[conurgenceDen]

Is the public call for the murder of a civilian a crime in the US? Maybe someone can tell me.

No, thats freedom of speech. I suppose there is a line somewhere where you incite violence, though.

[Shiplyopidomi]

If he is acting like a spy, coercing govt employees to break the law and hand off secret information, then he should be treated like one. However, if he is simply recieving information and posting it, then he should be treated like the media.

However, I also think heads need to roll in the govt for what Assange has exposed them doing, things which the public doesnt want them to do.

That's the biggest question that has remained relatively unanswered throughout all of this. Why is the focus on Assange, and not on the people who actually leaked the information to him to begin with? If the current model were to be followed then people like Woodward and Bernstein would be imprisoned, and Nixon and Co would have been the victims and remained in office. I don't see the difference here.

[preptarra]

No, thats freedom of speech. I suppose there is a line somewhere where you incite violence, though.

So if I say publicly I want to see XY dead until 31st december and anyone who gets it done should be so kind as to come to my place for some tea and a nice chat (be so kind not to forget his head), thats just freedom of expression? Cool

Guess, those death lists in the internet are just freedom of expression then as well.

In Europe that would be incitement to murder. But then, we truly enjoy suppressing freedom of speech, don't we?

[24MurinivaMak]

So if I say publicly I want to see XY dead until 31st december and anyone who gets it done should be so kind as to come to my place for some tea and a nice chat (be so kind not to forget his head), thats just freedom of expression? Cool

Guess, those death lists in the internet are just freedom of expression then as well.

In Europe that would be incitement to murder. But then, we truly enjoy suppressing freedom of speech, don't we?

No, in fact, you just said the exact opposite of what I said. There is a line, and its somewhere between wishing someone dead and encouraging others to kill. Thats why we have courts decide these things.

[galaktiusman]

That's the biggest question that has remained relatively unanswered throughout all of this. Why is the focus on Assange, and not on the people who actually leaked the information to him to begin with? If the current model were to be followed then people like Woodward and Bernstein would be imprisoned, and Nixon and Co would have been the victims and remained in office. I don't see the difference here.

I guess because the leaker is in prison already awaiting trial. And Assange keeps making news. I just think its a bit scary for people to be saying he should be assasinated for doing nothing more than publicizing secrets. As far as I know, he isnt selling them or handing them only to our enemies.

But as you say we dont yet know how he got the info. If he actively sought to aquire secret info, then he is a spy. Of course if the info he sought was evidence of govt abuse, as some of this is, then the punishment should be lenient.

[enfoires]

I guess because the leaker is in prison already awaiting trial. And Assange keeps making news. I just think its a bit scary for people to be saying he should be assasinated for doing nothing more than publicizing secrets. As far as I know, he isnt selling them or handing them only to our enemies.

But as you say we dont yet know how he got the info. If he actively sought to aquire secret info, then he is a spy. Of course if the info he sought was evidence of govt abuse, as some of this is, then the punishment should be lenient.

No not only to our enemies, but only our enemies will use what he releases against us.
While it doesn't look like Assange is paying for information, he is actively soliciting.

As people have said, killing Assange won't stop others from leaking secrets, but it will stop him. Killing the next guy to follow will stop him too, and the next, and the next. Pretty soon you run out of people willing to take the risk.

[AttableBewNaw]

No, in fact, you just said the exact opposite of what I said. There is a line, and its somewhere between wishing someone dead and encouraging others to kill. Thats why we have courts decide these things.

That line is not only thin, its often too thin to judge. To a point where its rather arbitrary to say its the one or the other.

I think it would be cool if XY would be dead until end of year and if someone should get some weird ideas due to that he should come (with the head of XY) for a cup of tea to my place and we can have a nice chat.

Is that now wishing or ordering? If its the later, it proves my point if its the former, no one will need to "order" an execution, people just have to publicly wish it like that. They just have to make sure they evade certain phrases.


Ok, something less theoretical: Someone says publicly this guy is a terrorist therefore he should be killed, civilian outside of a battle area totally unrelated to battle action or not. If in two weeks his corps is found you say the guy "wishing" for it is 100% innocent. Did I get that right?

[UlceskLialels]

I guess because the leaker is in prison already awaiting trial. And Assange keeps making news. I just think its a bit scary for people to be saying he should be assasinated for doing nothing more than publicizing secrets. As far as I know, he isnt selling them or handing them only to our enemies.

But as you say we dont yet know how he got the info. If he actively sought to aquire secret info, then he is a spy. Of course if the info he sought was evidence of govt abuse, as some of this is, then the punishment should be lenient.

An interesting question, if he should have actively acquired that information (lets suppose that for a second) but he has no "customer" but merely publishes the data for everyone, (So actually the victim knows down to each comma which information was leaked), does he still fit into the narrow definition of a spy? If he furthermore does the same with other countries and even countries opposed to the US what then? If he should be a spy, he would be the first of his kind.

[SaraKonradtt]

No not only to our enemies, but only our enemies will use what he releases against us.
While it doesn't look like Assange is paying for information, he is actively soliciting.

Why would only your enemies use information against you? What makes you believe the US would not do the same the other way round if anything of use should be among the leaked data?

As people have said, killing Assange won't stop others from leaking secrets, but it will stop him. Killing the next guy to follow will stop him too, and the next, and the next. Pretty soon you run out of people willing to take the risk. Killing Assange would be in first line murder. Nothing else. Those responsible should be busted and handled as heavy criminals if found guilty of it. Those ordering it too. Those facilitating it as well.

[Maserati]

Killing Assange would be in first line murder. Nothing else. Those responsible should be busted and handled as heavy criminals if found guilty of it. Those ordering it too. Those facilitating it as well.

First of all, let me preface my comments by saying I agree with you that killing Assange would be out of bounds.

However, you display an interesting double standard here. You're OK with Assange facilitating leaking classified documents, but not with someone facilitating harming him.

Why is facilitating one criminal act OK, and the other not?

Matt

[EzequielTMann]

Why would only your enemies use information against you? What makes you believe the US would not do the same the other way round if anything of use should be among the leaked data?



Killing Assange would be in first line murder. Nothing else. Those responsible should be busted and handled as heavy criminals if found guilty of it. Those ordering it too. Those facilitating it as well.

So how many of your friends and family have been put at risk due to leaked information? Perspective always colors our positions.

[Menierofe]

That line is not only thin, its often too thin to judge. To a point where its rather arbitrary to say its the one or the other.

I think it would be cool if XY would be dead until end of year and if someone should get some weird ideas due to that he should come (with the head of XY) for a cup of tea to my place and we can have a nice chat.

Is that now wishing or ordering? If its the later, it proves my point if its the former, no one will need to "order" an execution, people just have to publicly wish it like that. They just have to make sure they evade certain phrases.


Ok, something less theoretical: Someone says publicly this guy is a terrorist therefore he should be killed, civilian outside of a battle area totally unrelated to battle action or not. If in two weeks his corps is found you say the guy "wishing" for it is 100% innocent. Did I get that right?

Yes, in this country, simply saying I think this guy should be killed is freedom of speech.

[BqTyG9eS]

So how many of your friends and family have been put at risk due to leaked information? Perspective always colors our positions.

Considerably less than were put at risk by the machinations exposed by the leaked information.

[Lictimind]

Yes, in this country, simply saying I think this guy should be killed is freedom of speech.

Of course, if you are a foreigner saying that you should not wonder to find yourself on some funny lists which effectively forbid entry to the US or worse...
If you are an US citizen, you may enjoy more rights but still could end up on one of these lists.

Anyway, I find it kind of disturbing that one could incite hate crimes or even murder without legal consequences in the US. I am not sure in how far this is personal opinion worth to be protected either. But then, Americans surely have their own special strong views in this area.

[QiuCIOdO]

Of course, if you are a foreigner saying that you should not wonder to find yourself on some funny lists which effectively forbid entry to the US or worse...
If you are an US citizen, you may enjoy more rights but still could end up on one of these lists.

Anyway, I find it kind of disturbing that one could incite hate crimes or even murder without legal consequences in the US. I am not sure in how far this is personal opinion worth to be protected either. But then, Americans surely have their own special strong views in this area.

Again, inciting murder is far different than having the opinion that someone should be murdered. We protect freedom of speech. If there is evidence that someone incited violence then you have a court case. I realize foreign countries simply avoid all that and censor speech all questionable speech.

[Accor$314]

What ever happened to the American way of being a nation of laws and leading the world to enlightenment through being a superior example?

Guess that dream died.

Because a private citizen spouts off about his own personal views on a cable news show?

That's a little dramatic.

Anyway, I find it kind of disturbing that one could incite hate crimes or even murder without legal consequences in the US. I am not sure in how far this is personal opinion worth to be protected either. But then, Americans surely have their own special strong views in this area.

If you listen to what the man said, he is neither inciting hate crimes nor murder. He is making the argument that the man is guilty of espionage and an enemy of the United States; as such, killing him would be justified.

I think he may well be guilty of espionage. I'm not an expert in such matters, but I think the Obama administration should look into that. Obviously, it's important for the United States, as any other nation, to protect its national secrets. It should strive to do so. Effectively dealing with spies is an important part of that.

[Unhappu]

I think he may well be guilty of espionage.

Really? How so?

From what I've heard all he did was publish information that was given to him voluntarily. Would everyone else who has passed along this information also be guilty of espionage?

[MpbY5dkR]

From what I've heard all he did was publish information that was given to him voluntarily.

Who did you hear that from?

I have trouble believing that he's not seeking this material out and it's just falling into his lap. But that's why I say the Obama administration should investigate the matter. I have neither the time nor the resources.

[Goooooblin]

Who did you hear that from?

I have trouble believing that he's not seeking this material out and it's just falling into his lap. But that's why I say the Obama administration should investigate the matter. I have neither the time nor the resources.

I don't think there's a lot of debate on the facts of the matter. He runs a website that publishes leaked information from a wide variety of anonymous sources. He's 'seeking this material out' to the same extent, or actually somewhat more passively, than a typical investigative journalist. I'm just curious if that's what you'd consider espionage. Because a lot of the people calling for him to be hunted down as an enemy of the state seem to think that's enough justification.

[RogerButton33]

I don't think there's a lot of debate on the facts of the matter. He runs a website that publishes leaked information from a wide variety of anonymous sources. He's 'seeking this material out' to the same extent, or actually somewhat more passively, than a typical investigative journalist. I'm just curious if that's what you'd consider espionage. Because a lot of the people calling for him to be hunted down as an enemy of the state seem to think that's enough justification.

He is an "enemy of the state" and that is a good thing.