News Fox News Pundits Call for Julian Assange's Assassination

[Mathnomalous]

As if anyone needed additional proof Fox News is a propaganda organization, here is a video of Fox News pundits demanding Julian Assange's assassination. Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, is called a "traitor" and "treasonous" and supposedly broke "every law of the United States."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36xEvVnF2I&feature=player_embedded

Call for murder on live TV. This is your world, folks.

 

[drankin]

Bummer

 

[russ_watters]

As if anyone needed additional proof Fox News is a propaganda organization

Could you explain why you think it is propaganda? Are you saying that man works for the government?

Call for murder on live TV. This is your world, folks.

Can you explain why killing Assange would constitute murder?

 

[thorium1010]

Can you explain why killing Assange would constitute murder?

I think putting him behind bars would be a better option, otherwise he becomes a matyr (don't you think?) .

 

[russ_watters]

I think putting him behind bars would be a better option, otherwise he becomes a matyr (don't you think?) .

I'm trying to figure out if the OP has applied any logic to this or is just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful situation before fully laying out the logic for the conditions under which he should be killed. But for a sneak-peek: you're right that that is a concern, however one must weigh the risk of becoming a martyr (which would accomplish what?) vs the risk of Assange and his organization participating in battlefield killing of American soldiers and the murder of civilians in the war zone.

 

[thorium1010]

I'm trying to figure out if the OP has applied any logic to this or is just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful situation before fully laying out the logic for the conditions under which he should be killed. But for a sneak-peek: you're right that that is a concern, however one must weigh the risk of becoming a martyr (which would accomplish what?) vs the risk of Assange and his organization participating in battlefield killing of American soldiers and the murder of civilians in the war zone.

julian assange is just one person. I would definitely be more worried about his aides or backers or his sources.More julian assange's may come out tomorrow and they may choose to remain anonymous (and internet has the power to do that). I would be more interested in targeting the source of the leaks than the man who publishes them.
Its like targetting the al qaeda who are being supported (financially) by certain groups or individuals in saudi arabia.If you are not targeting the backers, all your efforts are wasted

 

[Fra]

Call for murder on live TV.

I wonder is to what extent the american people backs these statements up? and then I mean the public, not politicians or soldiers.

How about starting a poll? What do you think of wikileaks? then give some options in the range

1. Assange and wikileaks wants to destroy our world, he and and all wikileaks supports should be killed (like suggested by the gentleman in the news clip), he wants to destroy our world.
2. Same as above, but killing assange is enough - spare the supporters. ?
3. ?
...
9. ?
10.. Assange is a hero, we are all in debt to Wikileaks for revealing corruption of democracy even though the truth hurts, and he and wikileaks should be protected rather than chased.

/Fredrik

 

[Gokul43201]

Call for murder on live TV.

Can you explain why killing Assange would constitute murder?

I think Bob Beckel, makes it rather clear:

And if I'm not for the death penalty, there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a b***h

(emphasis mine)

 

[Gokul43201]

But for a sneak-peek: you're right that that is a concern, however one must weigh the risk of becoming a martyr (which would accomplish what?) vs the risk of Assange and his organization participating in battlefield killing of American soldiers and the murder of civilians in the war zone.

You know what I think is the easiest way to silence WikiLeaks? Demonstrate that their actions have directly led to battlefield killing of American soldiers and the murder of civilians in the war zone (especially the latter).

 

[WhoWee]

As if anyone needed additional proof Fox News is a propaganda organization, here is a video of Fox News pundits demanding Julian Assange's assassination. Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, is called a "traitor" and "treasonous" and supposedly broke "every law of the United States."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36xEvVnF2I&feature=player_embedded

Call for murder on live TV. This is your world, folks.

You do realize that Bob Beckel made the comment?
http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/bob-beckel/

"Beckel managed Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign for the presidency."
"After a political baptism as a college student in Robert Kennedy's 1968 campaign, a tour of duty in the Peace Corps and a successful stint heading up his own consulting firm, Bob Beckel joined the government in 1977.

As the deputy assistant secretary of state, he steered the controversial Panama Canal Treaties through Congress. He moved to the Carter White House to head an administration effort to press Congress into passing the Middle East and Salt II treaties.

He resumed his career as a political consultant until Walter Mondale asked him to manage his 1984 campaign for the presidency. As national campaign manager, he oversaw the successful race for the Democratic nomination. He holds a B.A. from Wagner College in Staten Island, New York."

Bob is not exactly a right wing propagandist - quite the opposite.
If you listen to the entre segment, they discuss how Assange is a security threat and engaged in blackmail (possibly treason) and might be targeted. To this point, I might have to agree - if you paint a target on your chest and dance around in the face of authority when they have much to lose- don't be surprised if someone fires a shot.

I think the US is starting to be viewed as "soft".

Again IMO, it might have started with the Justice Departments handling of; the Black Panther in Philadelphia, the whole Gitmo fiasco including the proposed relocation of the trials to NY (every nut wants to testify on the world's stage), the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and the recent conviction on 1 count (of 200+) of a terrorist. Next we have a frustrated public that wonders why we can't profile at airports and instead subject everyone to invasive searches. At the same time, I don't think the recent failed bombing attempt (FBI sting - weapon not real) at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony or the Maryland suspect gave anyone a sense of security.

To make matters worse, even when the suspect admits they were motivated by religion - specifically a Muslim - in order to be politically correct - we must turn a deaf ear and make effort to be sensitive to peaceful Muslims.

There is an old saying - don't mistake kindness for weakness.

Please understand, I am not anti-Muslim. I have many Muslim (Jewish and Hindu as well) friends and professional associates. I can assure you they appreciate our continued kindness and respect - but they are not the problem.

The problem might best be summarized when a suspect makes this statement:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/maryland.plot/index.html
"Antonio Martinez, 21, was upset by U.S. forces killing Muslims overseas and plotted to blow up the Armed Forces Career Center in the Baltimore suburb of Catonsville, Maryland, according to a federal agent's affidavit. Martinez, a Muslim convert who goes by the name Muhammad Hussain, was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to detonate an inert device supplied to him by an undercover FBI agent, federal prosecutors announced.

"He stated that because the military in the United States and other countries were fighting against Muslims, soldiers were legitimate targets," according to the affidavit. "

It's time to make sure the ENEMY doesn't think we're weak.

 

[russ_watters]

I think Bob Beckel, makes it rather clear: (emphasis mine)

It makes it clear that he thinks it is murder but doesn't explain why. Besides: I'm more interested in peoples opinions here than some random pundit.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the US is starting to be viewed as "soft".

By who?

 

[russ_watters]

You know what I think is the easiest way to silence WikiLeaks? Demonstrate that their actions have directly led to battlefield killing of American soldiers and the murder of civilians in the war zone (especially the latter).

Awful idea. what do you think it will do for the level of support we receive if we show the afghani people we can't protect them if they help us?

 

[Gokul43201]

It makes it clear that he thinks it is murder but doesn't explain why. Besides: I'm more interested in peoples opinions here than some random pundit.

Okay, so you're not saying that Math's characterization of Beckel's call for illegally taking out Assange does not constitute a call for murder. You are asking Math if he agrees with Beckel that killing Assange would be illegal?

 

[Gokul43201]

Awful idea. what do you think it will do for the level of support we receive if we show the afghani people we can't protect them if they help us?

I don't know about that (as in, it may already be too late for that, if the news about the leaks has made it to most parts of Afghanistan), but I think it would be the easist and surest way of silencing WL.

If that's a tricky proposition, how about demonstrating that WL directly caused the death of an American soldier?

 

[Jack21222]

It makes it clear that he thinks it is murder but doesn't explain why. Besides: I'm more interested in peoples opinions here than some random pundit.

Is this going to be a dictionary argument? Alright, I guess I'll go first.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder?show=0&t=1291905277

: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

What definition do you want next? Unlawfully? Malice? Aforethought? Person?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Can you explain why killing Assange would constitute murder?

Really?

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it would be easier for Russ to explain how killing Assange (without due process, etc.) would not be murder. That would take a lot of guesswork and wasteful back-and-forth out of this discussion.

 

[WhoWee]

By who?

People that wish to do harm.

 

[Gokul43201]

People that wish to do harm.

Harm, in general, or harm to the US specifically? I think very few people would consider the US "soft" relative to most of the rest of the industrial world. The US is now engaged in air-strikes in two more countries than it was five years ago. Declaration or war or not, the US has demonstrated that it is willing and able to take preventive (not just pre-emptive) military actions, even within countries that it refers to as allies. I don't believe any other European country will likely go as far as that.

 

[WhoWee]

Harm, in general, or harm to the US specifically? I think very few people would consider the US "soft" relative to most of the rest of the industrial world. The US is now engaged in air-strikes in two more countries than it was five years ago. Declaration or war or not, the US has demonstrated that it is willing and able to take preventive (not just pre-emptive) military actions, even within countries that it refers to as allies. I don't believe any other European country will likely go as far as that.

I cites these examples...

"Again IMO, it might have started with the Justice Departments handling of; the Black Panther in Philadelphia, the whole Gitmo fiasco including the proposed relocation of the trials to NY (every nut wants to testify on the world's stage), the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and the recent conviction on 1 count (of 200+) of a terrorist. Next we have a frustrated public that wonders why we can't profile at airports and instead subject everyone to invasive searches. At the same time, I don't think the recent failed bombing attempt (FBI sting - weapon not real) at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony or the Maryland suspect gave anyone a sense of security."

and the Maryland suspect's quote...

""Antonio Martinez, 21, was upset by U.S. forces killing Muslims overseas and plotted to blow up the Armed Forces Career Center in the Baltimore suburb of Catonsville, Maryland, according to a federal agent's affidavit. Martinez, a Muslim convert who goes by the name Muhammad Hussain, was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to detonate an inert device supplied to him by an undercover FBI agent, federal prosecutors announced.

"He stated that because the military in the United States and other countries were fighting against Muslims, soldiers were legitimate targets," according to the affidavit. " "

To your point, I seriously doubt any troublesome countries such as Cuba, Iran, or North Korea would ever challenge our military directly. Our threat is from small and organized groups and lone wolf characters.

The problem with Assange and others like him might be better analyzed by considering the sheer volume of information - he could not have possibly read everything he leaked.

Does this mean he didn't care about the content? What is his limit - where would he draw the line? Would he give the names and addresses of persons in a witness protection program? Would he give names and addresses of active informants and Government personnel?

What if this was a diversion - how do we know he didn't sell sensitive information lost in the sheer volume of the dump?

 

[thorium1010]

I cites these examples...

"Again IMO, it might have started with the Justice Departments handling of; the Black Panther in Philadelphia, the whole Gitmo fiasco including the proposed relocation of the trials to NY (every nut wants to testify on the world's stage), the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and the recent conviction on 1 count (of 200+) of a terrorist. Next we have a frustrated public that wonders why we can't profile at airports and instead subject everyone to invasive searches. At the same time, I don't think the recent failed bombing attempt (FBI sting - weapon not real) at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony or the Maryland suspect gave anyone a sense of security."

and the Maryland suspect's quote...

""Antonio Martinez, 21, was upset by U.S. forces killing Muslims overseas and plotted to blow up the Armed Forces Career Center in the Baltimore suburb of Catonsville, Maryland, according to a federal agent's affidavit. Martinez, a Muslim convert who goes by the name Muhammad Hussain, was arrested Wednesday morning after attempting to detonate an inert device supplied to him by an undercover FBI agent, federal prosecutors announced.

"He stated that because the military in the United States and other countries were fighting against Muslims, soldiers were legitimate targets," according to the affidavit. " "

Do you think these kind of attacks or plots would stop if US becomes a lot more aggressive or carry out more strikes ?
I do not know how it seems that wikileaks makes the US weak in defending itself. Osama bin laden planned the 9/11 attacks, because he saw US a major power interfering in the middle east and considered US as very powerful country guided by evil forces or something like that which can be brought down despite the military might

 

[humanino]

Killing Assange is preposterous, the USG needs to get their hands on him and make him talk. Earlier on this board it was suggested that the divide is that of generations. In case older people and Fox news crew have not noticed, Assange is in jail, the problem is not gone and evolving rapidly. The last aspect is by far the most worrisome. Nobody wants the first "cyberwar" which would create fanatics. I am unsure that the current strategy will appease those young hackers who dream to finally achieve something of historical significance in their life (given their computer skills, they probably had given up this hope years ago).

 

[Office_Shredder]

Killing Assange is preposterous, the USG needs to get their hands on him and make him talk.

Make him talk about what?

I am unsure that the current strategy will appease those young hackers who dream to finally achieve something of historical significance in their life (given their computer skills, they probably had given up this hope years ago).

What makes you so sure about their motivation, and what do computer skills have to do with achieving something of historical significance?

 

[WhoWee]

Killing Assange is preposterous, the USG needs to get their hands on him and make him talk. Earlier on this board it was suggested that the divide is that of generations. In case older people and Fox news crew have not noticed, Assange is in jail, the problem is not gone and evolving rapidly. The last aspect is by far the most worrisome. Nobody wants the first "cyberwar" which would create fanatics. I am unsure that the current strategy will appease those young hackers who dream to finally achieve something of historical significance in their life (given their computer skills, they probably had given up this hope years ago).

Perhaps the answer is to make a stern warning to would-be cyber-terrorists - then prosecute to the level specified in the event someone decides to progress?

I boldened your statement because it sounds a bit preposterous to me. He's certinly not going to be water-boarded (used it to make a point). The reality is that if brought to the US, he'll be represented by a slew of attorneys (probably at no cost to him) and thus far, he's in jail pending sex charges.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you think these kind of attacks or plots would stop if US becomes a lot more aggressive or carry out more strikes ?
I do not know how it seems that wikileaks makes the US weak in defending itself. Osama bin laden planned the 9/11 attacks, because he saw US a major power interfering in the middle east and considered US as very powerful country guided by evil forces or something like that which can be brought down despite the military might

I think you misunderstand my point. IMO - the US Attorney General is the weak link.

 

[humanino]

Make him talk about what?

Anything, everything. He claims that there is no record of the sources of the leaks. That is obviously unfortunate, because they should be the first people to find. But we can not buy that there is no trace of them without even checking. The other priority would be to identify the rest of the wikileaks crew. Their identity could also be leaked for the general public to know. That might deter other people from contributing (hackers tend to enjoy remaining "anonymous"). Another example would be : to understand the network weaknesses he exploited and try to fix them.

What makes you so sure about their motivation, and what do computer skills have to do with achieving something of historical significance?

I was of course being a little bit ironic. I believe there is a sense of superiority amongst highly skilled technology experts. When combined with little social life it produces a frustrating disconnect with reality. The illusion of doing something positive of historical significance can compensate for this frustration. It seems like an potentially explosive cocktail to me.

He's certinly not going to be water-boarded (used it to make a point). The reality is that if brought to the US, he'll be represented by a slew of attorneys (probably at no cost to him) and thus far, he's in jail pending sex charges.

In the past, the USG did not scruple about declaring individuals terrorist and not providing them with attorneys. If it is acceptable to call for murder of Assange on one of the most important US network, it appears to me that not committing murder but merely declaring Assange terrorist would not stir much controversy.

 

[WhoWee]

In the past, the USG did not scruple about declaring individuals terrorist and not providing them with attorneys. If it is acceptable to call for murder of Assange on one of the most important US network, it appears to me that not committing murder but merely declaring Assange terrorist would not stir much controversy.

Don't worry about Assange. If he ends up in the US, the Attorney General will make sure "his rights" are protected - he shouldn't need to make an utterance.

 

[turbo]

Don't worry about Assange. If he ends up in the US, the Attorney General will make sure "his rights" are protected - he shouldn't need to make an utterance.

Unless he is subject to rendition. That never happens, right? I like our system of justice, but I do not have blind faith in its faithful execution by people with political positions to protect, and agendas to promote.

 

[WhoWee]

Unless he is subject to rendition. That never happens, right? I like our system of justice, but I do not have blind faith in its faithful execution by people with political positions to protect, and agendas to promote.

Assange has nothing to worry about - wouldn't it be something if the AG's old firm would represent him? I think it would be really nice.

 

[WhoWee]

Assange should pray for rendition.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_16271913?source=rss&nclick_check=1
"Evidence gleaned in rendition interrogation barred in terror trial
"
"Speaking in Washington, Holder seemed to play down the ruling's significance.

"We are talking about one ruling, in one case by one judge," Holder said.

Ghailani was scheduled to begin trial on charges he conspired in the embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks, orchestrated by al-Qaida, killed 224 people."[/I]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps the answer is to make a stern warning to would-be cyber-terrorists - then prosecute to the level specified in the event someone decides to progress?

On that we agree. The most important part of this story may be precedence This has been called the first information war. Cyber-terrorism needs to be treated accordingly - as acts of war.

The guy is trying to blackmail the US by threatening US security interests and endagering the lives of untold numbers of people. That is an act of war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...that means we have the right to kill him if necessary.

 

[humanino]

...that means we have the right to kill him if necessary.

My point was that it does not appear necessary or even helpful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My point was that it does not appear necessary or even helpful.

Hopefully not.

I see his actions as being potentially more damaging than those of the 911 attackers.

 

[Gokul43201]

Assange should pray for rendition.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_16271913?source=rss&nclick_check=1
"Evidence gleaned in rendition interrogation barred in terror trial
"
"Speaking in Washington, Holder seemed to play down the ruling's significance.

"We are talking about one ruling, in one case by one judge," Holder said.

Ghailani was scheduled to begin trial on charges he conspired in the embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks, orchestrated by al-Qaida, killed 224 people."[/I]

I imagined the Ghailani case would have been a wake up call that torture and rendition can come back and bite you in the @$$. I didn't quite expect that people would take the opposite message from that outcome (edit: that's not entirely accurate; I did think that some people would).

Do you also think the prosecution of Richard Reid in Federal Court was an act of softness?

 

[turbo]

Signs that all might not be well in the Assange=sex offender program.

CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, flat & fatally in love with a man, can you even be all the time?

http://www.businessinsider.com/anna-ardin-stops-cooperating-in-assange-prosecution-2010-12

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe the part you quoted is meant to be ironic.

 

[WhoWee]

The sex charges do nothing but trivialize and distract - total nonsense.

 

[Gokul43201]

The sex charges do nothing but trivialize and distract - total nonsense.

Actually, they may do a lot more. If it turns out that the charges don't hold up, then Assange begins to look more and more like a hero, a champion of the people, who is being silenced by corrupt governments using cooked up charges.

 

[turbo]

I believe the part you quoted is meant to be ironic.

Perhaps, but she has relocated and is no longer cooperating with Swedish authorities. That much appears to be true, unlike so much of the press about Assange.

 

[Monique]

What a bold comments here, I suggest people look up the International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. You can't just go and kill anyone who is in your way, even if you think you are in a war. These are called war crimes.

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

"How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity"

The US has claimed the moral high ground in its recent wars. But how is this position tenable if those wars were in fact illegal?

Through a thorough exploration of the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, and the attempts of the US to legitimise them, Michael Mandel casts a critical eye on the claims the US makes for its wars – "humanitarian intervention" and "self-defence" – and unpacks the complex moral and legal issues underpinning recent US military action. Michael Mandel shows how international law is a malleable entity which the US can bend in its favour, but even then there are many times when it goes against the law and fights wars illegally.

Mandel also explores the recent war crimes trials of those who lose their battle with the US, and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic in particular. Mandel argues that the trials are not actually about ending war crimes, or impunity for war crimes, but about selectively punishing "the usual suspects" as part of the imperial strategy of the great powers – primarily the United States. Mandel also highlights how hypocritical such trials are – Milosevic is tried with great ceremony for his crimes, while America is not. In fact, Mandel shows how these tribunals shield America and its allies from responsibility for what is termed "collateral damage", but what is in reality murder on a vast scale.

 

[WhoWee]

What a bold comments here, I suggest people look up the International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. You can't just go and kill anyone who is in your way, even if you think you are in a war. These are called war crimes.

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

Just out of curiosity - are there any chapters devoted to Russia or China? Perhaps something on a border conflict involving Iraq, Korea, or somewhere in Africa - or is the US the only country discussed? Perhaps the issue of the torture known as "waterboarding" is discussed as being on par with medieval tactics?

Before taking the moral high ground -please consider the blackmail tactics at hand - when lives are being threatened > lethal force is used on a daily basis.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What a bold comments here, I suggest people look up the International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. You can't just go and kill anyone who is in your way, even if you think you are in a war. These are called war crimes.

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

We have always reserved the right to protect our national security interests. I can assure you that no one has ever surrendered that right. Assasination was legal under Presidential order, until Carter. We can change that standard at a moment's notice.

This isn't about past wars. This is about blackmail.

Assange's actions could start wars.

 

[NeoDevin]

The guy is trying to blackmail the US by threatening US security interests and endagering the lives of untold numbers of people. That is an act of war.

In order for it to be blackmail, Wikileaks would need to be demanding something in exchange for not revealing the information. Have they?

 

[WhoWee]

In order for it to be blackmail, Wikileaks would need to be demanding something in exchange for not revealing the information. Have they?

There are claims of a "poison pill" - who knows for sure?
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/12/06/wikileaks-blackmail-and-information-war/

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail
" WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in the face of increasingly heated criticism and calls for his prosecution, has made it known that he's prepared to unleash a vast reserve of government documents if he's detained on any charges, if the WikiLeaks Web site is shut down, or in the event that he himself is killed. In July, Assange began distributing an encrypted 1.3-gigabyte file over the Internet, which tens of thousands of people have since downloaded. Assange calls this file his "insurance policy," and his lawyer, Mark Stephens, told reporters that Assange will release the encryption key if he's brought to trial for his involvement with WikiLeaks, or for the sex crimes charges issued by Interpol.

The encrypted file is said to contain full, uncensored versions of all the U.S. documents WikiLeaks has obtained, with names and details left intact. Stephens has referred to the file as "a thermonuclear device," and commentators are measuring the importance of Assange's gambit as the furor over WikiLeaks grows ever higher."

 

[mheslep]

...
I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

Yes, well I suggest Mandel is a Canadian nut, academic or not.

Milosevic is tried with great ceremony for his crimes, while America is not.

ISRAEL'S WEST BANK AND GAZA SETTLEMENTS ARE WAR CRIMES IN CANADA

http://www.canpalnet.ca/archive/mandel.html

This book is poorly researched, and the author has a very clear anti-American bias. When the author lacks evidence, he simply speculates by saying things like "it seems" and notes how his conclusion is "evident". Rather than always citing to evidence, he favors political commentary and other biased sources. When I was pleasently suprised to find an unbiased reference, more often than not the author provided a slanted interpretation of it (often through omission). Lastly, the author blatantly misrepresents the legal aspects of international law in favor of how the author would like international law to be. As an attorney who works in international law, I found this to be the book's greatest flaw. In sum, this book is little more than an anti-American rant presented in a academic format. I do not recommend purchasing this book.

 

[cristo]

We have always reserved the right to protect our national security interests. I can assure you that no one has ever surrendered that right. Assasination was legal under Presidential order, until Carter. We can change that standard at a moment's notice.

You cannot make it 'legal' to enter another country (especially not a European country) and assassinate a citizen of a third country, regardless of how much power you think the Presidential order holds. You can apply for a third part to be extradited from said country to yours if you have enough evidence to show that you have a case against him. However, I think it's quite clear that you do not have the evidence, otherwise Assage would not be in court defending an extradition order to Sweden, but to the US.

 

[Fra]

...that means we have the right to kill him if necessary.

It should be obvious and unneccessary to point out, but there is no such thing as proper objectivity here. Each and everyone makes up their own mind about what's subjectively right and wong, and what's "right" in the _effective_ objective and internationally legal sense is all about negotiation, and negotiation is never one-sided, and it in particular involves the entire environment.

So it doesn't make a difference if US makes up a law that's justifies domestically for themselves various methods because unless your reasoning is backed up by the rest of the world you just make your self more trouble and more enemies by ignoring it.

I am pretty positive that any such action from US will be followed by massive international protest, and THAT alone, will DECREASE national security for US.

The question is what the objective is: Revenge at all cost, or a better more secure country?

The backreaction of the rest of the world, on US actions is something that some people doesn't seem to want to understand. To think that the dynamics can be analysed by ignoring the backreaction is simplistic IMO.

If you read media outside of US you will see that there is in fact plenty of public opinon for wikileaks. Particularly bad (for US) would it be to respond to the wikileaks deal in a way that merely reinforces the impression of a country that sometimes violates as it seems international negotiations for it's own purpose. If Assange was killed, it would reinforce wikileaks projection of US.

I honestly do not think this is the development most american wants because it will lead to more tension worldwide and less security.

I think the rational response would be to, reject the tempting revenge and instead show the world that wikileaks are wrong. And where they are right, measures will be taken to improve. This would I think gain more respect among than a response that is merely aggression. But this is probably a more DIFFUCULT action to take from the domestic perspective as a lot of people would see it as a sign of weakness. But it's rather a sign of strenght and courage to admit that you can improve.

/Fredrik

 

[Gokul43201]

There are claims of a "poison pill" - who knows for sure?
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/12/06/wikileaks-blackmail-and-information-war/

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail
" WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in the face of increasingly heated criticism and calls for his prosecution, has made it known that he's prepared to unleash a vast reserve of government documents if he's detained on any charges, if the WikiLeaks Web site is shut down, or in the event that he himself is killed. In July, Assange began distributing an encrypted 1.3-gigabyte file over the Internet, which tens of thousands of people have since downloaded. Assange calls this file his "insurance policy," and his lawyer, Mark Stephens, told reporters that Assange will release the encryption key if he's brought to trial for his involvement with WikiLeaks, or for the sex crimes charges issued by Interpol."

Where is that quote from? I couldn't find it in the links you provided.

If it is indeed true that his lawyer made the statements claimed above, I don't see how that wouldn't be a clear-cut case of blackmail.