Should Assange Be Prosecuted? By Whom? For What?
It’s becoming clearer that Julian Assange of Wikileaks published a vast database of classified information (with almost no ethically significant revelatory content*), in such a way as to put numerous Afghan civilians at risk. His actions seem to have done very little good in changing foreign policy, but potentially an enormous amount of harm to human life.
[Name-calling aside, Daily Beast's Tunko Varadarajan just about bangs the nail on the head in regard to Assange's specious claims to the contrary:
How does Assange justify putting these people at mortal risk? Predictably, he does not, taking refuge behind a weasel-worded insistence that he and his team had edited the material so that there was “harm minimization,” a morally teasing phrase that might, so ironically, be part of the Pentagon’s own lexicon.]
What happens now? The US government, quite justifiably though not least for its own self-serving reasons, is reportedly considering ways to prosecute Assange for his actions. (Next I’d like to see reporters press SecDef Gates on what exactly DOD intends to do to protect its informants on the ground.) Developments in any legal case that goes forward will be interesting because Assange is operating in a legal gray area in more ways than one.
First of all, his Australian citizenship and shifting transnational bases raise jurisdiction questions: under whose laws does he fall? Should he be prosecuted by the US, by his own country, or some other court, and is he likely to be extradited to any of these?
Second, as an individual with a computer backed by a team of journalists and human rights activists, it’s not clear conceptually what set of professional standards he falls under. Is Wikileaks part of the media, covered by laws governing the relationship between the national security state and the press? If so do those laws apply to these types of transnationalized new media outlets? (According to the Daily Beast, Wikileaks has been described as “the world’s first stateless news organization.”) Or is he just a citizen with a non-profit organization, and if so is his behavior a form of protected speech? Is speech protected when it compromises the confidentiality of others without their consent, to the extent that their lives are put in jeopardy? (This question goes to much broader legal debates percolating in the area of new media, such as whether Facebook’s unilateral shifting of presumably ‘private’ content breaches the civil liberties of its users, particularly when it puts people at risk of, say, stalking. Hackers’ efforts to expose the practices arguably put users at risk as well.)
Most likely, if Assange is extradited to the US he would be prosecuted under some provision of the 1917 Espionage Act. A former counterintelligence official is arguing Assange should be captured by Special Ops forces and tried for espionage rather than for mishandling classified evidence. If so, we can unfortunately expect the case will be treated and politicized as an attempt to crack down on whistleblowing per se than as application of justice to irresponsible, pseudo-whistle-blowing journalists. We see this already in the Weekly Standard’s coverage: Gabriel Shoenfield discusses “the threat to human life and to the war effort” in the same sentence in critiquing the NYT’s role in breaking the story.
This framing has grave implications for free speech and dissent not only in wartime but probably in the new media more generally. If the US government adopts it Assange will become a lightning rod for First Amendment claims and counter-claims rather than questions about ethical use of sensitive data. The Espionage Act was designed to essentially curb free speech to prevent interference with wartime military operations. Prosecuting Assange under such a law would delegitimize his protest of the war rather than the means by which he undertook it. In 2006 a federal court upheld the right of the government to prosecute recipients of national security leaks, as well as sources. The constitutionality of such laws is hotly contested and the resulting debate will muddy the real issue, which is the conditions under and means by which classified information should be revealed to the public.
I’d rather see a court focus on how he conducted his activities rather than whether leaks of this type are legitimate (for under certain conditions, they certainly are, whether or not some country’s war effort is undermined). The real issue here is and should be framed as human security, not national security.
Are there alternatives to prosecution by the very country whose war efforts constitute the background for the debate? Absolutely. Instead of being treated as a spy or a criminal perhaps Assnage should be sued in civil court under the Alien Tort Claims Act. Class-action lawsuits have often been brought on behalf of aggrieved defendants by public interest lawyers in the US, often in cases where jurisdictional issues problematizes criminal prosecutions. Former heads of state and bloody-handed transnational corporate executives have been sued in this way; why not an irresponsible renegade cyber-journalist?
Penalties under such civil lawsuits don’t always result in concrete gains for victims’ families but they do play an important norm-building role in establishing legal precedent over previously under-adjudicated phenomena. The approach is especially useful where the harms suffered by individuals are recognized by global civil society organizations but unreachable by domestic or international institutions. In the case of the wanton privacy violations and attendant human security concerns raised by this case, perhaps reaching and punishing such harms is best accomplished in a civil court that can remain neutral of the political debate about whether Assange has, or has a right to, “undermine the war effort.”
Since civil cases require damages, an implication might be that we must wait around for heads to roll before Assange receives a comeuppance. But the more responsible thing to do would be for NATO countries to immediately seek to remove named informants and their families from Afghanistan, and join those families in suing Wikileaks to recover the financial costs and emotional hardships of relocation.
*I will have a post up shortly about why progressives should be wary of uncritically regurgitating Assange’s claims about “war crimes.”
UPDATE: Joshua Keating has some further insight on whether the Justice Department’s dog might hunt.
UPDATE: David Folkenflik: is Wikileaks an editor, a source, an advocacy organization or a member of the journalism profession?
We offer fast success in 70-576 & MB7-843 exams by using our high quality 70-621 & MB7-231 dumps with definite guarantee of MB7-841 success.
It’s becoming clearer that Julian Assange of Wikileaks published a vast database of classified information (with almost no ethically significant revelatory content), in such a way as to put numerous Afghan civilians at risk.
[citation needed]
Seriously. Could you maybe link to a document from the wikileaks archive that actually puts a specific Afghan civilian at risk? I’m fairly sure that LGM doesn’t have any Taliban readers so it should be OK. But the articles are just masses of anonymous intelligence officials saying “o yes very bad my goodness yes”. There’s one – one! – example of a reported possible Taliban defector being named. From several years ago. That’s not exactly News You Can Use.
And that Varadarajan article is one of the most repellent things I’ve read in quite a while.
“his bloodless, sallow face, his lank hair drained of all color, his languorous, very un-Australian limbs, and his aura of blinding pallor that appears to admit no nuance, Assange looks every inch the amoral, uber-nerd villain”
.. jesus H christ.
the articles are just masses of anonymous intelligence officials saying “o yes very bad my goodness yes”.
Read the links again, particularly the Atlantic Wire’s round-up of views by analysts who have gone through the files themselves, writing in sources from across the political spectrum.
Could you maybe link to a document from the wikileaks archive that actually puts a specific Afghan civilian at risk? I’m fairly sure that LGM doesn’t have any Taliban readers so it should be OK.
This is an incredibly naive statement.
Thanks for your reply. The Atlantic Wire links (via MJ) to the collection of KLE reports. I’ve had a look at some of them. These are records of public meetings with Afghan SF and government officials. They’re not records of confidential informant debriefings, they are “we met the district chief of police today and this is what we discussed”. I am very sceptical indeed that this will put the chief of police at any additional risk.
This is an incredibly naive statement.
Why? You and others have accused this guy of everything from espionage to pandering. There are people out there calling for him to be kidnapped and sent to a black prison. I’d just like to see any evidence at all that he’s done what you say he’s done.
The document’s out there already. The damage has been done – your linking to it on a (sorry) fairly low traffic blog won’t make matters any worse.
Could you maybe link to a document from the wikileaks archive that actually puts a specific Afghan civilian at risk?
You seem to want Charli to identify probable US agents, in order to prove that the identities of US agents are at risk of disclosure. Do you really need to have is spelled out to you why that is a stupid or evil idea?
Well, then Charli shouldn’t be claiming super secret(which I don’t think she has anyways as a civilian academic) info to win a debate on a public blog.
No. The documents have already been released. If (emphasising if) any of them actually endanger anyone, then linking to the document in question will not increase that danger, because the documents have already been released.
That’s actually kind of flattering to him. To me, he looks like the weedy sort of academic who you meet at a potluck and, after he admits to admiring Brian Eno and you tell him that you’ve always liked Eno’s work with David Bowie in the 70s, he looks at you for a few long seconds, then shakes his head and says, “I don’t think you really get Eno. No, you really don’t.”
Maybe. But I actually regret that my choice to excerpt a useful point from a piece otherwise characterized by unnecessary and irrelevant vitriol about his appearance detracted attention away from my substantive points about the possibility of legal action.
The key point here is that there are at least two different ways of framing the ethical problems with what he’s done, and very different political implications for which set of laws and which type of venue is chosen for any legal proceedings.
Actually, he looks the illegitimate love child of Fox Mulder and Anderson Cooper.
Maybe our Afgan brothers never heard the old flea-related adage about lying down with dogs.
See the “funny” thing about this statement is it works both ways- I mean one could also use this very logic to justify US involvement in Afghanistan in the first place.
Hmmm. If only we had a way to identify who else has put numerous Afghan civilians at risk.
Perhaps because foreign policy is made by Very Serious People who would never dream of putting numerous Afghan civilians at risk.
Hmmm. If only we had a way to identify who else has put numerous Afghan civilians at risk.
Fucking THIS, x1000. Jesus.
AFTER we prosecute a whole bunch of people in both the previous administration and the current one for war crimes, maybe we can talk about Assange. Maybe.
Fucking this 10,000x. Twice.
“Great monsters of history killed millions, so it’s okay if Assange only kills 10 or 12,” seems to be your reasoning.
No, it’s more like telling the US government to deal with the beam in its own eye before complaining about the mote in another’s. The US government that is killing Afghan civilians AS WE SPEAK, usually for going to the wrong wedding. As I understand it, Assange is trying to stop this slaughter. I know who I would be prosecuting for war crimes, and it’s not my compatriot, however pallid he may be.
We must keep them free from harm to be inadvertently blown up by robot planes later.
As a crappy lawyer, I at least remember one thing: people who use the adjective clear or adverb clearly are usually describing something less than clear.
Can’t add much to these pithy observations. These Assange posts are not LGM’s finest hour.
But I do think they reveal the breadth of militarist Conventional Wisdom among our policy elites.
Not to pick on Charli Carpenter, but if this is where liberal IR thought is these days, we’re truly f**ked!
And as a lawyer in training, one who does international law and international humanitarian law and international human rights law as my job, this post is just . . . wrong.
And Ed, agreed.
Asking as someone who no longer believes that there’s much sense in remaining in Afghanistan, I have to wonder about the “we must leave because we’re killing people” argument. I trust that the argument can’t be “the violence will end if the US and NATO leave”; thus, it must be “violence will decline if the US and NATO leave.” Can someone make a good argument along these lines? I think that it’s at least as likely that pitched fighting between the Taliban and the Afghan government (the former with Pakistani support, the latter with at least minimal Western support) will lead to more death/destruction/blown up civilians than maintaining the NATO presence, in both the short and medium terms.
I think the argument can’t be strictly consequentialist. It’s more like: Killing people is only justifiable if you can say with great confidence that it is necessary to prevent a much worse outcome. To kill someone (or engage in violence generally) simply because you believe, on balance, the world will probably be a better place with them dead is morally unacceptable, even if your belief is sincere and factually grounded.
I reckon you fully accept this principle in personal and domestic-political contexts. I’m sure you don’t want to replace our current criminal-justice system with a system in which the authorities were free to imprison or execute anyone without legal check if they thought it was in the national interest; no matter how persuasive the argument in any particular case, our whole political system is based on the idea that the threshold for using state violence must be higher than the threshold for not-using it.
So why is war different?
LP,
So your argument is (and I’m not trying to mock, just get it right) that the key isn’t whether more or less people die, but rather whether or not we’re killing them?
This makes a certain kind of sense to me, although you know that I don’t agree; we have very different views on the state, violence, and what it means to “author” state violence. I’m probably more willing to take the consequentialist view even in the personal and domestic contexts (I could envision situations in which I could commit legal murder without feeling guilty about it) , and certainly more likely in the international context, if only because of legal and moral fluidity in the latter.
the key isn’t whether more or less people die, but rather whether or not we’re killing them?
Right. Your version might too strong; how about substituting “the only question” for “the key” and “also” for “rather.”
But yes, that’s the basic argument. And I’m sure you do accept it in most contexts. Everyone knows we have more responsibility for our own actions than those of others, even those we could plausibly influence or prevent.
Obviously we’re not going to resolve this question here. But I do want to stipulate that basic coexistence — among state as much as among individuals — absolutely requires some degree of what Weber called an “ethics of ultimate ends” (e.g., killing is wrong) alongside an ethics of consequentialism. At the moment I assert my right to kill you at any time that I personally judge that your death would be beneficial, we have entered the war of all against all. This is why every society — including international society — strongly restricts violence by laws and other positive norms.
Oh and hey, Rob, I’d love to hear your answer to Charli’s question. Should Assange be prosecuted?
I don’t see much point in it. I think he is a bit of an ass, and I don’t think that the wikileaks will amount to much in terms of shutting down the war (and I also have some of the same doubts as others regarding how many collaborators the Taliban will actually track down), but I don’t see how prosecuting him for whatever you might be able to pin on him is a good use of resources.
I applaud your recognition that the pursuit of the prosecution of Assange might be a poor use of our resources. However, as contrary to intuition as it may seem, whistle-blowers do not in truth lead to greater governmental transparency but in fact muddy the political waters, making it much more difficult to achieve goals of dubious legal and moral fluidity. Therefore, I propose we alter an amendment in the next omnibus bill and take money from the food stamps program in order to teach this Aussie albino a lesson. I like the idea of a Special Ops mission because we really can’t rely on extradition treaties.
Wait, you think that the criteria for locking people up should be whether it seems (to whom, exactly?) like a good use of state resources. For serious?
LP,
Yes; for serious. I have no doubt that some crime could be pinned by some state on Assange. To do so would seem to be a poor use of state resources, for a variety of reasons. Is this position confusing to you?
I don’t think that is the argument given at all. Killing people can only be justified if one can claim, with great confidence, that a much worse outcome will be prevented really has no relation to it’s not how many get killed but who is doing the killing.
The point to me seems to be are you pretty certain you are preventing a much worse option by somewhat indiscriminately killing people? If not, why are you killing them? A NATO strike just killed 45 civilians in AFghanistan according to the BBC did that likely make things better in either the short or the long term
One other thing. Rob, you say that, compared to domestic politics a consequentialist approach to the morality of violence is more reasonable in international politics “if only because of legal and moral fluidity in the latter.”
I disagree. A moral presumption against violence is far more important in the international sphere, precisely because of the lack of strong moral-cultural and legal norms restraining violence there, and because of states’ immensely greater capacity for violence.
Surely if there is one lesson of the 20th century, it is that war absolutely cannot be considered among the normal policy tools of the state, to be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis. Why do you think waging aggressive war was the first article of indictment in the Nuremberg trials? There’s plenty to criticize the victorious Allies for, but are you sure you want to argue that being insufficiently sanguine about future wars was one of them?
It seems to me that your position is only seems reasonable for the moment because the US is the only country with the capacity for aggressive war. But suppose there were several countries with comparable military capacity to the US, all of which saw taking military action against each other as an option to be evaluated on the same cost-benefit basis as signing a trade agreement or harmonizing their tax rates. Do you think human civilization would survive?
Uh, Farl, you do realize that the conflict in the Congo easily dwarfs the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Pakistan(or Afpak, as the military dipshits like to call it)? And the conflict wasn’t over in Vietnam when the US threw in the towel, nor will it be over in Iraq when or if Obama pulls the plug? I mean, if people were going to die anyway, who cares if we’re the direct cause? Of course, thanks to all the NATO rifles and ammunition that are going into warlord hands, we can still have an indirect involvement.
I’ll take a crack at a sort of consequentialist argument for withdrawal.
I think, unfortunately, that it is highly likely that the Taliban will be the (long term) winners of this conflict, at least, in the sense, that they will substantively control the country (of at least the scope they had in 2000). Whether this is by negotiation or conquest is wide open (or negotiation then conquest).
I can’t see that they’ll ever go for any sort of settlement that doesn’t give them power without risk of being voted out. (They don’t have anywhere near sufficient popular support to be a player without force.)
The 2009 BBC poll is scary. Support for the US presence is declining (although support for the Taliban is like 4%, at least as rulers). There’s little evidence that we will do much to keep our (compared to the Taliban) relatively high support. Thus, it’s hard to see that we’ll be more effective if we stay longer. (We don’t seem to have a hope of defeating the Taliban per se.)
So, this isn’t adding up to a “fewer deaths” argument. I have no idea what would result in fewer deaths over, say, a 10 year window. I loathe the thought of more Taliban rule. But, if there’s no realistic hope for a happy ending, then “less bad” becomes the order of the day.
(I was only able to find figures on casualties rather than excess mortality, which is probably the more relevant measure from a consequentialist perspective. Excess mortality for Afghanistan seems really tricky.)
So, presuming that we have to substantially withdraw at some point, the question is whether there’s a significantly better point later rather than sooner and conceding that sooner likely sucks. I don’t see it. It seems quite possible that things will get worse, or, more likely, fluctuate a lot.
(If we’re prepared to go for indefinite occupation, e.g., up to another decade at first blush, I guess things are different.)
Given the mid and long term likely negative outcome from a general consequentialist view, I think the deontic issues become overriding. It matters that it is us doing the killing. Again, assuming we will withdraw within another 10 years and the low probability that the Taliban will be defeated or the current govt be made strong enough to replace us, it seems that any casualty rise after our departure is going to happen anyway.
This doesn’t seem as compelling as I was hoping.
One thing that seems prima facie true is that that our occupation is considerably less brutal than the Soviet one. I see from Wikipedia the estimate range on deaths for the latter from 200,000 to 1 million (with related states equally horrible). We’re not carpet bombing cities. Civilian death estimates from the current war are in the low 10s of thousands.
It’d be helpful to have a more comprehensive chart of war related deaths in Afghanistan over the last 30 years. I’ll note that the Taliban have a history of mass civilian executions (on the order of thousands of Hazara).
Sigh. I don’t find this comfortable. I am, of course, glad that we’re better than the Soviets and the Taliban. I don’t know that that will support a more successful resolution.
I am, of course, glad that we’re better than the Soviets and the Taliban.
I am, of course, horrified that such a low bar counts as an achievement.
I’m not sure I understand. I’m trying to develop a consequentialist argument for withdrawal based on Afghan civilian casualties. I went looking at the numbers since numbers is what you need for such a thing. I didn’t appeal to effects on the US or the coalition since that’s also not part of the terms of the argument.
In order to have any sense of whether it’d be better or worse for us to withdrawal we need to have some idea of what the alternatives are. If our occupation were as bad as the Soviet one, withdrawal would be unambiguously, overwhelmingly required on consequentialist grounds: The civil war afterwards was bad, but nowhere near as bad as the occupation itself. (At least, afaict at the moment. A definitive set of numbers would be welcome.)
In point of fact, the total number of civilians killed in the current conflict (again, not sure about total excess mortality) is far lower than during the Soviet occupations (between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude fewer). This is much better that the current conflict killing a similar number. Which seemed possible to me. It’s still awful, but not as awful as I had feared for a few minutes. I cherish fewer deaths without, I hope, failing to regret the deaths that happened.
I don’t have a clear picture of the deaths from the post occupation civil war which might be a reasonable proxy for what will happen after we go. Mass civilian (and combatant) by the Taliban executions after battles seem probable.
Ok, I’ve found a set of numbers (unsure about reliability but some numbers seem reasonable; another source):
2001-: Afghanistan’s liberation war – USA & UK vs Taliban (40,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
Well, those numbers indicate an order of magnitude increase in casualties (but not necessarily just civilian) if we leave.
FWIW, I opposed both our current wars at their start and still think they were pretty obviously illegal (though, I’ve seen argument, e.g., from Farley, that I am still grappling with). However, from a consequentialist perspective, that’s not directly relevant.
Now, again, excess mortality is key (as it is in Iraq). But given the difficulty in this case of establishing the relevant baseline it’s hard to know what to say.
Of course, it’s unclear that displacing the Taliban (horrible as they are) only to let them back will have produced less harm (including 9/11 and US deaths) than leaving them in place. I don’t have a death toll for the period of Taliban in power (e.g., their execution rate). It’s clearly nasty, but 1,000s or 10,000s nasty (per year)?
“FWIW, I opposed both our current wars at their start and still think they were pretty obviously illegal”
How was the Afghanistan war illegal?
I don’t think it was plausibly a war of (imminent) self-defense and it wasn’t authorized by the UN.
I also think it wouldn’t have been very difficult to secure UN authorization for some action (though it would have delayed actions and likely restricted the permitted action) but that the Bush administration chose not too for 1) ideological reasons and 2) because they wanted unrestricted action.
Looking back at your “Still the right war”, I realize that you didn’t actually argue the legality there, only the more general correctness (i.e., al-Qaeda was an active threat, the Taliban were unlikely to cooperate in changing that fact, success was likely, and international opinion was favorable).
Given the conditions you describe, it seems pretty obvious that UN support + congressional declaration of war would have been securable. Now, perhaps I’m cranky to support those norms and I suspect an argument could be made to give it the color of law based on the general non-recognition of the Taliban (though, it’s a bit dodgy to hold non-recognition as a get out of jail card). However, I think your arguments about the intransigence of the Taliban while possibly justifying action don’t clearly justify action without authorization.
Now maybe technical legality doesn’t matter as much when all the factors align as you argue (that sort of argument makes me uncomfortable, though), and ginning up technical legality isn’t that hard in most cases (and even robust legality doesn’t mean correct, wise, or moral). But I don’t see where the legality is.
What’s your case for legality?
This would be more impressive if you could give us an estimate of how long we’ll have to stay in order to prevent this happening whenever we leave. Given the way things are going, I’d say the answer is somewhere between “decades” and “never”.
Fair enough; so the argument is that US/NATO withdrawal will inevitably lead to a bloodbath, and thus that we ought to get it over earlier rather than later?
US/NATO withdrawal may lead to a bloodbath
As opposed to staying, which has led to an ongoing bloodbath.
Liberal hawks are really something.
Steve,
I’m not trying to argue the liberal hawk position; calm down.
Am I right in thinking that rick’s position is that US/NATO withdrawal may open up the possibility of compromise between Karzai and Taliban, either by eliminating one of the Taliban’s central grievances or by forcing the Karzai government into a negotiating posture?
That was a reply, with quote, to rick, not you.
Fair enough, although I’m not sure that rick was arguing the liberal hawk position, either. The “withdrawal may force reconciliation” was the position I held with respect to the Surge in Iraq.
By arguing our being in Afghanistan, you are on the wrong side.
It’s interesting to note that Assange himself has said publicly that he does not support and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan:
“My personal opinion, which is not the opinion of the organization, is that they shouldn’t immediately pull out. They would lead to an overrun and a collapse but rather a deal should be structured with the various players involved to permit a gradual withdrawal back to some parts of Afghanistan.”
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/07/julian-assange-with-presstv-interview.html
Hey Charli, what’s your view on granting permanent US residency to any Afghan whose work with the US might put them in danger?
We should absolutely be offering them asylum at a minimum – and should have been, all along. It’s a travesty that we didn’t do this automatically with Iraqis as well, many of whom ended up persecuted in their own country or languishing in refugee camps in Jordan as a reward for assisting us.
Glad to hear it. I’d love to see you take a public position on this.
I believe I just did.
That is traditionally what has happened to traitors and collaborators…
By now you would think that people would know better than to cooperate with Americans…
I think we should grant permanent US residency to Afghans whose work with the US might put them in danger. However, they must live in Arizona.
I find it interesting that the only commentary on this issue is through a distinctly American prism. Assange is not a US citizen. Like most people who are not American citizens (ie. most people on this planet) I suspect he couldn’t give two shits whether his actions jeapordise the national security of the United States. He has pledged no allegience to it and likely does not give any consideration to the people fighting, what I believe, is a ridiculously pointless war.
The only real consideration for someone who cares little for American points of view is whether it adversely affects the lives of Afghani civilians. But this is a moral issue not a legal one. I don’t expect anyone to prosecute Assange for putting Afghan lives at risk any more than I expect them to prosecute Dick Cheney for doing the same.
But of course, if the US like you say, could invoke various extradition treaties. Or even more entertaining, send in the Special Forces and nab him on foreign soil. Which is their want. Its not like anyone on this planet could, or would want to stop them, right?
Or like as not Australia will take the lead, as I pointed out in my post. Bear in mind that the operation in Afghanistan is not an “American” one, it is multinational, and the Australian government is already taking steps to see to what extent its own security interests have been compromised.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/assange-may-have-committed-offence-ada-20100728-10vp8.html
the Australian government is already taking steps to see to what extent its own security interests have been compromised.
Wait a minute – is this about supporting human rights, or is it about supporting one side in a war?
It’s about waving your flag, incinerating wedding parties and burning billions of dollars for nothing.
It’s about being as craven a lickspittle to the United States as possible, a competition that both major parties in Australia have conducted with great assiduity for the last 60 years. Hence our presence in Vietnam, Iraq (x2) and Afghanistan. Many Australians find it utterly disgusting and protest a lot, without a result. The one government we ever had that tried to stand up to the US was deposed with CIA help. Australian politicians learnt that lesson way too well. As an Australian, my view is that we should have nothing to do with the US’s adventurist imperialist wars around the world.
The point of my post is that while governments (both the US and, it seems, Australia) appear to be looking at this through a national security lens, it’s probably more appropriate to consider whether Assange in some way owes compensation to any Afghan citizens who end up paying the price for his carelessness, rather than thinking about whether he should be charged with a crime against any particular government.
*Boggle* What? You think a dead Afghan is able to bring a suit in the Sydney District Court for loss of enjoyment of life? This just gets better.
Honestly.
Families of any actual victims will have paid the price too, Emma. Also see the last paragraph of my post.
Should the families of civilians deceased be able to sue the US government too, Charli? Perhaps they already are ‘able’ for some value of ‘able’. Do you think it will make a blind bit of difference?
Yes they are, and yes it does.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3066
That is simply not true our “allies” have a few hundred in there and their rulers are willing to lose them, if necessary to maintain their position with the U.S., I suspect. Who pays for them by the way.
The balk of the fighters are the natives with the U.S coming next and then far down the list are the others.
Too much straining against a gnat going on. One could make a cogent argument that Ellsburg put people in danger of revenge by right-thinking rebels everywhere, though more generally, by exposing the utter moral depravity and criminal nature of the U.S. government and its genocidal occupation of Vietnam.
Did Ellsburg’s actions help bring the Vietnam occupation era to a quicker conclusion? If so, was it worth it? Maybe Assenge is a dangerous incautious ass, but the bigger picture seems to be dropping down the memory hole quicker than called for. Why not kneejerk against the real bully here, Uncle Sam Who Made The Imperial Pants Too Long?
I think the fundamental argument here might be clearer if we abstract from the immediate context.
Countries A and B are at war. In addition to their regular armed forces, both have more or less covert supporters among the relevant civilian populations. I think this is probably true of every war in history.
Now suppose a third party C, not associated with either belligerent, publishes information identifying civilian supporters of A, making it easier for B to target them for some form of coercion or violence. As I understand Charli’s argument, she’s saying that international law should impose some kind of criminal or civil penalties on C in recognition of their responsibility for B’s actions. An important aspect of her argument is that the injured party is the civilian supporters of A, not A itself:
The real issue here is and should be framed as human security, not national security.
So it would seem to me that by exactly the same logic here, if a New York Times reporter, say publishes an article that helps the US military more effectively kill or detain Taliban supporters, that reporter should be subject to legal penalties on behalf of the people detained in Bagram, blown up b y drones, etc., It doesn’t matter that those killed by the US really were Taliban, since Charli is clear that to the extent WikiLeaks *correctly* identifies US supporters for Taliban retaliation, that aggravates rather than mitigates their offense.
I am absolutely sure, however, that Charli does not support legal penalties for journalists whose work helps the US identify Taliban members. It seems, therefore, that there is an additional unstated premise here: that there is only one legitimate belligerent in the Afghanistan war, that the US is in some sense the good guys and the Taliban in some sense the bad guys.
On my side, I am *not* arguing that the US and the Taliban are morally equivalent. But I do not see how we can talk about a new universal norm for war coverage if in practice it is not applied symmetrically to both sides in the war.
Sorry, that last sentence should read:
But I do not see how we can talk about a new universal norm for war coverage if it cannot be applied symmetrically to both sides in the war.
That was all very well put. That articulates my thoughts on this far better than I ever could.
I think you correct about the unstated premise, at least within the US. However, I doubt that most non-Americans see it as such. Not that people in China, Birkina Faso or Eastern Siberia perceive moral equivalence between the US and the Taliban. Its just when you care more about people being bombed from 10,000 feet or stoned to death by fundamentalists, than you do the people pushing that premise, splitting hairs over who is worse doesn’t factor in that much.
I suspect that Assange sees himself in this light. That is, on the side of the innocent. But I agree that leaking documents which put those same people at risk (no matter how small) is pretty stupid. Whether it is possible to ever prosecute someone in an international forum for such recklessness is I think completely unworkable for the reasons you cite. It will always come down to the more powerful party strong-arming others to get their own justice for their own interests.
But, how do we end the killing? Is there ANY way that is free from any harm? Reporting will sometimes put people at risk. I don’t see how the reverse is possible.
Assange’s organization in fact have done various things to try to redact sensitive information and not release the most top secret info.
Lemuel, you make a really important point and provide a very helpful way of framing the question; thank you. I’ll need to chew on it a bit.
I will say that your post slips from talking about civilian Taliban supporters to talking about “Taliban,” who would presumably be combatants. Since it’s legitimate to kill and detain combatants in wartime, I wouldn’t think the ethical issue there is the same as putting civilian lives at risk of intentional targeting.
Is the implication of my argument that war reporters across the board should be held accountable for the human security costs of the articles they publish? Maybe it is. I spent the last ten years studying, in part, the role of the media in covering war rape in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a significant number of human rights abuses (and suicides) are directly attributable to the careless and insensitive way that journalists covered those events. There are professional codes of conduct for war reporters now, but to my knowledge no legal enforcement of those informal rules. In short, the relevant international/transnational law here has probably not been written yet.
Thanks for weighing in on whether and how it should be. I continue to think an appropriate venue for beginning to create a legal precedent might be a mechanism like ACTA. The sooner we can disentangle the “collateral damage of war reporting” piece from the “breaching national security” piece the better.
I completely agree with you that any such norm would need to be symmetrically applicable, and thank you for helping us think abstractly through what that would mean… and what it would mean for the future of journalism, which is clearly being reconstituted at any rate by the advent of “journalists” like Assange.
“no ethically significant revelatory content”
I don’t really know what this means. Is “ethically significant” supposed to mean something? Or “revelatory”? Or what?
There has been lots of commentary on this matter and many have disagreed with the statement. For instance, Spencer Ackerman. Just one of many. Clearly, some disagree. But, it is most surely a matter of debate. So, this post rests on a slim premise, particularly given the high test required for targeting speech.
This post is an epic fail on the premises alone.
To answer the original question – should Assange be prosecuted?
If I were a US citizen and I actually supported the war, then I would say yes. His actions have the potential to materially jeopardise the war effort by putting the lives of allies at risk. He is not a traitor, but an enemy of the state.
If I were not a US citizen (which I am not) and I didn’t support the war (which I do not), then I would say no. But I would agree that the US is within its rights to do so – if they can catch him.
On that note, I recall that Iceland just passed legislation to form a digital safe haven for journalists and whistle-blowers like Assange – http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/16/icelandic-modern-med.html.
But I would agree that the US is within its rights to do so – if they can catch him.
I’d agree that the US could try and extradite. But simply “catching” him sounds a lot like kidnapping.
Yes it does. But does anyone really think that is beneath the US Government? See CIA kidnapping of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr in Italy 2003 – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33620676
But does anyone really think that is beneath the US Government?
No, I would put few things past the US government. But I would not characterize such actions as being “within their rights.”
Sorry. I guess I’ve read the Melian Dialogue one too many times.
Hey Batman did it. To an accountant in Hong Kong no less. If its good enough for him then it must be right. Right?
Under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, it doesn’t matter if they kidnap him; he can still be prosecuted if they can get him before a court.
My question: was the Nixon administration right about the NY Times and Washington Post and the Pentagon Papers? Ellsburg violated the law and was prepared to accept his punishment (although I’m happy they botched his prosecution), but publishing what’s been leaked is a very different thing than leaking it, and should carry a much higher burden.
I really dislike comparing this to the Pentagon Papers. It’s really not on the same level.
I agree, in terms of the quality of the revelations. But I’m unclear on how First Amendment protections can turn on how useful published leaks turn out to be.
This seems like too important a point to be buried in comments. Why not put up a mainpage post on WikiLeaks, Scott?
Scott, I’d also like to read that post. I will say that as I’m thinking about it now, the reason it matters is that if you’re going to risk lives it seems like there needs to be pretty important just cause. This is an ethical argument not a constitutional one; would be interested in your take.
Thanks, Scott. This is a good question.
This is redolent of “concern trolling” (especially from someone who so rarely comments) but it may be worth saying. At this point, I’m not very compelled by your arguments, but because you’re (pretty much always) clever and articulate and (historically) pretty convincing I’m tying myself in knots to be as charitable as possible to a point of view I find viscerally irritating. As such, the link to that ugly, snarling little bit of bullying at the Daily Beast has gotten under my skin a bit. Maybe it was an effective rhetorical flourish with other members of your target audience, but in my case it only served to clarify just how much my intuitive sympathies are on the side of WikiLeaks.
Well expressed.
His actions seem to have done very little good in changing foreign policy, but potentially an enormous amount of harm to human life.
Actions like his rarely do change policy, on their own. In fact, I can think of no instance offhand where stories of this nature caused any response from the authorities apart from a) spin along the lines we’ve heard from the Administration (old news, Bush’s fault, spurred Obama to focus on new and improved killing methods and upgrading the performance of our trusty death squads) and b) find this troublemaker and outfit him with some cement footwear.
If working with American troops is such a danger for various Afghans. . . maybe we should get the fucking hell out?
Obviously “leaking the Afghan War Logs endangered the lives of innocent Afghans” is set to join “Iran is close to constructing its first nuclear warhead” and “Saddam Hussein has an active biological weapons programme” in the category of Things Every Serious Person Knows. If you question things like that, or even ask for evidence, you’re just being naive. Everyone knows it! Look, even the liberal media knows it! Highly placed sources in the US government have told us it’s true! (Which ones?) They were off the record, duh. Hippy.
I believe that “leaking the Afghan War Logs endangered the lives of innocent Afghans” not because the media of the government told me so, but rather because of the handful of documents I’ve read so far. Out of the 40 docs I read I came across 2 that gave the full name and location of Afghans who were supposedly giving information on Taliban activity to the local police.
Go through some of the documents yourself.
Then they are not “innocent” are they, I mean they did something.
I do not think that word means what you think it means, to coin a phrase.
They didn’t provide information to the US military they gave it to the local afghan police.
If they aren’t considered “innocent” then I think it opens up a whole new issue. I guess you could say that there is no legitimate government in Afghanistan and so providing information to any civil authority whether local or national makes you no longer innocent. But where do we move from there?
In this sense no one in Afghanistan is innocent- I mean if they cooperated with the Taliban they’re guilty to the US and if they did so with the Karzai gov then they’re culpable in the eyes of the Taliban.
Uhhh, as someone who was just working on a SCOTUS brief on an ATS case – this is NOT an ATS/Alien Tort Claims Act case. Not even close. If anyone can even ATTEMPT to get together a theory under customary international law how Assange violated a prohibition, you still don’t get a point, because there is no way it will get past the strict Supreme Court criteria of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. This is a dead letter, right here.
Now that I think about it, there’s an even more basic question here.
An Afgani working for the US military is a combatant in a war. So why shouldn’t the Taliban kill them? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do in a war?
Seriously, what is the moral distinction between the US military killing someone who works for the Taliban, and the Taliban killing someone who works for the US military?
Some Afghans have assisted an invading force in their country. Other Afghans see these people as collaborators who have by their collaboration made themselves combatants in the war. People who collaborate with the enemy usually are not treated very kindly — see France 1945 for examples.
But Charli’s view appears to be that some sensible Afghans have assisted The Bringers Of Peace And Justice, and should therefore be given rights to live in land of milk and honey in perpetuity. Anyone who endangers these paragons is Evil and Must Be Destroyed.
This only makes sense if you believe that the United States should rule the world, and any resistance must be punished. It’s very odd.
Charli’s view appears to be that some sensible Afghans have assisted The Bringers Of Peace And Justice, and should therefore be given rights to live in land of milk and honey in perpetuity. Anyone who endangers these paragons is Evil and Must Be Destroyed.
This only makes sense if you believe that the United States should rule the world, and any resistance must be punished.
That’s how it looks to me too. BUt maybe we’re misunderstanding. Some clarification would be helpful.
Charli, given that there is a war in Afghanistan, why is it immoral for one side to kill its enemies, but not the other?
It’s immoral in my view (and illegal as a fact of internationallaw) for either side to intentionally target civilians.
And no, simply providing information to US troops does not make an Afghan civilian a US combatant or a legitimate military target.
The relevant definition of “combatant” is to be found in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, and in Article 43 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions. The definition of civilian is in Article 50 of Additional Protocol 1, and basically says everyone is a civilian who does not fall into one of the “combatant” categories. Subsequent articles lay in out in some detail the illegitimacy of targeting civilians as such.
I will have a bit more online as soon as feasible that will clarify some of the relevant provisions of humanitarian law, as there seems to be a bit of confusion on these points circulating in the press.
This is just silly. The US military doesn’t base its targeting decisions on the Geneva Conventions any more than the Taliban does.
I would argue it’s silly to ask me what I think is immoral, and then tell me that I’m wrong because you assume the US government doesn’t agree with me.
And I would argue that there’s pretty conclusive evidence that the Geneva Conventions strongly inform US targeting decisions, far more so than the Taliban. I’d start by pointing to Ralph Peters and the flocks of milbloggers who regularly denounced Stanley McChrystal for ordering fire support restrictions that they considered too stringent.
This would have been a more effective post if you had ditched the Rhetorical Questions and cut to the premise. It would have been true to the point, since its clear you’d like to see Assange strung up.
What I don’t understand, is how you can crucify a small fish like Assange, while the big kahunas who started (Bush) and perpetuate (Obama) this whole bloodbath walk free?
1) I agree with your first point about framing.
2) I assume you’re using ‘strung up’ figuratively, since the death penalty is not usually a result of civil litigation.
3) The answer to your question is that, contrary to what you assume, I’m not doing both these things. I have long argued that the US administration should be held to task for its violations of humanitarian law in Afghanistan. AND, I think Julian Assange should be held to task for ethical violations in this case, if there’s some legal way to do it that doesn’t involve setting a precedent for endangering civil liberties more broadly.
That opening sentence sort of lays her cards out. Shut up and take it!
I think I understand why I wasn’t getting this whole debate in the first place. I presume that the US shouldn’t rule the world. That was my problem.
You want to see a bloodbath? When the Soviets left Afghanistan the Taliban didn’t take over right away. In fact the Communist government of Afghanistan outlasted the Russian one by a year. Yet no one in the US cried about all those dead Afghanis caused by the Soviet pullout.
An imperial mindset is the biggest killer of all. The author of this post has one. The most significant IR stuff kind of got glossed over, namely the Pakistani intelligence services involvement not only in backing the Taliban, but the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.
could you please direct me to the international treaty, ratified by all the countries in the world, that places the entire world’s population, under the scope of US law? because i apparently missed that signing event.
as i understand it, mr. assange is neither a US citizen, nor a resident of the US. that said, how is he then obligated to obey US laws for, well, anything? again, unless i missed that massive treaty, granting the US legal control over the entire earth.
it’s not his job to parse the documents, nor is he morally or legally obligated to do so; he didn’t start or continue the wars, bush and obama did/have. if someone is put at risk, that’s their problem (and the pentagon’s), not mr. assange’s.
i’m surprised any halfway competent attorney wouldn’t get this very, very obvious point.
So tell me cunt, are you calling for the heads of the NYT, the Granuaid, and Der Spiegel too? You know, the people who helped publish the documents. Just asking. Also, I love the revisionism that the Pentagon Papers revealed unknown information(the US is operating in Laos and Cambodia, holy shit!), and changed the course of history(and let’s ignore the fact that Ellseberg, uh, the guy who leaked the papers you refer to, says this leak is just as momentous). Kinda like Hitchens claiming the NLF never used car bombs: the mind selectively edits the past to avoid threatening your delusions.
Well, at least we got to 74 comments before someone behaved like a complete jackass.
*I will have a post up shortly about why progressives should be wary of uncritically regurgitating Assange’s claims about “war crimes.”
Assange was on Democracy Now! for a full episode interview a couple days back and was rather weak on that point. Anyways, this strawman of “uncritically regurgitating” something said is again beneath you.
As with some posts by Campos, can we please cut this shit?
The last word might be wrong, but I’m sorry, I find this post offensive, especially since I generally respect the person making it.
are you calling for the heads of the NYT, the Granuaid, and Der Spiegel too? You know, the people who helped publish the documents. Just asking.
Um, yes, that was yesterday’s post.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/07/an-aqtaliban-executioners-dream
I strongly disagree with Charli here but the ‘c’ word is completely unacceptable. If this were my blog, you would be permanently banned.
Well, well… What can be said that hasn’t already? My helmet’s off to Dr. Carpenter for continuing to stir the pot in which she’d like to see Mr. Assange boiled.
Perhaps the first thing would be to answer, in no uncertain terms, her opening question. A resounding no, Madam, Mr. Assange should not be prosecuted, mainly on the grounds that, (sallow complexion unfortunately STILL not a criminal offense, else we could indict the whole cast of “Twilight”) he has broken no laws.
Oh, wait, an antiquated US law from 1917? Now that’s a different matter! Send a few of the hard lads from one of our death squads (oh, wait that sounds rather bad, doesn’t it) err, from Task Force 373 to round up the scoundrel and drag him over here to face due process.
And why stop with just one antiquated law from the early 1900s? There’s thousands on the book, which should be thoroughly examined so as to afford the prosecution the best opportunity to wangle some sort of conviction. Has he deflowered any virgins before? That’s worth 5 years in the lock-up in Auburn, Alabama. Taken more than 3 sips of beer while standing in place, or shot a buffalo from a 2nd-story window? Well, Texas is the place we’d like him tried, then.
I’m sorry? What’s that? Ahh, that’s right, TF-373 doesn’t bring folks in for due process, it’s more of 2 in the chest, 1 in the head affair. Well, that sounds a bit soft for Mr. Assange, doesn’t it? But, since we’re applying old laws, let’s apply old punishments as well – if we can wangle a conviction for treason (traitor being one of the epithets widely applied by the howling masses in the media) then we could no doubt have him publicly drawn and quartered under jolly old Englande’s Treason Act of 1708. Oh, I do so enjoy a bit of bread and circus.
But enough, already.
Cleitus has a few observations in closing;
1. All good Muslims (including the Taliban and ISAF collaborators) would have to agree that from a theological perspective, this is merely a tempest in a teacup. Inshallah; If God Wills It. Clearly the Almighty wanted Mr. Assange to publish; it is all part of his inscrutable plan.
2. The Taliban is not known for its reticence in claiming responsibility for killings and making it clear that collaborators have been punished. Yet for all the clamor about the “lives put in jeopardy”, I have yet to read one report of one of these lives actually being snuffed out. So, much ado about nothing?
3. And very lastly, I assure you, Dr. Carpenter, that your closing proposal that NATO do “the more responsible thing” by removing at-risk informants from Afghanistan and finding them someone to sue is spot on. But perhaps we could expand the program to encompass the 120,000 NATO troops who are also at risk, marked for death not merely by a brief quotation buried in 92,000 pages of reports, but by the very clothing that they wear on a daily basis. Surely THEY can be relocated, and someone may be sued “to recover the financial costs and emotional hardships of relocation.”
Ah, the great Cleitus rears his helmeted head! Can I assume this means that you and your compatriots will soon be emerging from your long hibernation?
Points of order:
1) The Espionage Act is alive and well, unfortunately, just ask lawyers at the Justice Department.
2) You imply that if some US troops have behaved badly in Afghanistan we must have needed Assange to endanger Afghanis in order to point this out, an assumption of which I shall attempt to disabuse you in my next post.
3) “Much ado about nothing?” Insh’allah, indeed.
Am I reading this post wrong? It seems to me that Charli is arguing that Assange should not be prosecuted and certainly not under the 1917 Espionage Act. The most Charli seems to want is for Assange to be held civilly liable for any damages that occur to people he may have outed and to help pay for their protection to prevent.
I’m not sure whether I agree with this or not (I am not an international lawyer and I haven’t thought this idea through in much detail, in part because I doubt it will ever happen) but it seems clear to me that Charli doesn’t want to “boil” Assange or place all of the world under US criminal law. But since all the other commenters seem to think otherwise, maybe I’m wrong to be giving Charli the benefit of the doubt in my reading.
Am I reading this post wrong?
Nope, you’ve got my point exactly. It’s definitely not US criminal law to which the Alien Tort Claims Act is relevant, as the Statute covers “violations of the law of nations” and also US treaties.
So one question that my post didn’t really explore is which relevant provision of customary international law would even apply. Would something like Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be relevant, for example?
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” …?
Not being a lawyer, I can’t answer this question, but I think it’s worth asking. The answer may be no. As I understand it, the judiciability of international norm violations under ACTA has been narrowed in recent years.
Part of what I’m trying to say, I think, is that most of the relevant international law may not have been written yet – hence the “grey area” faced by those who think he should be prosecuted somehow. However, it’s worth thinking through alternatives to the Justice Department’s idea of charging him with espionage and I hope international lawyers reading this can help.
Being a law student working on ATS cases, the answer is “no.” Not even before the field was narrowed. Not even close.
Thanks for engaging this aspect of my post, Gayle. I’m neither a lawyer nor a law student and have no experience with ATS cases – just a political scientist with some understanding of previous uses of ACTA – so can you elaborate from a legal point of view on the specific distinctions between those cases and this one that make it a non-starter? This would hone my understanding of ACTA for when I teach about it to polisci undergrads.
Also, as a law student, if you hypothetically agreed with me that a) Assange has engaged in some negligent wrong-doing and b) he shouldn’t be tried by the US as a spy (not that I assume you do from your comments), any ideas on other (hypothetical) avenues for judicial redress?
Genuinely curious. Cheers, Charli
So, 5 whole days after publishing, “his actions have done little to change foreign policy”? Then, DAMN HIM I SAY!! And the 95 comments here speak to how small, and inconsequential his actions are! Nevermind! Let the freedom bombs fall!
“If WE don’t commit war crimes, someone else will! And they won’t be as good at it!”
THAT is what you’re arguing.
Face it.
Sorry Charli, but “those who think he should be prosecuted somehow”, are those who don’t really care how long this pointless campaign of murder and mayhem continues, as though it’s all merely an academic exercise. Most of the world citizens would like the U.S. to cease and desist.
Charli,
Want to keep this civil, but
a) the evidentiary case that Assange has actually endangered any Afghans is very poor (see ajay at the very top of this thread, blowing your weak example to smithereens – your failure to respond should be replaced by further argument or an apology, you may not realize just how embarrassing and juvenile that looks just to make sure you know what I’m talking about, your ‘examples’ are of Afghan public officials whose collaboration with the US doesn’t need confirmation with leaked cables)
b) You’d clearly like to structure yourself here as holding some sort of diplomatic middle ground, but the idea of the FBI charging Assange with Espionage Act violations is *ridiculous* – the law was passed before the modern era of civil liberties even existed, and it’s a fascist law, which is why hasn’t been used in 80 years, so civil lawsuits aren’t exactly a ‘compromise’
c) forgetting about a) for a second: why, exactly, is it – ethically – okay that we kill innocent afghans – as an unfortunate side effect – in order to accomplish our policy goals – not only is it okay, but the people who do it are heroes – but if Julian Assange were to cause a (vastly smaller number) of innocent Afghans to be killed in order to accomplish his policy goals of *not* having us kill more innocent afghans incidentally – that he’s some kind of monster? That’s the impression you give – of someone unable to grasp the essential hypocrisies of your point of view.
Of course, I don’t believe Assange actually endangered anyone; I think you’re blogging on this opportunistically, convicting without trial, and other variants of careless error, etc, but make sure to consider the first principles above in your reply.
Very good comment. Thanks especially for the reminder that the Afghan civilians killed thanks to Assange remain entirely hypothetical, while the Afghan civilians killed by the US continue to pile up by the thousand.
Keep in mind that Charli’s number-one piece of evidence for Afghani civilans endangered by Assange is another US blogger’s speculation on what he would do “if I were a Taliban operative.” (Seriously, click on the link. That’s her evidence.)
Perhaps Charli will explain at some point what evidentiary standard Josh Foust’s make-believe meets, and the “ethically significant” content of the WikiLeaks documents do not.
She could start with this, on training procedures in the unit responsible for the “collateral murder” video Charli wrote a post on a few months ago. At the time, Charli thought the unprovoked killing of multiple Iraqi civilians, including children, by US troops was ethically significant; “what cognitive process is at work here,” she wondered. So, one would think she might be interested in documents on the training of those soldiers that addresses precisely that question.
But no, she’s not a bit interested. She agrees with the soldier on the tape, I guess: “It’s their fault for bringing their kids to a battle.”
The contrast between that post and this one tells you all you need to know about what matters to Charli. Here, speculation about something that might hypothetically happen is enough to haul someone into court. That’s her level of concern when the press fails to act as an adjunct to the US military. But faced with video footage and recordings of American troops deliberately gunning down children and then lying about it, Charli bends over backward to withhold judgment. The footage could have been doctored. Gosh, it’s hard to know what to what to make of it. That’s her level of concern when US soldiers kill Iraqi kids.
Scott, Rob, DJW: I suggest you rewatch that video, read Charli’s response to it, and read her post here. And then ask yourselves some hard questions about the company that you keep.
Well said, Lemuel. The Afghan and Iraqi parents’ problem is that the US brought a battle to their kids — it’s hard not to bring your kids if your kids *live* there. I try not to imagine what it must be like to be a parent, trying to keep your kids alive, in either of those countries. My country and the USA (and some others) is responsible for those hellholes and keep making them worse. Indefinitely, it seems.
(Sigh.) Read the post again Lemuel. I have linked to descriptions of the archive by several analysts who have studied and described the contents of the archive and explained why they are ethically problematic, without revealing any names of informants – which is the most I could possibly personally do here without committing the same error of which I accuse Assange.
You and some others here do not seem to be convinced by others’ descriptions of the archive, so I invite you to do a systematic study of it yourself and refute their (and my) claims. At any rate, there is no way I or any other blogger who actually believes in the ethical argument I’m making is going to reveal any particular informant’s identity just to prove a point, so there’s probably not much more “proof” I can offer you here beyond the actual threats made by the Taliban, to which I link in my original post.
Whether or not the Taliban actually make good on these threats (and I sincerely hope they never do), try to convince me that those named in the leaked documents and their families have not already suffered emotional damages simply by being exposed unnecessarily to the fear that such threats will be carried out.
LP,
Charli has responded to all of your questions in a civil manner; moreover, I’d say that the conversation generated by this post has been productive.
In this comment, you’re making a series of assertions about what Charli must believe with extremely thin evidence as to what she actually does believe; if you want to know how she squares the circle on these two beliefs, I’d try asking her. Again, she has been willing to answer nearly all of the questions that you’ve put to her.
Now, as for the two posts in question and Charli’s suitability for LGM, I concur with Charli almost entirely about the “Collateral Murder” video; indeed, we went over the video in my class (which included actual veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq), and I don’t have any doubt whatsoever that Assange presented the video in a deliberately misleading light; this hardly exonerates the soldiers, but it should produce questions about Assange.
I don’t, on the other hand, agree with this post; I don’t think that there’s any point to prosecuting Assange, and in particular I’m mindful of the distinction (which you repeatedly mention) between the hypothetical Afghans that might die because of Wikileaks and the actual Afghans who die in the war.
However, while it would be wrong to think that Scott, Dave and I agree with every post written on the site, you may have mislead yourself at some point regarding my politics especially; from years of productively interacting with both you and Charli, I can assure you that my views (and I do not wish to speak for Scott or Dave or Dave or Dave or Scott or Paul) are far closer to hers than they are to yours.
I should also note that I find your insinuation that the “company we keep” somehow morally degrades us quite insulting; keep it up, and you’ll be the one shown the door. I don’t want to have to do that, because as noted I very much value your presence at LGM.
Excellent rebuttal of a truly disgraceful post.
The people in the US administration who are worried about the Wikileaks revelations endangering Afghanis who are mentioned therein can easily minimise the threat by inviting them to migrate to the US.
No problem.
You imply that if some US troops have behaved badly in Afghanistan we must have needed Assange to endanger Afghanis in order to point this out, an assumption of which I shall attempt to disabuse you in my next post.
Your “next post”? There’s more? It’s the Black Knight all over again.
I say extradite him to Switzerland.
Um, no, not even on your “ethical argument.” As I understand it, your case for Assange’s “ethically problematic” behavior is that he revealed Secret Stuff, thereby making it Not Secret Stuff, which is bad because the Secret Stuff is kept secret In Order To Protect Afghan Civilians (must … resist … pointing … out … factually … vulnerable … premises). If you actually performed the work of demonstrating why some of the documents might endanger Afghan civilians, you would not be revealing Secret Stuff That Is Kept Secret In Order to Save Afghan Civilians, you would be repeating Not Secret Stuff already revealed by Assange (hence this discussion). Yet you claim that substantiating this critical point would partake of the same “ethical preblematic[ness].” Why is this not the most appalling dodge?
To review the bidding: Comments immediately pointed out the weaknesses in the second-hand “analysis” on which you rely, and you made essentially three responses: “I cited people that you should trust”; “my ethical purity forbids me from substantiating the central premise underlying my claims, or even performing some anonymized ‘analysis’ of my own”; and “nyah, nyah, it’s your job to prove me wrong.” The first two responses have already been dealt with, and the third is just amazingly lazy. Why should the burden of proof be on those who have already done a perfectly fine job impugning your evidence? In any event, you’re the one making the claims in the first place; shouldn’t you provide evidence beyond some debunked borrowed analysis?
US Government information, namely in the form of records, is considered Federal property.
Assange and Wikileaks are obviously in unauthorized possession of US government information.
Why not prosecute him for violating 18 USC 641, a felony?
18 USC § 641. Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
I’m disappointed. Has anyone actually done any research into the situation on the ground in Afghanistan (apart from citing a news headline) before posting here? All the ethical cut and thrust is interesting, but all these posts should refer to war generally or back up reference to Afghanistan with overwhelming fact.
It’s almost December. Still waiting to see or hear proof that any Afghans harmed by WikiLeaks Afghan War Logs leak…
Someone must put this maniac in a pschyciatric clinic, jail, for the rest of his life. Just to protect him, for others and himself.
[...] long as we’re debating the legal and ethical conduct of certain Australians of recent public note, there’s this bit [...]