News Fox News Pundits Call for Julian Assange's Assassination

[russ_watters]

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?

After thinking about this issue a little more, I realize it is actually three levels removed from reasonable/logical.

1. The war is ongoing, so we shouldn't just say, 'oops, too late, we might as well stop trying'. We have a responsibility to keep trying to keep Afghani civilians and American soldiers alive.

2. It doesn't make sense that the US government releasing proof that the information killed Afghanis would silence WL. Why would it? Are you suggesting these guys have a conscience and if they realized they were killing people they'd stop? I think that's unrealistic and doesn't fit with what I've read from Assange.

3. For the question of whether Assange or his staff should be stopped by physical force, whether they killed people in the past is irrelevant. What matters if they are going to release information in the future that could kill people. Killing them after the fact would be retribution. Killing them to interrrupt ongoing espionage would be a legitimate component of war.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. Though there's some risk of a downside, I suspect Afghans already have likely made up their minds about the level of trust they can entertain with US forces there.

Could you explain why you think releasing proof that WL's information killed people will matter? Are you saying you think Assange has a conscience and will stop if he see's proof that he's killing people? I'm not seeing that in his attitude and if that's not it, I'm not seeing your point.

Please explain!

 

[russ_watters]

Really?

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.

When you - and I mean pretty much everyone on your side in this discussion - treat this as too obvious to bother explaining, you imply that you haven't put enough thought into the issue to make a logical argument. You imply you're just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful situation.

If it is so obvious, it should be simple to explain.

 

[mheslep]

The other panel participants did not challenge Bob Beckel's claims and, instead, seemed to agree with him in various forms of vagueness.

The host, the Fox Business host, did not comment on Beckel's pronouncement.

We may conclude Fox News just spewed propaganda in order to injure Julian Assange.

Can you name a single television news outlet that does not also on occasion entertain a guest on the show that, clearly expressing there own opinion, says some injurious thing about "an institution, a cause, or a person"? Regarding murder, can you see a difference between killing in war and murder, and if so would you consider that Assange is acting as an enemy combatant in war? I personally don't go that far (yet), but I certainly see the argument.

 

[BobG]

D. Assange is in custody and as a prisoner can't be considered a threat and killed. That's a potential wrinkle/complication for him, but it doesn't apply to his servers or his staff.

So to reiterate my position: The continued release of classified documents by Wikileaks constitutes an act of war against the USA and as such, the organization should be stopped with military/CIA means, including - if necessary to stop them - killing the staff.

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. Whether they're criminals jeopardizing innocent people or whether they're enemy combatants jeoparding our troops and/or allies troops, killing them to stop the threat is legitimate - at least in theory.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

With this in his history, I suggest not reading it:

In 1999, during the NATO bombing of Serbia, he filed a formal complaint of NATO war crimes with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charging 67 NATO leaders with war crimes. Mandel's complaints were dismissed by the tribunal who claimed they had no jurisdiction over NATO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mandel_(law_professor )

 

[russ_watters]

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

Assange's actions could start wars.

For clarity, Ivan and I seem to be in agreement about the end result, but are taking slightly different tacks toward the same end. I'm mostly concerned with the Afghan War Diary, Ivan seems more interested in the diplomatic cable releases. I believe the AWD is a more direct path to Assange participating in a war. Nevertheless, as I said in a pervious post, I agree with the seriousnes of the leak of diplomatic cables: in less peaceful/stable times, such a release could start wars and even today it hinders diplomacy.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

All of that is based on the assumption that legal proceedings apply here. I do not subscribe to that assumption. It is not illegal to kill a combatant in a war: the concept of murder simply does not apply.

And as a practical matter, if the staff of Wikileaks suddenly died of difficult to explain causes, there'd be an outcry, but that's about it. Remember the Russian spy assassinated in the UK a few years ago?

 

[russ_watters]

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

In order to properly weigh the other argument, you have to understand it: This has nothing to do with revenge. The only justificatino for killing Assange/his staff would be to preven them from killing people.

 

[mheslep]

Could you explain why you think releasing proof that WL's information killed people will matter? Are you saying you think Assange has a conscience and will stop if he see's proof that he's killing people? I'm not seeing that in his attitude and if that's not it, I'm not seeing your point.

Please explain!

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.

I agree with you that there might be a downside to forcing the point via hurting credibility more in Afghanistan, but I'm inclined to discount this as I doubt the hut crowd will be reading the 24/7 news cycle headlines for that kind of detail. Thus on balance I favor proving Assange's leaks have had lethal effects, if possible.

 

[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?