Interpol issues 'red notice' for arrest of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

[chuckd]

Bob Beckel would more properly be known in the US as a Democratic Party Operative. He has always been somewhat controversial and is a fervent member of the Democratic Party. He is not a George Bush supporter.

Following is his Wikipedia resume'.

______________________________________________________________

Bob Beckel is an American political commentator and an analyst on the Fox News Channel.

He is also a columnist for USA Today. Beckel was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign. He became known as the man who wrapped the Wendy's slogan "Where's the Beef?" around Mondale's opponent Gary Hart so effectively. While Beckel was still in college, he worked for Robert F. Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1968.

Early in his career, Beckel joined the U.S. Department of State and became the youngest Deputy Assistant secretary of state for the Carter administration.[1] He was co-host of Crossfire Sunday on CNN alongside Tony Snow and later Lynne Cheney and went on to Fox News Channel as a political analyst and commentator, regularly appearing on such shows as Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, and America's Newsroom.

Beckel is a graduate school professor of politics at the George Washington University. Beckel holds a B.A. from Wagner College.[2] He is the brother of actor Graham Beckel.

In 2010, in response to the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks disseminating various leaked classified material, Beckel called for the murder of the website's spokesman Julian Assange [3]

_________________________________________________________________

[LaoPo]

Like I said before, you have little understanding of the American political scene. I am not doubting your ability with Latin or English. . Bob Beckel is a liberal political commentator and that has nothing to do with his morals or ethics. It means he is a liberal as opposed to a conservative. Fox news is conservative and Beket was hired to present the other view, Liberal.

And I said that some people need re-scholing about the meaning of Liberal/Liberalism.

If America calls a man Liberal, or even if he calls himself liberal but calls for an assassination on National Television at the same time, he would not be called a liberal in the European hemisphere where the word liberal comes from.

Calling for an assassination is not liberal; it's barbaric and "not done" in European politics. Unheard of and not civilized.

LaoPo

It is semantic LaoPo. In America the country you were talking about it is a political designation not a moral statement. If you wish to understand American politics you need to understand the titles both parties use. Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat.

Republican has an altogether different meaning also, as does publican. But you were not talking about politics in Europe.

Your insistence to use an incorrect term when discussing an American political commentator only shows your Eurocentric behavior and lack of understanding of American politics at a most basic and elemental level.

Liberal Democrat

n

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a member or supporter of the Liberal Democrats

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

To repeat one more time. It is not, in terms of American politics, a moral definition it is a party designation.

Sigh...

I'm sure you know a lot more about American politics than I do; no doubt about that.

And I know the difference between the US Republican- and Democratic Parties but when the word Liberal showed up I was referring to the word Liberal and not in connection with the Democratic Party. I still stand that I think it's barbaric that this man called for an assasination, being labeled as a "Liberal", and that has nothing to do with being a Democrat (also). The differences between the Democrats in the present Democratic Party shows so.

Let's leave it with that, shall we?

You are a nice man and I sincerely mean that, nevermind our differences in views and opinions; Of course we differ, you as an American and I as a Dutchman from Europe.

The difference lies in our abilities in Europe to read and view the opinions and behavior of various Governments and Media in various languages and from various groups and backgrounds, incuding the news from the US.

My longtime experience in the US by building my companies there also gave me the -little- know-how that (non-internationally focused) Americans are often only "fed" (and consumed) by their own mainstream media and television who are, basically, very nationalistic which leaves very little space for different views and opinions other than being the American way (especially from other countries and/or languages) and there is no way I could have said it better than your own fellow American, Professor Michael Brenner:

"Most striking is the unstated but pervasive belief that the United States is wiser, more skillful and dedicated than anybody else. Therefore, it is natural that America rules the roost. Our serial failures of judgment and action, at home as well as abroad, have left not a trace of modesty on our conduct." *

And, I'm aware that it's not always comforting to hear an unbiased view by a fellow American but sometimes it's good to hear that billions of non-Americans think and feel the same as what Professor Brenner is putting on paper and not always agree with the American way of politics or view upon HOW the world should be and act...

But, I agree, that doesn't mean that you and I are bad people, correct ?

* From: http://asiasentinel....2859&Itemid=367

LaoPo

[SergeiY]

... there is no way I could have said it better than your own fellow American, Professor Michael Brenner:

"Most striking is the unstated but pervasive belief that the United States is wiser, more skillful and dedicated than anybody else. Therefore, it is natural that America rules the roost. Our serial failures of judgment and action, at home as well as abroad, have left not a trace of modesty on our conduct." *

And, I'm aware that it's not always comforting to hear an unbiased view by a fellow American but sometimes it's good to hear that billions of non-Americans think and feel the same as what Professor Brenner is putting on paper and not always agree with the American way of politics or view upon HOW the world should be and act...

But, I agree, that doesn't mean that you and I are bad people, correct ?

* From: http://asiasentinel....2859&Itemid=367

LaoPo

compare with this statements:

It is an interesting clash of cultures. It is also a class clash. The ruling classes from the UK and Europe are not represented on Thai Visa. They rarely come to Thailand. Thailand is a cheap flight from Europe, England and Australia, not so with Americans. The ex-pats working in Thailand or offshore are rig pigs not graduates of Oxford or Yale. You get a different level of understanding.

...

I would like to think that Americans got a better understanding of Europeans here, or Iranians or whatever. ...

Earth to Sergei...Earth to Sergei...Ecuador is a puppet of the USA. By trying to lure Assange with their "open arms", they are simply accomplishing what a CIA rendition would - get this hypocrite to a 3rd world country to rot in prison.

[Ulysses G.]

And, I'm aware that it's not always comforting to hear an unbiased view by a fellow American...

You think that he is "unbiased' because he agrees with you. People who do not agree with his opinion would not say he is 'unbiased" in any way.

[LaoPo]

And, I'm aware that it's not always comforting to hear an unbiased view by a fellow American...

You think that he is "unbiased' because he agrees with you. People who do not agree with his opinion would not say he is 'unbiased" in any way.

Oh no....he doesn't agree with me since he is probably unware of my existence but I do agree of what he writes.

But I realize very well that it hurts to see, read the very truth, written by an esteemed American Professor which (hopefully) opens the eyes of millions of Americans because they're not used to read such comments.

LaoPo

[powderpuff]

No such thing as the "Democratic" Party.

Democrat

The same word would be an adjective to describe anything to do with the Democrat Party. (i.e. "Democrat Rally" "Democrat Platform" et cetera)

Democratic defines a kin\d of a system.

Hillary said she prefers "Progressive". I prefer "Marxist Lite".

[mark45y]

And, I'm aware that it's not always comforting to hear an unbiased view by a fellow American...

You think that he is "unbiased' because he agrees with you. People who do not agree with his opinion would not say he is 'unbiased" in any way.

Oh no....he doesn't agree with me since he is probably unware of my existence but I do agree of what he writes.

But I realize very well that it hurts to see, read the very truth, written by an esteemed American Professor which (hopefully) opens the eyes of millions of Americans because they're not used to read such comments.

LaoPo

I guess I missed something. You are not talking about Noam Chomsky are you?

[mark45y]

No such thing as the "Democratic" Party.

Democrat

The same word would be an adjective to describe anything to do with the Democrat Party. (i.e. "Democrat Rally" "Democrat Platform" et cetera)

Democratic defines a kin\d of a system.

Hillary said she prefers "Progressive". I prefer "Marxist Lite".

Website of the Democratic party

http://www.democrats.org/

Website of the Republican party

http://www.gop.com/

I am beginning to understand.

[Ulysses G.]

But I realize very well that it hurts to see, read the very truth, written by an esteemed American Professor which (hopefully) opens the eyes of millions of Americans because they're not used to read such comments.

Actually, the US is full of left-wing types and such comments are impossible to avoid.

As far as the "esteemed American Professor" goes, do you forget that the last gentleman that you claimed this distinction for - who also agreed with your views - turned out to be a complete wackjob who had been pretty much disgraced?

[SergeiY]

And, I'm aware that it's not always comforting to hear an unbiased view by a fellow American...

You think that he is "unbiased' because he agrees with you. People who do not agree with his opinion would not say he is 'unbiased" in any way.

Oh no....he doesn't agree with me since he is probably unware of my existence but I do agree of what he writes.

But I realize very well that it hurts to see, read the very truth, written by an esteemed American Professor which (hopefully) opens the eyes of millions of Americans because they're not used to read such comments.

LaoPo

I guess I missed something. You are not talking about Noam Chomsky are you?

Yes, you missed something and he is not talking about Chomsky.

Btw. last time you totally spoiled your anti Chomsky rant. Not that i am much a pro Chomsky type but he deserved better critics.

[LaoPo]

But I realize very well that it hurts to see, read the very truth, written by an esteemed American Professor which (hopefully) opens the eyes of millions of Americans because they're not used to read such comments.

Actually, the US is full of left-wing types and such comments are impossible to avoid.

As far as the "esteemed American Professor" goes, do you forget that the last gentleman that you claimed this distinction for - who also agreed with your views - turned out to be a complete wackjob who had been pretty much disgraced?

If you're right winged it's of course very difficult to accept the truth, even from an esteemed fellow American, left or right, but, being a longtime member, your degenerating comments about others are no surprise anymore, never mind their impressive backgrounds and/or whether they're American or not, if they don't fit within your own views and opinion.

If they don't follow you, if they have a different opinion than you have, you "kill" them with a comment like: "Actually, the US is full of left-wing types..."

You show no respect whatsoever for the opinion of a man like Professor Michael Brenner* with a very impressive Curriculum Vitae but that's not a surpise to me either since you have little respect for almost nobody on or outside this forum, unless they praise and follow Khun Ulysses_G.

An honest, respectful and lively debate with you is impossible since you cut every post into one, maybe 2 sentences with the (in)famous Ulysses_G wisdom which is than presented as the absolute truth and the only truth.

And about your mysterious Gentleman: I have no idea whom you're talking about.

* http://www.pitt.edu/.../Background.htm

* Michael Brenner is professor of international Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center on Transatlantic Relations at SAIS in Washington. He has published widely on American foreign policy, European politics and the Middle East. His recently has published a Study On Democracy Promotion & Islam, and a monograph, Fear & Dread In The Middle East, with the DUASA Institute and the Center for International Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. In addition to a number of books, Prof Brenner's articles have appeared in journals on both sides of the Atlantic, including: Internationale Politik, International Affairs, Relations Internationales, Survival, Europe's World, European Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Organization, World Politics and Comparative Politics. He has held previous teaching and research appointments at Harvard, MIT, Cornell, Stanford, the University of Texas at Austin, and the Brookings Institution. He also has served as an advisor to the United States Departments of State and Defense.

From: http://security.nati...ael-brenner.php

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

I guess I missed something. You are not talking about Noam Chomsky are you?

No, I wasn't.

I was referring to an article by Professor Michael Brenner:

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2859&Itemid=367

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

An honest, respectful and lively debate with you is impossible since you cut every post into one, maybe 2 sentences with the (in)famous Ulysses_G wisdom which is than presented as the absolute truth and the only truth.

And about your mysterious Gentleman: I have no idea whom you're talking about.

I'm sure that you would love to forget that particular "highly respected" gentleman that you spoke so loftily of until I uncovered the facts about his background.

As far as concentrating only on one or two inaccuracies in some members posts. It takes a lot of research to prove they are simply not true or distortions of the truth and there are so many of them that pointing out only the most obvious ones just seems to make sense overall.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[philw]

An honest, respectful and lively debate with you is impossible since you cut every post into one, maybe 2 sentences with the (in)famous Ulysses_G wisdom which is than presented as the absolute truth and the only truth.

And about your mysterious Gentleman: I have no idea whom you're talking about.

I'm sure that you would love to forget that particular "highly respected" gentleman that you spoke so loftily of until I uncovered the facts about his background.

As far as concentrating only on one or two inaccuracies in some members posts. It takes a lot of research to prove they are simply not true or distortions of the truth and there are so many of them that pointing out only the most obvious ones just seems to make sense overall.

uh ?????

Can you amplify this please ?

[LaoPo]

An honest, respectful and lively debate with you is impossible since you cut every post into one, maybe 2 sentences with the (in)famous Ulysses_G wisdom which is than presented as the absolute truth and the only truth.

And about your mysterious Gentleman: I have no idea whom you're talking about.

I'm sure that you would love to forget that particular "highly respected" gentleman that you spoke so loftily of until I uncovered the facts about his background.

As far as concentrating only on one or two inaccuracies in some members posts. It takes a lot of research to prove they are simply not true or distortions of the truth and there are so many of them that pointing out only the most obvious ones just seems to make sense overall.

LaoPo

[powderpuff]

Fact. Over 90% of American college professors are left wing.

They preach the Marxist rhetoric.

Heck that's fine.

But into their 20's Americans begin to grasp that Cuba isn't a great place to live & that if they want to earn money & keep it; maybe the Herbert Hoover, FDR, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Hussein Obama model of steal from the rich & give to the lazy isn;t the best paradigm

So hey Berkley - we love you - but we think you need to be locked up..

[powderpuff]

This is pretty close:

QUOTE

The quotation usually attributed to Churchill is, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." However, the attribution is false.

phrases

Lao Pao it warms my heart that you are so enthralled by American politics. Especially from the European Socialist point of view.

[LaoPo]

Lao Pao it warms my heart that you are so enthralled by American politics. Especially from the European Socialist point of view.

Thank you Powderpuff, but I'm not a socialist.

Europe has more than 825 million people and the EU more than 500 million and they're not all the same but maybe you didn't know that?

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Fact. Over 90% of American college professors are left wing.

They preach the Marxist rhetoric.

Heck that's fine.

But into their 20's Americans begin to grasp that Cuba isn't a great place to live & that if they want to earn money & keep it; maybe the Herbert Hoover, FDR, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Hussein Obama model of steal from the rich & give to the lazy isn;t the best paradigm

So hey Berkley - we love you - but we think you need to be locked up..

Amazing that if 90% of the American College Professors are left winged, America still "produces" so many fine graduated students...the future of America, but I wonder who would teach those students if you would like to lock them up...(assuming you mean Berkeley University / California ?)

You ?

LaoPo

[Wallaby]

I just had this emailed to me.

Sarah Palin wants Julian Assange hunted as a terrorist.¹ She's among a swelling chorus of American politicians calling for the arrest - and even the death - of the Australian citizen who runs Wikileaks. It's a shame that real terrorists, the kind we should be focusing our attention on, don't show up at British Police stations with their lawyers, as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange did yesterday.

Here in Australia, Prime Minister Gillard pre-emptively judged Mr. Assange "illegal," even as the Attorney General confirmed that no Australian nor international crime by wikileaks has been identified.²

The death penalty? Judgment before trial? This isn't the kind of justice system we have in Australia. If our Government won't stand up for the rights of Australian citizens, let's do it ourselves.

We're printing ads in the Washington Times and the New York Times with the statement our Government should have made, signed by as many Australians as possible. Will you add your name to the signatories, and invite your friends to join too?

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks

The statement:

Dear President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder:

We, as Australians, condemn calls for violence, including assassination, against Australian citizen and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or for him to be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant or be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "information is the currency of democracy."³ Publishing leaked information in collaboration with major news outlets, as Wikileaks and Mr. Assange have done, is not a terrorist act.

Australia and the United States are the strongest of allies. Our soldiers serve side by side and we've experienced, and condemned, the consequences of terrorism together. To label Wikileaks a terrorist organisation is an insult to those Australians and Americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism and to terrorist forces.

If Wikileaks or their staff have broken international or national laws, let that case be heard in a just and fair court of law. At the moment, no such charges have been brought.

We are writing as Australians to say what our Government should have said: that all Australian citizens deserve to be free from persecution, threats of violence and detention without charge, especially from our friend and ally, the United States.

We call upon you to stand up for our shared democratic principles of the presumption of innocence and freedom of information.

We're printing this statement in the Washington Times and the New York Times early next week - and the more Australians sign, the more powerful the message will be. Please add your name by clicking below, and forward this message to friends and family:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks

What has started with WikiLeaks being branded as terrorists won't end there.

In fact, just yesterday U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, said that the New York Times should also be investigated under the U.S. Espionage Act for publishing a number of the diplomatic cables leaked to Wikileaks.⁴ We can help stop such plans in their tracks, by showing how they are affecting the image of the US in the eyes of their staunchest friends and allies.

Click here to sign the statement before it's published in the New York Times and Washington Times.

Thanks for being part of this,

the GetUp team.

---

¹ Beckford, M., 'Sarah Palin: hunt WikiLeaks founder like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders', The Telegraph, 30 November 2010.

² Oakes, L., 'Oakes: Gillard gushes over US leaks', Perth Now, 4 December 2010.

³ The quote is widely attributed to Jefferson, but some now dispute whether he actually said it. We know, at least, that he said "knowledge is power," even if Francis Bacon did say it first.

⁴ Savage, C., 'U.S. prosecuters study WikiLeaks prosecution', The New York Times, 7 December 2010.

[Wallaby]

Seems Russia and Brazil have offered support for Assange. The support base is slowly starting to grow.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/putin-leads-support-for-assange/story-fn775xjq-1225968781585

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, I tried to find a nutty Internet blog to support my opinion - it seems to be the fashion - but they were all full of disinformation. All I could come up with is legitimate publications.

By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD

As of Tuesday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in British custody on charges of having committed sex crimes in Sweden. Despite his arrest, WikiLeaks volunteers continue to release classified U.S. documents, and the U.S. Justice Department is still investigating whether publishing the secrets constitutes a crime. On that point, U.S. law presents significant hurdles—but they are not insurmountable.

Putting aside the extradition issues, the pertinent statute is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a crime to disclose information "relating to the national defense" to "any person not entitled to receive it." Mr. Assange has clearly done this. But the law further requires that the perpetrator acted with "reason to believe" that the secret information "could be used to the injury of the United States." Courts have interpreted this to mean that the disclosure must have been made with a "bad faith" purpose. Some contend that proving WikiLeaks' bad faith might be tricky.

Mr. Assange would undoubtedly claim in court, as he already has publicly, that cries of harm to U.S. national security are "fanciful." The attorney Baruch Weiss has suggested in the Washington Post that Mr. Assange could call as his first witness none other than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mr. Gates has taken issue with those alarmed by the latest data dump, calling claims of damage "fairly significantly overwrought" because the revelations have only "modest" consequences for U.S. diplomacy.

Such words may help Mr. Assange, but Mr. Gates would also be asked to testify about WikiLeaks' massive release of classified military field reports this past summer, including some containing the names of Afghan civilians cooperating with the United States. Back then Mr. Gates called the consequences "potentially severe and dangerous" for our troops and Afghan partners. With hundreds of thousands of secret documents to choose from, prosecutors should be able to demonstrate that Mr. Assange had ample "reason to believe" that his indiscriminate disclosures "could" injure the U.S.

Harder than proving Mr. Assange's bad faith is overcoming the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. Like a newspaper, WikiLeaks gathers information and publishes it. And newspapers—as we are repeatedly told by journalists and their defenders—have the constitutional right to publish whatever they will, including secrets, no matter how sensitive.

But this is a self-serving myth. It is true that no news outlet has ever faced criminal charges for publishing secrets. The closest we came was in World War II, after the Chicago Tribune ran a story after the Battle of Midway strongly suggesting that the United States had successfully broken Japanese naval codes. A grand jury was empaneled to hear evidence against the newspaper, but when it became clear that the Japanese had not altered their codes, the legal proceedings were abandoned lest more attention be drawn to a story that Tokyo was thought to have missed.

A second near miss came in 1971, when the Nixon administration dragged the New York Times into court to stop it from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the multi-volume classified study recounting the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In a momentous 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declined to halt the presses. The administration, it held, had failed to demonstrate the kind of imminent, grave harm that would justify a prior restraint on the press, a step never before taken in two centuries of American history.

But five of the nine justices expressed the view (with varying degrees of certitude) that if the Times went ahead and published the secrets, it might be held criminally culpable after the fact. "I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions" under the espionage statutes, wrote Justice Byron White, "on facts that would not justify . . . the imposition of a prior restraint." The landmark ruling suggests that the First Amendment is not an absolute bar to the prosecution of a traditional news organization, let alone a foreign-based, computer-age hybrid like WikiLeaks.

<A name=U401592109546SRD>Of course, convicting WikiLeaks could blow back on the American press, which publishes secrets all the time. But newspapers, whatever one makes of their occasional reckless treatment of classified information, very seldom in our history can be said to have operated with criminal "bad faith." That is a major reason that prosecutors have left them unmolested.

WikiLeaks is something else. It is not informing our democracy but waging war on its ability to conduct diplomacy and defend itself. If Mr. Assange were tried before a jury and sent to jail, our security would be enhanced and our cherished freedoms not abridged one whit.

Mr. Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and a resident scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., is author of "Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law" (Norton, 2010).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703814404576001921148451638.html

[Wallaby]

Are you insinuating the Australian Newspaper is nutty? I can think of many nutty newspapers in Australia but certainly not that one, IMHO it is the most respected newspaper in the country.

[Ulysses G.]

Seems Russia and Brazil have offered support for Assange.

Putin is real advocate of free speech. What a hypocrite.

Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of involvement in his death, in a statement dictated before he died.

Mr Litvinenko, 43, who died in a London hospital on Thursday evening and is thought to have been poisoned, said his killer was "barbaric and ruthless".

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/6180068.stm

[Ulysses G.]

Are you insinuating the Australian Newspaper is nutty?

I was not referring to you in particular. There are posts from nutty blogs all through these threads. Do not get so defensive.

[Wallaby]

I don't think anyone would doubt that. No matter how many countries end up offering support I'm sure you could say that all of them have 'issues'. But that doesn't detract from the fact they are supporting the leaks.

Re reading your previous post it may be that you were in fact commenting not on the Australian Newspaper but that internet site from my previous post. If so, you could well be right, I've never heard of them before. But I would stand by the Australian as being quite reputable.

[Ulysses G.]

I was not commenting on either one. We were posting at the same time and I had not even seen your post.

[Wallaby]

Cool, no problem.

[hammered]

Fact. Over 90% of American college professors are left wing.

They preach the Marxist rhetoric.

Heck that's fine.

But into their 20's Americans begin to grasp that Cuba isn't a great place to live & that if they want to earn money & keep it; maybe the Herbert Hoover, FDR, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Barack Hussein Obama model of steal from the rich & give to the lazy isn;t the best paradigm

So hey Berkley - we love you - but we think you need to be locked up..

A Marxist would argue that democracy must be destroyed for the benefit of the oppressed. I seriously doubt 90% of US college professors preach such openly or we would hear about it form Fox propagandists. Maybe many believe in the democratic principle of state health care for all which is a concept stemming from social democracy which was established to undermine socialist and marxist attempts to completely change the system with no democracy.In heated debates it is easy to throw things around but this statement defies belief

It is good today to see Pfizer exposed for its hideously corrupt practices

[hammered]

Sorry, I tried to find a nutty Internet blog to support my opinion - it seems to be the fashion - but they were all full of disinformation. All I could come up with is legitimate publications.

By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD

As of Tuesday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is in British custody on charges of having committed sex crimes in Sweden. Despite his arrest, WikiLeaks volunteers continue to release classified U.S. documents, and the U.S. Justice Department is still investigating whether publishing the secrets constitutes a crime. On that point, U.S. law presents significant hurdles—but they are not insurmountable.

Putting aside the extradition issues, the pertinent statute is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a crime to disclose information "relating to the national defense" to "any person not entitled to receive it." Mr. Assange has clearly done this. But the law further requires that the perpetrator acted with "reason to believe" that the secret information "could be used to the injury of the United States." Courts have interpreted this to mean that the disclosure must have been made with a "bad faith" purpose. Some contend that proving WikiLeaks' bad faith might be tricky.

Mr. Assange would undoubtedly claim in court, as he already has publicly, that cries of harm to U.S. national security are "fanciful." The attorney Baruch Weiss has suggested in the Washington Post that Mr. Assange could call as his first witness none other than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mr. Gates has taken issue with those alarmed by the latest data dump, calling claims of damage "fairly significantly overwrought" because the revelations have only "modest" consequences for U.S. diplomacy.

Such words may help Mr. Assange, but Mr. Gates would also be asked to testify about WikiLeaks' massive release of classified military field reports this past summer, including some containing the names of Afghan civilians cooperating with the United States. Back then Mr. Gates called the consequences "potentially severe and dangerous" for our troops and Afghan partners. With hundreds of thousands of secret documents to choose from, prosecutors should be able to demonstrate that Mr. Assange had ample "reason to believe" that his indiscriminate disclosures "could" injure the U.S.

Harder than proving Mr. Assange's bad faith is overcoming the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. Like a newspaper, WikiLeaks gathers information and publishes it. And newspapers—as we are repeatedly told by journalists and their defenders—have the constitutional right to publish whatever they will, including secrets, no matter how sensitive.

But this is a self-serving myth. It is true that no news outlet has ever faced criminal charges for publishing secrets. The closest we came was in World War II, after the Chicago Tribune ran a story after the Battle of Midway strongly suggesting that the United States had successfully broken Japanese naval codes. A grand jury was empaneled to hear evidence against the newspaper, but when it became clear that the Japanese had not altered their codes, the legal proceedings were abandoned lest more attention be drawn to a story that Tokyo was thought to have missed.

A second near miss came in 1971, when the Nixon administration dragged the New York Times into court to stop it from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the multi-volume classified study recounting the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In a momentous 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declined to halt the presses. The administration, it held, had failed to demonstrate the kind of imminent, grave harm that would justify a prior restraint on the press, a step never before taken in two centuries of American history.

But five of the nine justices expressed the view (with varying degrees of certitude) that if the Times went ahead and published the secrets, it might be held criminally culpable after the fact. "I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions" under the espionage statutes, wrote Justice Byron White, "on facts that would not justify . . . the imposition of a prior restraint." The landmark ruling suggests that the First Amendment is not an absolute bar to the prosecution of a traditional news organization, let alone a foreign-based, computer-age hybrid like WikiLeaks.

<A name=U401592109546SRD>Of course, convicting WikiLeaks could blow back on the American press, which publishes secrets all the time. But newspapers, whatever one makes of their occasional reckless treatment of classified information, very seldom in our history can be said to have operated with criminal "bad faith." That is a major reason that prosecutors have left them unmolested.

WikiLeaks is something else. It is not informing our democracy but waging war on its ability to conduct diplomacy and defend itself. If Mr. Assange were tried before a jury and sent to jail, our security would be enhanced and our cherished freedoms not abridged one whit.

Mr. Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and a resident scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., is author of "Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law" (Norton, 2010).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703814404576001921148451638.html

The wsj is owned by who?