Newly declassified documents have revealed that the US military designated WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange an enemy of the state, who can be killed or detained without trial.
The documents were released under a Freedom of Information Act request for an investigation into a US Air Force cyber analyst who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations.
The investigation, the documents reveal, was meant to determine whether this analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance, had given classified information to WikiLeaks supporters, who the documents describe as an “anti-US and/or anti-military group.”
The documents allege this suspect may have been “communicating with the enemy, 104-D,” an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from “communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy,” the same designation held by al-Qaeda.
Assange’s US attorney, Michael Ratner, claims this designation has very dangerous implications and could be interpreted as a green light to kill or detain Assange without charge or trial.
“It appears that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the ‘enemy.’ An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc.,” Ratner warned.
WikiLeaks is nothing more than a publishing platform and Julian Assange is properly understood as a journalist. For the US military to designate him in the same class as al-Qaeda militants is the greatest affront to first amendment press freedoms in a very long time.
Does the military have the authority to designate someone an enemy of the country? What would be the difference between them having this authority and just letting them decide when and with whom we go to war? One of the things that used to seperate us from every little banana republic run by some Col. Hernadez or General Gonzales was civilian rule. Has our gutless congress abandoned that too?
The Army has been designating 'enemies of the country' since its inception.
The Indian Wars were fought almost entirely under this 'authority'. A reminder that, in the US the Army , Navy and Air Forces are 'authorities' under their own right, with legal structures and frameworks outside the aegis, or effect, of the US constitution.
They're supposed to be controlled by the civilian administration, which itself is permitted to operate outside the Constitution 'in defence of America', but in actuality – given the tremendous sway they hold over 'strategic information' and the 'need' for defense – they effect government policy, rather than the opposite.
Thank you, good answer.
Nothing in the US Constitution gives the Executive Branch to 'operate outside the Constitution" "in defense of America". If you find the document online and read it, you won't see any such language. This has been 'claimed' by recent Presidents as an excuse for their unconstitutional actions, and our system of checks and balances has failed in that both of the other branches (Congress and the courts) have failed to challenge this unconstitutional assertion.
Likewise, nothing in the Constitution says the military is any sort of independent authority outside of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution says exactly the opposite when it gives the authority as "Commander in Chief" to the President. Nowadays, this authority is mis-used, mis-represented as giving the President the power to do anything, when it meant no such thing and instead was there explictedly to make it clear that the military was under the control of the government created by the constitution.
This could impact his extradition. If the US is out to assassinate him, moving him out of the relative safety of the UK, where the US would not dare, would put him at risk of his life. It would expose him to what in the UK is a serious crime.
It remains to be seen that the courts will recognize the threat as legitimate.
So far British, and even the World, Courts seems to view the American legal system as just, and largely benign. The 'Presidential Order' killings have not yet been brought before courts anywhere. Even if they were the 'burden of proof would be tenuous. And an apology could always be used as explanation – 'fog of war' seems to play well in modern courts – particularly those of powers at war.
Assange is just 'wanted for questioning' in Sweden and, so far in, America. Nobody means him any harm (lol). But if he falls into the hands of the US military – well, they've managed to 'punish' (viz intern) international "evil-doers" for more than a decade without benefit of a court conviction. He'll be the first non-moslem in Gitmo.
You are right. But the courts in question are not American courts. Some have shown themselves willing to consider such facts when made available, as this now is.
Our system is using up its well earned reputation, abusing it and running on misplaced trust. It will take a long time to earn that back once it is wrecked.
In other words freedom of speech is non-existent under American 'law' . To retaliate l would assume any thing in an uniform remembling US military or indeed ambassadorship people are fair game for liquidation outside of the US. Assange did not commit anycrime inside the US.
I guess my first didnt post didntgo through….you guys have no balls
[Moderator’s note: It’s not that we lack balls. It’s that we don’t have a 24/7 moderation staff to cater to you instantaneously at, say, 1 in the morning. If you have a problem with that, you might want to hit the “donate” page – TLK]
And the new law of the U.S.A. shall now be that there shall no longer be law……..instead there will be guns.
Mama mia, the US military sure knows how to breed "Enemies of the State" !
Of course they do … their budgets depend on it. 😉
So revealing, he is an enemy of the STATE not the people.
In the eye of a militarism regime everyone is the enemy of stat, even those who are for a functioning democracy and a non militarism social concept.
especially those who are in favor of a functioning democracy and a non-militarism social concept. Those are the greatest threats to the military, and the military responds like any anti-democratic, anti-freedom, anti-justice power-hungry group does to such threats.
It is good that Glaser brings this to light!
Simply grotesque!!!
http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/05/07/deathstar-a…
And they said he was "crazy" for claiming the US would attempt to do him harm. Well, this just goes to show how sane he really is.
whew! Could Warlord Barack target the Ecuadoran Embassy in London with a predator drone?
And who, exactly, is surprised by this?
The Ecuadorian embassy had better reinforce it's walls.
The Oft quoted War Powers of a President are not even applicable, the United States of America must actually LEGALLY be declared at War that by the way is not an AUMF, and we know that the US Supreme Court has made comment that the US is not at war! Remember in the arguement stage of Hamdin V Rumsfeld the comment was made thus"War, What War, we are not at War!" after a comment that the US was at War made by the US Attorney! If the country is not at War and there are no War Powers then the President cannot lawfully have someone executed on the basis of a War Power.
Remember though this power isnt an Obama made power Bush claimed this power when he was President!
"For the US military to designate him in the same class as al-Qaeda militants is the greatest affront to first amendment press freedoms in a very long time."
Shows how scared they are running.
The US military's Commander-In-Chief is the President, and it has never run afoul of the Executive Office without serious repercussions (as in war hero's MacArthur's dismissal by Truman).