"Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies."
That is _not_ their stated goal. They aim to expose and distribute material of interest to the public, not national security information in general.
"These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism."
Yes, 'likely' and 'arguably'. Except that it's difficult to see how the Espionage Act applies to a group outside of the US. Also material support for terrorism actually means supplying _materials_ i.e. money, weaponry or physical goods. Which they obviously are not doing.
"On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC News that Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused."
Oh please. This is coming from people who have been involved in the direction of military actions that have needlessly killed civilians. They don't have the moral high-ground here. Additionally; I'd like to see this harm quantified in some way. Thus far there has been much talk about damage, but no evidence.
I'm all for holding people to account, but these kinds of statements seem like FUD to me.
"Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice..."
Well firstly, lets establish what law he has broken shall we? That is a rather extreme option, with it's own set of complications.
This article is full of lots of tough talk, but blithely ignores the complications of international law and dipolmacy. It also fails to ask one simple question; does the Obama Admin. see it in their best interests to arrest Assange?
That is _not_ their stated goal. They aim to expose and distribute material of interest to the public, not national security information in general.
"These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism."
Yes, 'likely' and 'arguably'. Except that it's difficult to see how the Espionage Act applies to a group outside of the US. Also material support for terrorism actually means supplying _materials_ i.e. money, weaponry or physical goods. Which they obviously are not doing.
"On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC News that Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused."
Oh please. This is coming from people who have been involved in the direction of military actions that have needlessly killed civilians. They don't have the moral high-ground here. Additionally; I'd like to see this harm quantified in some way. Thus far there has been much talk about damage, but no evidence.
I'm all for holding people to account, but these kinds of statements seem like FUD to me.
"Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice..."
Well firstly, lets establish what law he has broken shall we? That is a rather extreme option, with it's own set of complications.
This article is full of lots of tough talk, but blithely ignores the complications of international law and dipolmacy. It also fails to ask one simple question; does the Obama Admin. see it in their best interests to arrest Assange?