it is coming from. Who benefits from the silence of the people? Certainly not the people.
And since when did it become a problem for any good politician to hear from the people s/he intends to represent?
'The proper venue'. That sounds so Orwellian. 'You may speak, but only in the proper venue'!
My Reps never object to hearing from me or my family and friends especially during election season. That is the very best time to get their attention, which is why I find this 'tactic' to be very suspect.
Someone doesn't want the people to be heard it seems.
Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)Rather than reading between the lines only what you want or expect to see.
You disappoint me.
Primarily because you do not seem to understand what freedom of speech is.
You are free to express yourself. Nobody is stopping you. But use your own megaphone, not a borrowed one. Blast away at the Democratic candidates at any freeper site; they'll welcome you and lavish praise on you. Create your own website and say whatever you wish there. Nobody will stop you from doing that either. That's what freedom of speech is all about. But don't come here and whine if your posts get deleted for failing to conform to the terms of service of THIS community.
If you don't understand that, then you need to brush up on the constitution.
If, after that, you still think your freedom of speech is being infringed, then sue.
Let's see how far that gets you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)enjoy rants no matter how little sense they make. But it really doesn't seem to be addressing anything I said.
If you want to lecture DUers, feel free, some people enjoy that role and good for them I suppose if that is their thing.
But don't be surprised if people don't pay much attention to your lectures.
Eg, and I hate to disappoint people like this, but your lecture here, if it was intended for me, had zero impact, just so you know.
To try to correct that and maybe be more successful in the future, my advice is that you try a different, more pleasant attitude if you really want to influence people. Which, and I could be wrong, it appears you do.
You catch more flies with honey!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)But you are. The pity is that you apparently can't see the contradiction. Nor the distinction.
I remember when we here at DU used to strain at the credulity of those ignorant Bush supporters whose only membership requirement for that club was being borne with two blind eyes. Yes, we laughed and laughed at their apparent blindness to reality.
Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe you do see it all, and you're anger isn't really directed at me so much as it is your own conscience flaying you for remaining silent on so important an issue when it really matters.
If you are in fact upset with yourself for being forced to ignore the contradictions, you would do well to think before you accuse someone of something they haven't done. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, that's fine with me too. Just one more nail in the coffin as far as I can see.
- One more nail in someone's coffin.......
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)enjoy
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Take the anti-Obama crap and stuff it.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...and to the point when dealing with folderol, and such a spurious conclusion.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I love how now the 'left' has adapted the ridiculous 'logic' of the far right!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)check out this Nader thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=245332
Did you know Ralph Nader was responsible for the bp oil spill?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I had no idea Ralph caused the BP oil spill. I guess I just wasn't paying attention!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Where did I hear that logic before? It is so familiar!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Your incapacity to accept reality is amusing.
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why dont you freely discuss issues in lieu of patrolling the DU neighborhood looking for hoodies.
I will support President Barack Obama but I will never sit down and shut up, not for Rahmbo and not for you.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Go ahead and alert and see what happens.
pam4water
(2,916 posts)censorship. Why do you feel the need to run in like school girl to snitch?
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)violation. Do you understand that people can disagree. Yelling over and over to "reread the TOS", isnt going to change anyone's mind.
George II
(67,782 posts)...then we have to suffer the slings and arrows of the Assange SWAT team.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)authoritarian wannabe
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Blowing up civilians is excusable and okay, but exposing that sort of stuff is terrorism? That seems to be our nation's official policy on this now, and I don't give a shit who the president is, it's a fucked-up standard and needs to be fixed.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)is not a violation of the TOS.
Obama has many, many flaws which include his handling of several international issues.
That statement in no way undermines the fact that he is a better candidate than Rmoney.
The fact of the matter is that our political system and the processes that fund and select candidates is deeply flawed.
Think Citizens United and all the undertow that goes along with unlimited campaign spending.
Hence the reason that we as US Citizens have so little effective choice and ultimately have to live in a country that enables such bad international policy.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)That's long enough after the 2012 election that the president has had enough time to recover from the stresses campaign but not so close to the 2014 midterms or fundraising. It's the exact period of time when the president has zero incentive to listen to "the people". THAT is the appropriate time to voice one's displeasure.
Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with some people, thinking that bringing up issues when politicians need them most will help to influence any change.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like."
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...is msongs? An extreme-fringe left-winger? A hard-line communist? A kook or crackpot? ♫Or a partridge-in-a-pear-tree!?♫
And when one has been so designated, does one just leave? Self-deport? Turn oneself in and throw oneself onto the mercy of the double-think courts? Or is it more like going into a Room 101 kind of deal?
- And finally, does double-think hurt? Or do you just get used to it?
George II
(67,782 posts)Got it?
dflprincess
(28,095 posts)and many of us also understand that there is more to being a Democratic than putting a "D" after one's name.
George II
(67,782 posts)dflprincess
(28,095 posts)and because we are not Republicans who follow with blind obedience.
I don't like voting for Republicans and that includes the ones with a "D" after their names and I'm not going to be quiet about it.
George II
(67,782 posts)xiamiam
(4,906 posts)responsible to require that. Defending a D or an R who does not is irresponsible. Politicians come and go. The constitution does not. Every democrat here should know that.
George II
(67,782 posts)........on "Democratic Underground" you agreed to the TOS which is to support "D"s!!!
This is going around in a circle, I suggest once again that the TOS and Community Guidelines be reviewed.
dflprincess
(28,095 posts)maybe you want to alert on me for that - he's not a Democrat.
I didn't say I wasn't voting for Obama I said I was tired of being expected to support Republicans who put a "D" after their names. And I'm tired of the Democratic party running these tools because they know we'll be too afraid of the Republican not to vote for the DLC/Third Way/"New" Democrat.
So I'm voting for the lesser of evils (again) but I'm not happy about it and I'm not going to be quiet about it.
George II
(67,782 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)One can criticize while remaining loyal - it's one of the fundamental tenets of freedom of speech. I don't see the proscription of criticism in the TOS, sorry.
George II
(67,782 posts)...when leadership is Democratic and we're right in the middle of a hotly contested Presidential and Congressional campaign, you might as well come right out and say you don't support the Obama administration.
Oh, by the way, "Saint" Julien promised he would return to Sweden to address the rape allegations against him but now he's cowardly holed up in the Equadorian embassy in London. I suppose what he is being investigated isn't a "legitimate rape"?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I tend to keep my mouth shut about American politics, but it's largely because I'm Canadian and don't have a dog in the fight. I do have strong opinions about the Democratic administration, and many of them are distinctly uncomplimentary. Let's just say that I'm a very left-wing progressive, and I'm pretty sure they're not. It's not my place to diss them though, and I'm here to talk about other stuff anyway.
I am a diehard Assange supporter, though.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)But it is Julian, not Julien.
Thought I'd just point that out. You don't want to look stupid as shit or anything.
George II
(67,782 posts)............thought I'd just point that out. You don't want to look stupid as Assange or anything.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...what I don't have and what you still haven't explained is what that statement has to do with msong's observation? How does stating an obvious fact undermine the above stated objective?
Are you saying that ''working within the system'' means remaining silent except when what you say is popular and supportive like air-brushing removes flaws so they can't be seen?
Or are you saying that to be a supportive Dem, it requires that one sport two blind eyes so as to more effectively ''work within the system''???
Isn't omission the same thing as lying?
And assuming that you have a point (which I know is a grand assumption, but bear with me) you still haven't told me which one of these ''crimes against Dems'' applies to msong. So, if you can't even say which crime has been violated and is applicable, then how can you then say it's a violation of the TOS at all? Eh?
I can only conclude in the absence of a charge, that none of this applies to msong and you haven't thought through your statement and just shot your mouth off without thinking. It happens. I've even done it, but it was a long time ago.
- However, I also understand your difficulty, given your.... er... condition.....
Take care.
- It's okay for Lady Justice to be blind, but not us citizens......
George II
(67,782 posts)And just what is my "difficulty" and "condition"?
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)... msongs? it was msongs' comment above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=246390
and kestrel91316's response to msongs' comment that started this difference of opinion about what is acceptable to say about Dems. Here is your post citing the TOS to kestrel91316, which seemingly supports her idea of embedded censorship here at DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=246541
As for your ''difficulty'' and ''condition,'' there is apparently no conflict which arises in some people who claim to support freedom, liberty and democracy -- while simultaneously trying to squash it in others. Such behavior is called ''doublethink'' -- the holding to two directly contradictory ideas and accepting them both {I provided links so beyond that, I don't know what more I can do}.
- In any event, don't sweat it, it's just a ride.......
David__77
(23,636 posts)And even then, there were always exceptions, for people like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. There are many people who are critical of Obama but will vote for and campaign for his reelection. We are adults and many of us have the maturity and political discipline to handle seeming political struggle.
George II
(67,782 posts)David__77
(23,636 posts)Plenty of Blue Dogs that you'll hear nary a positive word about. My point is that no one here is campaigning or advocating for their Republican or fringe party opponents (or very rarely anyway). Whether or not criticism of Obama is a TOS violation certainly isn't up to me, but I'd be surprised if that was the case. I think it's pretty clear when someone is left-critical of Obama and part of the broad progressive/Democratic trend, and when someone is simply "intervening" to be disruptive of Democratic efforts.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Is that one of the forbidden categories?
pscot
(21,024 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)vile, but viler George the second
and what mortal ever heard
any good of George the third
When from earth the forth descended
god be praised, the Georges ended
George II
(67,782 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)What about those advocating violent political/social change in Syria and Iran? Or, do the rules no longer apply just because that's been the policy pushed by the outgoing Secretary of State?
George II
(67,782 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)You don't seem to comprehend its full meaning.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Any LaRoucheis here? Freepers? Birthers? Kooks? Crackpots? America-haters?
Point them out and I will gladly alert on them also.
George II
(67,782 posts)Paranoia?
"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."
The OP doesn't do that!!!!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)did you post that at all then?
And you claim I am the one who is paranoid? Really?
George II
(67,782 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)But it won't.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)just not seeing it, probably because I have only had only 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)'Enemy of the State' doesn't tell you they're after him?
Be serious.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Headline writer got a lot more clicks with the bad headline though.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)"THE US 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."
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)Sure, they flagged him and I assume his organization and any others that publish stolen classified documents as an enemy in their rules so as to make sure the that military personal know that leaking classified documents will not be tolerated but thats a far cry from saying they have issued an arrest warrant or have one in the works or atleast thats how I am reading it atm though of course that "is" with only 4 hours of sleep so I could have missed something in which case please point it out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they published material about war crimes and economic crimes provided to them by whistle-blowers. I remember a certain presidential candidate promising to protect whistle-blowers btw.
We know that the US has a GJ seated trying to get an indictment against a multi-award winning Journalist for publishing FACTS. No one has disputed that what Wikileaks published were facts. And we have read from one of the country's top security contractors, that they have that indictment, sealed and are ready to issue an arrest warrant when necessary. Right now, they are happy to allow Sweden, one of our puppets, to do the dirty work.
The problem with these tactics is that it makes him even more of a martyr and hero to the cause of openness in government. And since right now Assange is more popular worldwide than the US Government, this will only make him even more popular.
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)And then maybe you see your mistake and correct your post, if you dont see it I will be happy to explain.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Assange could bring about the death penalty!!!!!
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)It's a document that was written to imply that a ridiculous number of crimes "could" subject a person in the military to the death penalty.
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)Not sure if I agree with them for doing it though
George II
(67,782 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)So I can see how many of my 'favorite' Assange haters post here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Article says WikiLeaks is actually not "the enemy", unlike the headline.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)From an old "fun list-serve" of pseudo Great Terror denunciations posted here (a hoot): www.cyberussr.com/rus/den-file1.html
From: "P.K. Volkov" prwolfe@ucla.edu
Reply-To: prwolfe@ucla.edu
Subject: Origins of Bulgakov
Comrades!
Our operatives report that the Bulgakov subject was actually of Ukrainian origin! He was therefore no doubt a Petliurist.
There was another newswire report of the Americanization of the traitor Khrushchov's traitorous son today. If Nikolai Ivanovich were still around, such "sbrod" would be well taken care of, indeed.
In Socialist greeting,
Molchanov, for CC
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Denunciation of enemy of the people
informer-name = Running Dog Tokarski
informer-email = terrace504@hotmail.com
informer-class = peasant stock, Czech-Irish
enemy-name = James Versluys
enemy-email = bitterbierce@hotmail.com
enemy-class = Officiate at state farm near Kladismuk
Article = excessive ego, frutchkin fraulines, taking excess rutabega unto his own household
comments = Suspect has launched a periodical newspaper. In it he has repeatedly referred to Western Class system as "product of geniuses" who share their abilities with the "ingrates" of workers, slaves who take all that is given and offer no gratitude in return.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:49:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Denunciation of enemy of the people
informer-name = Jarkko Silen
informer-email = jarkko.silen@pp.inet.fi
informer-class = worker
enemy-name = Jyrki Seppälä
enemy-email = jyrkizet@hotmail.com
enemy-class = rootless cosmopolitan
Article = 58-11
comments = This wrecker owns a bourgeois summer cottage and has a lot of money and has a nick name "countZ". He is a real enemy of the people.
A vigilant Chekist comments:
So he thinks he's a "count," does he? Obvious material for Article 58-13.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)I'm not going in there again with you, Kommisar, but had to respond. Back to your duties.
George II
(67,782 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)curious since i am the same way, i support Wikileaks and vast majority of the work they do, Assange however i have little to no respect based on my opinion of him(and his evasion of the Swedish court system)
I personally consider Wikileaks and Assange as two quite separate things, Wikileaks will do quite well even without Assange(likely better then they are now methinks).
George II
(67,782 posts)....on this issue and these two "entities" (Wikileaks and Assange), to his cult following it's just like the rightwing zeal about bush's policies in 2001 and 2002 - "if you're not for us you're against us", and "why do you hate America?". Except in this case it's "if you're not for Assange you're against Wikileaks" and "why do you hate Wikileaks?"
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The article is pretty clear that the US has declared Wikileaks an enemy.
You know.... Like where it says that sharing with Wikileaks is communicating 'with the enemy.
The hint in the article is the word 'Enemy'.
Just trying to help.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)read the cables and boy are they fascinating.
I remember when they first attacked Wikileaks and their followers jumped rather than diminished.
I remember when Bush tried to set up the Total Information Act hotline, and thousands of us called it with 'information' until they could not handle it anymore and shut it down.
This will only increase support for Assange and Wikileaks. Whoever is responsible for these tactics, is not doing the US any favors. They are only proving the allegations of censorship, and anti-free press policies against the US.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)xiamiam
(4,906 posts)and everything in it? like the right to a free press? free press my ass, if he is an enemy of the state, under ndaa, I don't even think any of us could talk to him..am I right about that? I'm an assange and wikileaks supporter. He has an ego? So what. He's brilliant..where did these people come from who criticize him for being a journalist and telling the truth about this awful war. We need Assange and wikileaks, yet the us is doing everything to break him. It hurts deep in my gut.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)It clearly referred to Wikileaks as 'the enemy', not you, sabrina1.
If you can find whether the article suggests that people who follow wikileaks are 'the enemy', then you will have the answer to your question. IOW: try reading the article.
Bye now.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)sad
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)does this FOIA document provide solid evidence that Assange faces political persecution by the US... I mean, being considered an enemy and all?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)He's now in the same category as Al Qaeda.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)can now be considered "an associate" who provided "support" for a terrorist organization.
I think I hear Agent Mike at the door.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)malthaussen
(17,241 posts)No pun intended. But it would appear that Mr Assange is officially a leper, whatever the line they feed to the marks.
-- Mal
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Bradley Manning could face the death penalty.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The FOIA document actually clears Assange and WikiLeaks of being "the enemy".
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)
http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)is the same as watching here on tv in the UK - channel 512 Sky. They were doing an article on the English Defence League when I checked and now its general world news.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)speech will change given this new info.
reorg
(3,317 posts)gets you directly to the live feed.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)but I'm outside of the US, perhaps that's the reason.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Thanks anyways.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Just wrong.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Imagine that!
byeya
(2,842 posts)Another day in the land of the free: We're #1!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)he'll be taken and rendered to an undisclosed location in some obscure third country.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Eric Holder said so, so it must be true. Or not.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The lack of charges mean WikiLeaks and Assange are not "the enemy".
Demeter
(85,373 posts)by somebody's definition. And far to many of those "somebodies" are considered members of the State.
The State, in a democracy means the People. What we have here is no democracy, not any more, and a great deal less than 70 years ago.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Have done so since 1974.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)State crimes are not in the approved category.
AlphaCentauri
(6,460 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)I am of the opinion that some military documents are not for our eyes.
Whether you want to accept it or not, remaining a force in the world is crucial to global stability.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)but how does this compare with the crimes of the previous administration?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,414 posts)I don't like countries declaring putting individuals who have never used violence, and who are arguably following the USA's principle of 'freedom of speech', into the same category as terrorists. It makes it look like he won't get a fair trial in the USA if he is ever taken there. It also makes me worry they could go a step further and decide they have to right to kill him. 'Enemy of the state' is a chilling phrase.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)that drones will be used to take him out.
It just makes me sick.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you read the article, you will find that the US Government is actually doing the opposite of the headline.
Summary:
1) Analyst talks with WikiLeaks - and everyone agrees communication happened.
2) Investigation starts to see if information was leaked.
3) Investigation ends with no charges.
If WikiLeaks was "the enemy", then a crime was committed at step 1. The lack of charges means WikiLeaks isn't officially "the enemy". (Or the analyst involved has amazing political connections).
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27cqcHz92
The analyst, according to the article, only communicated with those close to and supporters of Assange and Wikileaks, not directly with them. Legally, this would be an important distinction and perhaps the reason the investigation was dropped.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because WikiLeaks issues business cards and provides a complete roster of their members. They aren't a loose-knit group of like-minded people, so we can draw a nice clear line between "supporter" and "member". And we'd never stretch the definition of "member" when we're secretly out to destroy them.
Fact is, this FOIA document proves the opposite of the headline. But that doesn't fit into Assange's "They're all out to get me" story.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)back at you!
Al Qaeda doesn't issue business cards either, but you can bet that there are thorough rosters of suspected members, and I'm sure there are subtle distinctions made when analysts communicate with those close to them.
Assange (allegedly) directly worked with Manning, therefore he is the one who is the principle focus by the military. If the analyst's information made it's way to Assange, that would make or break the case against the analyst.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)See, the government likes to use an expansive definition of "the enemy". So anyone remotely connected to a loose-knit group would be legally considered "the enemy". They'd exploit the lack of formal lines.
Whether that loose-knit group is Al Qaeda or WikiLeaks.
So the lack of charges indicate WikiLeaks isn't "the enemy".
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)"Global stability" sounds a lot like meddling in the worlds affairs while we don't allow it to be done here.
Proletariatprincess
(718 posts)I would expect that the rest of the world does not see the USA that way. Neither do I.
The USA is the greatest purveyer of terrorism in the world. That is why it fears the truth and has so many secrets.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)I applaud him for the majority of stuff they've done.
valerief
(53,235 posts)They_Live
(3,249 posts)not a good development.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)...and the list goes on.
Response to AntiFascist (Original post)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
krawhitham
(4,651 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)nothing for him to worry about
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)partying and praying for lightning bolts to hit the next occupy gathering, since they hate them too.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)'cause it turns out there was no such declaration. In fact, since there were no charges against the analyst, you can actually determine WikiLeaks and Assange are not considered "the enemy".
But boy that title sure gets lots of people worked up!
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)but no doubt we will hear this repeated ad nauseum because if it gets repeated enough...
The charges were most likely dropped due to lack of evidence. It does not reflect on the status of Wikileaks or Assange whatsoever.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)with "the enemy"....if WikiLeaks and Assange were the enemy.
There's more than one crime being discussed.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)there's only evidence (from the article at least) of communication with those close to the enemy, if Wikileaks and Assange are considered the enemy.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The lack of formal membership means being "close to" is plenty legally.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)is this supposed to make the president look tough or something? I don't need that. What the hell... a political thing?? Not??
so email peeping is a capitol crime....
Assange is an ass but the decision or statement, whatever, seems out of the blue. And if it creates a precedent I have a real problem with this.
The problem is that the government can't handle Internet security. That is all. So blame it on a scape goat and only those who really know what they are doing will be able to crack the US computer systems... China, Russia, the kid next door, etc. and we loose our right to challenge the government and/or it's infrastructure. No matter what they do to Assange, it still doesn't fix the real problem. We will be weaker.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I'm wrong an most of it... I'll leave it for reference of my mistaken knee-jerking.
But... my last paragraph stands.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)Unconscionable
un·con·scion·a·ble
? ?[uhn-kon-shuh-nuh-buhl] S
adjective
1.
not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.
2.
not in accordance with what is just or reasonable: unconscionable behavior.
3.
excessive; extortionate: an unconscionable profit.
George II
(67,782 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)because he released dirt on this country that despoiled our squeaky clean 'democracy'. What he released was truth. what what's wrong with the truth. something is very wrong here. I do not agree with the designation. America is not squeaky clean. In fact with Abu grub prison and other tortures and atrocities, we can't hide the fact that something is always rotten in any government on this planet, these days and probably always will be until we have a true awakening of this planets inhabitants of the danger inherent in having these secrets that can destroy this whole planet in the name of some country's 'national security'. I long for some sanity from any leader.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)All it did was get global informants killed, although he tried to black out as many names as possible.
It embarrassed some embassy officials for about a week, and now Assange has to fear the CIA and FSB (he pissed of the Russians as well) for the rest of his life. In order for me to take that kind of risk, I would want to be whistle-blowing something that benefited the world just a tad more.
Unless I am totally missing something here, I would love to be corrected (I like to read but what has all this hubbub actually done? Wikileaks was talking up their dirt, and now I bet most people don't even remember what it was.
IMO he should have waited for something better before burning up his sources and his safety.
druidity33
(6,452 posts)-helped start the "Arab Spring"
-made the new Iraqi gov't stand firm on troop withdrawal (ended the Iraq War)
-seeded the Occupy movement
-helped change the National conversation about our wars...
and more really. When you dispense hidden truths in pursuit of an ideal, the results are not always concrete or immediately apparent.
Ugh too early for cogent thought... need more cofffeeee.....
I have the sites info in my folders so I refer to them. Yep most don't even remember. You are right on the should held his cards longer.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Article 104 is exceptionally broad. If the systems analyst had any contact with an "enemy," as defined by UCMJ, they'd be charged on the elements, period. The guy clearly had contact with WL, but charges weren't brought.
So WL isn't considered an enemy under UCMJ. Or perhaps the analyst is a flag officer's offspring.
One or the other.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)the analyst also denied leaking the information. Perhaps there wasn't sufficient evidence?
The article only states that the analyst communicated with those "close to" Assange and WL.
If anything, the Obama Admin. should now make a clarifying statement, particularly since this is now an issue brought before the UN.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Communicating with "the enemy" at all is a crime.
And everyone agrees communication with WikiLeaks happened.
So the lack of charges indicates WikiLeaks isn't "the enemy".
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)if I communicate with a supporter of Al Qaeda does that qualify me as communicating with the enemy? What if I'm not aware that they are "close to" Al Qaeda?
There are numerous reasons why the investigation was dropped and your conclusions are based on pure speculation.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you are subject to the UCMJ, yes.
Then it's not a crime. However, thats exactly the opposite of the situation at hand - the entire reason for the communication was their connection to WikiLeaks and Assange.
Yes, there are potentially some technical reason that charges had to be dropped. But that's not all that's going on.
The analyst's security clearance was only suspended during the investigation. Yanking a security clearance doesn't require criminal-charges-level of proof. If there was only some technical reason why the analyst could not be charged, that clearance would be gone.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)Wikileaks should be considered the enemy because they leak information to Al Qaeda.
I'm tired of arguing in circles with you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's 2 different potential charges.
1) Leaking classified. Doesn't matter who the recipient is. WikiLeaks, New York Times, Russia, China, Al Queda, it's the same.
2) Communication with "the enemy". The recipient must be officially "the enemy", and the communicator must know they are "the enemy".
Once you separate those two in your head, this situation might become more clear.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)the recipient must be officially "the enemy"? Where is there evidence that the analyst communicated with Assange, either through an intermediary or otherwise?
Robb
(39,665 posts)Pity no one's listening.
Perhaps Assange threads should go under "Religion."
marmar
(77,127 posts)This ought to frighten and outrage all of us.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But hey, I'm sure overstating your case will be a good idea this time!
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)I merely posted an article and you seem to be disagreeing with the premise of the headline. You really need to take this up with the Sydney Morning Herald.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)SamKnause
(13,114 posts)This is despicable.
The U.S. is totally out of control.
Their power trip and empire building agenda is a threat to the globe.
They are the bullies and terrorists of the globe.
They are endangering the citizens of the U.S. and citizens all over the planet.
As an American, there is little left to be proud of.
Free Bradley Manning
Free Julian Assange
Long Live Wikileaks
Long Live Anonymous
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Aldridge Ames!
By the by Julian Assange is free just running scared of being tried and convicted of two counts of rape.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Penetrating somebody who is asleep is considered rape in many countries since they can't consent(the fact that he did it without a condom knowing she didn't want sex without protection in my eyes makes it worse).
note: The word 'charges' is not technically accurate since he can't be officially charged until he has been presented with the evidence, but for the sake of this debate i use the word since its the closest equivalent i can think of
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to sex?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. In this country that would amount to rape ...
City of Westminster Magistrates Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)For example,
... 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 ...
may not actually mean that "WikiLeaks = enemy" but may rather mean that any military personnel, who hand over military documents to Wikileaks, will be presumed to have known that the leaked documents could thereby fall into enemy hands
... The Taliban has issued a chilling warning to Afghans, alleged in secret US military files leaked on the internet to have worked as informers for the Nato-led coalition, telling Channel 4 News "US spies" will be hunted down and punished ...
Taliban hunt Wikileaks outed Afghan informers
By Jonathan Miller
Updated on 30 July 2010
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667.html
randome
(34,845 posts)It's red meat to the Assange worshipers. And it has nothing to do with Sweden but you cannot convince those who want to believe differently.
Assange could murder someone and they would believe he was only defending himself against shadowy forces.
24601
(3,967 posts)to enemies because they (enemies) read wikileaks. That's different than wikileaks themselves being the actual enemies.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)but I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions as to why the case was dropped.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your claims of Assange as "Enemy of the State" requires leaps that aren't supported by the article. Only the sensational headline supports it.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)my only claim in this thread is that the FOIA document provides evidence that Assange is subject to political persecution, and that was the main reason for my posting it. The headline is the headline, I would be violating rules if I did not post it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What evidence is in the FOIA document implies the opposite.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)by stating:
That's CHARGED not just investigated.
I specifically pulled that out of the article to provide the basis for my argument that he is subject to political persecution. (In Europe, espionage is considered a political crime). The FOIA document describes a case where an analyst is suspected of leaking information, ultimately, to terrorists by way of Assange. You can argue all you want as to why the case was dropped and why the analyst did not lose their security clearance, but your argument is all based on speculation.
24601
(3,967 posts)Deputy Commanders in Chief. Congresscritters have no authority over DoJ. What you read are just their opinions with nothing to back it up.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)and what about the Head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Secretary of State, both of which are also high-level Democrats who have also recommended that Assange be prosecuted? You seem to be confusing Obama with Bush, who often operated in a vacuum. Biden also served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years and I'm absolutely sure that Obama chose him as VP for a reason.
24601
(3,967 posts)the President directly to Department Secretaries (or Attorney General for DoJ). Don't believe you can find a case where the Secretary of State or SSCI Chair prosecuted anyone. If you have such a case, please cite it. And no, this arrangement doesn't change based on which party holds the White House.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)I don't think that "divide" occurs in his head alone.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Assange-WikiLeaks-Enemy-USAF-FOI.pdf
apparently they tried to find out if the analyst had communicated with Assange but could find nothing. If she had, then the witch hunt would have been successful and they indeed would have taken away her security clearance and probably arrested her. The investigators only found that she suffered a crisis of conscience and the worst thing she did was attend meetings of like-minded individuals, and travelled to Assange's extradition trial.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Hmm? There are few on this board who were making that very argument all of two or three months ago.
Does anyone need further proof we've become a national security police state?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The headline is fantastic click bait.
The article doesn't support the headline.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)He's fired. He can't work. He loses his income. It's how the Soviet Union dealt with refusniks. Do you think that's an appropriate penalty under the circumstances that the guy exercised his First Amendment Rights and marched in a protest? How about classifying Wikileaks as an "enemy organization" - do you approve of that, too?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)All the article says is that it was temporarily suspended during the investigation. Since they fail to say it was permanently lost, that heavily implies they got the clearance back. Especially since the analyst is back at work.
Despite the headline writer's best efforts, that isn't supported by the article.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The word "temporarily" isn't used. And, if you knew anything about security clearances, you would know that in this sort of thing where analyst loses clearance because of security reasons the standard procedure is to reassign the person to perform tasks not requiring a clearance in an unsecured area away from classified materials, effectively making that person redundant and unproductive. During the next review, the person is fired on those grounds.
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)leaks classified material to keep their clearance?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)She was merely accused of the "crime" of political association. You might also want to read the First Amendment, or is that now a "quaint document"?
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)"He's fired. He can't work. He loses his income. It's how the Soviet Union dealt with refusniks. Do you think that's an appropriate penalty under the circumstances that the guy exercised his First Amendment Rights and marched in a protest? How about classifying Wikileaks as an "enemy organization" - do you approve of that, too?"
Seemed atleast to me at the time that you might have been arguing that people in general who have such a clearance should be allowed to keep it even if they leaked classified intel but then again at the time I was operating on 4 hours of sleep in a 48 hour period.
20score
(4,769 posts)Our present selves would fit right in with the worst of our ancestors. (Okay, not the genocidal slave holders, but the supporters of the Alien & Sedition Acts, the supporters of Nixon's power abuses, the very recent supporters of Bush and all of the other people on the wrong side of history, when protecting power was more important than principles and people.)
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)I dont even trust people here or anywhere else ...moral compass first, and then all of the things that entails immediately after..power and partisan politics are way down the list. Politicians are just that..politicians. Just above aluminum siding salesmen at this juncture. The only difference is that if they are elected they swore an oath which incorporates moral and free values...like freedom of the press. For Gods sake, porn is everywhere..yet the truth can't be told about war atrocities? Give me a fuckin break.
reorg
(3,317 posts)It says that a member of the US military was investigated for "COMMUNICATING WITH THE ENEMY -104-D" based on what she told someone about being depressed and and having met people who shared the same beliefs as her, being sympathetic to Bradley Manning, Assange/Wikileaks and anti-war groups.
As further reasons for suspicion are cited that she "allegedly visited the website WikiLeaks in violation of a Memorandum From the Undersecretary of Defense, dated 11 Jan 11, which violated Article 92, Failure to Obey, UCMJ", and traveled to London "to attend the extradition trial of JULIAN ASSANGE, founder of the WikLeaks website" where she met those people who, like her, "sympathized with PFC BRADLEY MANNING" and were anti-war. She also "posted lots of material concerning Wikileaks and ASSANGE" and read a lot about them on the web.
Several witnesses were interrogated over this.
So, she was apparently suspected to be "communicating with the enemy" because she was sympathetic with the cause of Wikileaks? It was probably feared she might have attempted to seek direct contacts or leak something, but that turned out to not have been the case. Had she done so, it would appear the "matter alleged" would have been found to be true.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)Skimming through the document I don't see where she (the SUBJECT of the investigation) communicated with anyone in the Wikileaks camp. She attended meetings of like-minded individuals supporting Assange and Manning, but apparently that's ok.
tama
(9,137 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,327 posts)NDAA says OK.
George II
(67,782 posts)Other than in the false headline of the opinion piece, that was never mentioned ONCE in the article.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)St Julian!
Opinion piece!
It's past your bedtime and you're getting cranky, LOL!
George II
(67,782 posts)...here's the link:
www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html
Response to George II (Reply #173)
Post removed
Robb
(39,665 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)THE US 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", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27fDhRtYM
If you go into the link you'll find that all political news contains the term"opinion" - its just their manner of expressing things. Doesn't mean its pure opinion in the normal context of that word - you'll find the same in their main news section too.....I just checked.
George II
(67,782 posts)That is a huge stretch and extrapolation of what the article really said.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)There, I fixed it.
Yes, it is hyperbolic, but so is calling Assange an enemy of the state.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)May we invoke protection against them.
tama
(9,137 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Anyone who risks their life to expose corrupt violent actions (or intentions) ostensibly done in the name of "protecting democracy and freedom", but which are actually committed for the purpose of protecting multi-national corporate interests and protecting multi-national corporate profit sources is not my enemy.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.,
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)Who is doing this? Holder? the MIC? Obama? Why are they trying to destroy this man who should be lauded? The pain in the center of my gut because of this knows how very wrong this administration is about this. It's wrong, terribly wrong, and we all know it.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)Fascinating ...
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)or would you have preferred none of us know about international war atrocities? Would you prefer to be kept in the dark? What is fascinating is that controlling the press seems to be ok with some. Constitution first..its kept us out of trouble for a couple hundred + years..think its a pretty darned good guide.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)Some things should be kept confidential. For example, if the release of specific military information can endanger lives.
What good has Assange accomplished by releasing information on US military operations?
tama
(9,137 posts)to US tyranny, military and economic imperialism and state terrorism. Nothing good to the despotic and kleptocratic oligarchy you call US governement, and which we, people of the Earth, call what it is: greatest threat to global security.
Response to tama (Reply #234)
mzmolly This message was self-deleted by its author.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)Asked what he thought of the dangers to those families created by the release of their personal information, Assange claimed that many informers in Afghanistan were "acting in a criminal way" by sharing false information with NATO authorities.[178]
Yankee go home.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)Yankee go home?
tama
(9,137 posts)Please pretty please disband military imperialism, neocolonialism and increasing destruction of carrying capacity of our common planet. We really like those Occupy and other folks there who are joining rest of humanity in our search for another world in peaceful democratic manner. Those who speak with drones etc. and never really listen we don't like so much and wish they would stop.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)Doesn't have an effing thing to do with Assange.
Endangering thousands of Afghan citizens, by outing them to the Taliban, is the opposite of supporting a peaceful agenda.
Repeating your "talking point" ad infinitum does not make it worthy of response.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)I will not hold my breath.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)so for those of you who are claiming that the headline does not match the content, I would suggest you listen to todays interview with Assange
botom line, its absurd, as he says..and "counter to the values" that the US should be presenting to the world..
a free press? what a novel idea.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)It seems to be some records from a (now-closed) 2011 investigation into a military person stationed in the UK
Robb
(39,665 posts)Interesting read. It appears WL didn't enter into the "enemy" bit at all.
The investigation began (21 April 2011) with an allegation of an Article 92 (failure to obey an order) violation; SecDef gave an order in January for the military not to visit Wikileaks, and it was alleged she did so in July. Upon clarification she'd only read summaries of WL docs in the Guardian and NYT, that part of the investigation was dropped.
The allegation of a 104 violation (aiding the enemy), dated 26 April, was a result of a separate report (dated 25 April) of the subject suffering a "breakdown" and telling a fellow airman she'd communicated with an unspecified "anti- military, anti-US" group.
During the subsequent interview (same day as the "breakdown" was reported) she makes clear it's Wikileaks she's talking about; turns out she's also suffering from depression, so further interviews with related personnel take place over the next two days. The case is ordered to be administratively closed on 27 April.
A superior officer was interviewed on the 28th, but the case was on its way to being closed.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)actually involves and why it is construed so broadly
In fact, the communication need not be directly to the enemy; and to prove the offense it is not necessary to prove that the enemy even received the information: it is enough that the information, which could help the enemy, be disseminated in some manner by which the enemy might receive it and use it
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)My reading of the actual UCMJ code is that any communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall be punishable:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)The final offense under this article is communication with the enemy. Any form of unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is prohibited, whatever the accuseds intent. The content or form of the communication is irrelevant, as long as the accused is actually aware that he is communicating with the enemy. Completion of the offense does not depend on the enemys use of the information or a return communication from the enemy to the accused; the offense is complete once the correspondence issueseither directly or indirectlyfrom the accused ...
<pdf link:> https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DocLibs/TJAGLCSDocLib.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/doclibs/tjaglcsdoclib.nsf/8400639488825BD385257549006019A4/Body/Chapter%209%20%20Criminal%20Law.pdf
(also available here: )
2006 Operational Law Handbook pp206ff
http://books.google.com/books?id=EBTul-duLEYC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=ucmj+104+communicating+with+enemy&source=bl&ots=Z4sOSpUF1L&sig=k4LvhgQ1C4TaDQuvxM8lqohbs2I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5m9nUMuBE4XU9ATrmQE&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ucmj%20104%20communicating%20with%20enemy&f=false
28. Article 104Aiding the enemy
a. Text of statute.
Any person who ...
(2) without proper authority, knowingly ... gives intelligence to or communicates ... with ... the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
b. Elements ...
(5) Communicating with the enemy.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, c o m m u n i c a t e d , c o r r e s p o n d e d , o r h e l d i n t e r c o u r s e with the enemy; and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was c o m m u n i c a t i n g , c o r r e s p o n d i n g , o r h o l d i n g i n t e r course with the enemy.
c. Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
(2) Enemy. For a discussion of enemy, see paragraph 23c(1)(b) ...
(6) Communicating with the enemy.
(a ) Nature of the offense . No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly ...
Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), 2012 Edition (c.p326/884 identified in doc as pp IV-41 and IV-42)
<pdf link:> http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf
(also available here: )
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)what point are you trying to make? Clearly the allegation under investigation is "communicating with the enemy". By providing information to Wikileaks, it could have ended up in the real enemy's hands, so Wikileaks is somehow being tied to an enemy, whether it be Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Is your point simply that Assange is not the designated "Enemy of the State", he is merely a conduit for communication with the real enemy?
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)most of the report covers her obsession with Assange and how she felt the military was in the wrong regarding the treatment of Bradley Manning. Obviously they were concerned about her passing information to Wikileaks, there's no other way to intrepret this. In this context "the enemy" can only mean Wikileaks.
Robb
(39,665 posts)They were concerned she was visiting the website; she cleared herself of that. Then she had a breakdown and someone overheard her talking about communicating with anti-US groups, and reported it.
Wikileaks came up as being the group she meant AFTER the 104 investigation began, not before. And the 104 charges were never brought -- because Wikileaks, apparently, isn't considered an enemy under UCMJ.
If you ignore the timeline, of course, you can infer whatever you want. But you'd be wrong.
reorg
(3,317 posts)1. Wikileaks never "came up as being the group she meant".
2. The allegation that she was visiting the Wikileaks website is not dated, it is merely mentioned as reason for the investigation which was initiated on 21 July. January 11 2011 is the date when the mentioned Memorandum was issued: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/wl-notice.pdf
So, the main reason for the investigation is that she allegedly visited the Wikileaks website, in addition she is considered unstable and found to be sympathetic with Bradley Manning and Wikileaks.
What enemy is she suspected to have communicated with? Only two possibilities: either Wikileaks is considered "the enemy", or, by stretching the definition of "communicating", someone who can access material leaked to Wikileaks and provided by them to the public.
In which case Wikileaks might not be the considered the "enemy" directly, but surely as an organisation that provides material support for such an enemy. As we can see here daily, that is exactly what some Americans think. And why Assange fears that some day the US might seek to extradite him and throw him in prison.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of aiding the enemy or communicating with the enemy even if no information is passed directly to the enemy and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it indirectly informs the enemy.
The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with aiding or communicating with the enemy by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldnt that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?
Bloomberg and the Atlantic Wire have also picked up this story.
mzmolly
(51,019 posts)I don't get the Assange worship, here. He's a narcissist who happens to have a tech background, and doesn't seem to care who is harmed as a result of leaking classified information?
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)years ago. I'm what democracy looks like, 99%er here. Free Bradley Manning!
lovuian
(19,362 posts)I feel Biden is making the wrong choice here
I don't think it was necessary to do this especially the time right before he speaks to the UN
It I feel shows US weakness and DESPERATION
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)along with Clinton and Feinstein and a host of much more aggressive statements made by Republicans. No one has retracted their statements, but now, it seems, a lot of DUers are pretending that the US has no interest in going after Assange.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There is nothing there to prove their assertions.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Start sighting something that threatens us, and I might think differently. Until then, everyone, including Joe Biden can pound salt up their ass on this one.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)The MIC can go to hell and die. And NOT drag the rest of us AMERICANS down with it. Thank you very much.
rachel1
(538 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And just as offensive is the predictable, relentless swarm of propaganda and shilling for the growing corporate authoritarian state, from the very same few voices as always. Now we witness the shameless, utterly predictable shift from denying that the government is persecuting Assange to rationalizing/justifying the persecution.
Of course the shameless spin continues, because these egregious acts by our government threaten to open even more eyes to what our government really has become, even under a Democratic President, and how ruthless the authoritarianism can become when unflattering secrets are revealed.
Any story that threatens to reveal the collusion between government and the one percent, and especially stories that reveal the corrupt use of government to punish and silence those who would expose their collusion, will always be urgently spun like this for public consumption.