Fox News Pundits Call for Julian Assange's Assassination

[russ_watters]

Assange being in custody is a valid reason he can't be killed. Whether he's a criminal or an enemy prisoner of war, there's laws against killing him.

Your logic works better on his staff.

Agreed. It is ironic on several levels, but his being in jail doesn't make him more vulnerable, it makes him safer. Those who claim his jailing is part of a conspiracy against him aren't seeing that.

I made sure to include his staff in my argument and since they are the ones now doing the work, they are the ones who now present most of the threat. Nevertheless, the threat from Assange isn't completely abated by his being in jail: he can still communicate with and direct them. So I don't know that it is necessarily true that he is still protected.

From a practical matter, locating the staff is the only challenge to apprehending them. Killing them is a little bit of an over reaction if they're merely criminals. If they're enemy combatants, I think it might be legal even if at least slightly unethical. As soon as they're located, the game is over and it's practically like shooting people waving a white flag of surrender.

I made sure to temper my words a little. I don't consider killing them the only appropriate action but rather one of a host of possibilities depending on the particulars of the tactical situation.

 

[russ_watters]

I this respect, I don't care about Assange. I want
i) to put an end to the pretense by Assange collaborators and sympathizers that this is some kind of parlor game (Berkley City Council, perhaps Wikileaks staff, hackers shutting down web sites, etc), and
ii) to stop other copy cats like the Navy bozo,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-posing-foreign-spy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml"o, who also likely fancies himself a crusader.

Ok... but these are collateral issues only (and issues I haven't gotten into at all with my argument). They don't address the issue of Wikileaks itself. Or more specifically, Gokul said (and you agreed):

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).

But your response above does not address that issue at all.

 

[Mathnomalous]

No. People who know me here know that one of my biggest pet peves is people playing fast-and-loose with definitions. If people stick to the dictionary definition, that would be great.

Let us do that. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spy

Definition of SPY

1
: one that spies:
a : one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information

b : a person employed by one nation to secretly convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation; also : a person who conveys the trade secrets of one company to another

2
: an act of spying

Since Assange is releasing the "dirt" of multiple nations, it is safe to conclude Assange is not working for any particular entity other than himself and Wikileaks. The enemy spy claim is laughable, when we consider not a single government on Earth has oficially charged Assange and/or Wikileaks with espionage.

It seems Julian Assange is a rogue agent; no allegiances other than to himself, organization, and personal cause.

Clearly, the OP - and a large number of others - agree that killing Assange [and others in his organization] would be illegal/murder. What I'm asking is for these people to think for themselves and come up with their own logical reasons for believing it, rather than just knee-jerk reacting to one-liners from random TV pundits.

Logical reason: Assange is a journalist disseminating information. If you claim the release of certain information will result in harm to you or others, you need to present evidence that clearly shows harm will be the likeliest outcome; you must show Assange's intent is to deliberately kill the person(s) you are trying to protect, otherwise, you are simply dabbling in pre-"crime."

 

[mheslep]

Ok... but these are collateral issues only (and issues I haven't gotten into at all with my argument). They don't address the issue of Wikileaks itself.

It's collateral only to your point about how to stop Wikileaks from acting further. That indeed is a serious issue, but by no means the only one. Stopping the existing WikiLeaks is perhaps not even the most important issue, in that if Wikileaks+Assange all retire from the planet tonight, they could become martyrs for some and by tomorrow we could have Wikileaks 2.0, hosted by Berkley, Ca servers.

Or more specifically, Gokul said (and you agreed): But your response above does not address that issue at all.

That's true, I should have clarified. Above I pursued why I wanted the leak consequences demonstrated, not the 'easiest way to' to get rid of WL 1.0.

 

[WhoWee]

Killing them to interrrupt ongoing espionage would be a legitimate component of war.

Again, this is similar to a hostage situation - deadly force is appropriate.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems Julian Assange is a rogue agent; no allegiances other than to himself, organization, and personal cause.

You make him sound like a terrorist.

 

[WhoWee]

Logical reason: Assange is a journalist disseminating information. If you claim the release of certain information will result in harm to you or others, you need to present evidence that clearly shows harm will be the likeliest outcome; you must show Assange's intent is to deliberately kill the person(s) you are trying to protect, otherwise, you are simply dabbling in pre-"crime."

Again, given the sheer volume of the information leaked - he can't possibly know the contents - a journalist he is not.

 

[mheslep]

Mathnomalous:
First, the history of spying is replete with those who spied (definition 1A will do), carried off secrets with intent to do harm, but never succeeded in contacting any agent of a foreign nation or receiving payment. Second, you simply assert Assange is a 'journalist', and simply assert that legal evidence and intent apply which they clearly they don't if the leaks are considered an act of war. What is the basis for your assertions?