Congressman Wants WikiLeaks Classified as a Terrorist Organization [Wikileaks]

That enormous leak of pretty-much-kinda-mostly secret diplomatic wires? lots of people inside the government are quite pissed! Perhaps chiefly among them is Long island Congressman Peter King , who’s demanding that WikiLeaks be officially deemed a terrorist group .

King, a Republican Rep who will soon chair the House Homeland Security Committee, wants WikiLeaks placed alongside al-Qaeda and Hamas for the humungous document disclosure. The move, if approved, would mean no less than some financial trouble for WikiLeaks, as a place on the list bars you from doing business with US banks-so no more online donations. Any assets held inside the US would also be turned over to the govt. Separately, King wants to ” criminally charge WikiLeaks activist Julian Assange under the Espionage Act,” as indicated in a letter written to Attorney General Eric Holder.

But what does it take to position a collection on the State Department’s naughty list (that of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations, officially)? To qualify, your group should be:

1. Foreign

2. Engaged in ” terrorist activity” or ” terrorism”

3. A threat to america.

Number two is a biggie. As defined in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, terrorism is primarily physical and violent. Physical violence. Destruction. Things like ” The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).” Or ” An assassination.” However, the letter of the law does further define a terrorist group as any that ” endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

King claims that WikiLeaks qualifies under this language, accusing it of ” terrorist activity by committing acts that it knew, or reasonably need to have known, would afford material support for the commission of terrorist activity.” A vague accusation using vague language-but is it apt?

WikiLeaks presented the documents which include a politically-charged rationale:

The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in ” client states” ; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance people who have access to them.

This document release reveals the contradictions between america’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they ought to ask to work out what’s occurring behind the curtain.

Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington – the country’s first President – could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to a similar principle, today’s document flood could be an insignificant embarrassment. Instead, the united states Government has been warning governments – even essentially the mostsome of the most corrupt – all over concerning the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.

The leak is, clearly, an attack against the u. s. . But a figurative, ideological attack-one of emphatic criticism-isn’t just like a physical attack, or efforts to either prompt or plan such an assault. Any American citizen can (and infrequently does!) accuse the usa government of being full of cheats and liars. And these kinds of same Americans go on to win political office.

On the opposite hand, both the State Department and politicians like King have said the website’s actions have now placed American lives in peril. However, WikiLeaks makes no actual statements espousing-as far as my knowledge of the word goes-acts of violence against Americans or america. But does access constitute espousal? If a site’s reader is angered by its content and commits an act of terrorism due to it, does that make the positioning responsible? This feels like a really, very hard sell-but this can be an angry government in murky (and diplomatically hot) water. Whether the law is provided to deal with a global wherein such a massive volume of facts will also be instantly shared with the overall globe, effortlessly, is a good murkier matter. [ The Atlantic and CNET ]

Source

This post is tagged: document disclosure, financial trouble, immigration and nationality, immigration and nationality act, security committee, terrorist activity, terrorist organization