Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why doesn't the United States take direct action against WikiLeaks and the Founder of WikiLeaks?

It seems to me that the action of the Soldier who gave the files to WikiLeaks is clearly Treason and he should be tried for the crime of Treason and if found guilty, given the maximum sentence allowed by law.

But the actions of WikiLeaks are acts of War that are intended to do great harm to the US in general and to US Foreign policy specifically. That being the case, the US Government it would seem, has justification to take direct action against either WikiLeaks, the WikiLeaks founder, or both. The US should unleash an extensive computer attack against WikiLeaks and all of the IT infrastructure with the aim of deleting and destroying the data. The WikiLeaks found should be captured and brought to justice in the US or simply eliminated as a strong message to others that the US has long arms and the will to act.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

GuardianoftheHeart

Technically, the Constitution grants the freedom of speech, but not the right to endanger ones neighbor. I would say "eliminated" is to much, but the website needs brought down.

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

The US Constitution does not apply in this case. The soldier took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and to follow the lawful orders of his superiors. He signed contracts with the Government when he applied for and accepted his security clearanace to protect all classified information and material and not to disclose such information to others without a proper clearance and a "Need to Know, under penalty of the law.

In effect, as a US Soldier with a security clearance, he waived his constitutional right to freedom of speech -- as upheld time and again by the US courts.

The founder of WikiLeaks is not a US citizen and the WikiLeaks organization is not a US corporation or legal entity. Therefore, the US Constitution has no jurisdiction. The acts committed by WikiLeaks and their founder are clearly detrimental to the interests of the US, the US requested they not release the information, they were told it was classified information owned by the US government and that its release would damage the US. Therefore, WikiLeak's subsequent release of that information can be construed as an Act of War. In response to an act of war, the US Government, as a Sovereign Nation, has the right under international law to respond in virtually any way it chooses not specifically prohibited by international treaty to which the US is a signatory. In other words, in this case the Constitution does not apply and the US can do almost anything it chooses. An Executive Order of the President is all that is required to assassinate the owner of WikiLeaks -- International treaties on assassination apply only to Heads of State, which he clearly is not.