-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
Eminentoes
Merry Christmas, Julian
Just kidding (though something tells us Mr. Assange doesn’t celebrate Christmas).
The trouble in dealing with Julian Assange is that he loves attention — and it doesn’t matter what kind. There must be a catalogue of psychological factors that influence his malady, but the end result is he adores playing himself and being noticed for it.
Assange loves saying that his execution has been called for by American politicians. He actually appears proud to be charged by the Swedish authorities with a sex crime against two women. He apparently believes this makes him a true masculine hero, countering a reported problem he’s had since puberty in macho Australia.
All in all the worst thing that could happen to Julian Assange would be not to be extradited to Sweden; not to be extradited to the United States; and not to be harassed by American-sponsored legal actions wherever he might travel internationally. Lucky for Julian’s psyche, two out of those three occurrences most likely will not happen. On the other hand, there is a down side to his desire to wallow in the attention.
Assange is quickly becoming the darling of the Michael Moore “I hate America as long as that theme is financially rewarding” set. Of course there are many followers of that club that just blame the U.S. for everything and get nothing but personal satisfaction out of their preoccupation. Julian Assange, the entrepreneur and radical chic social climber, is not one of them.
There are many in the U.S., of course, who believe that the U.S. Government should not be allowed to restrict access to information other than that which is of immediate importance to national security, such as code breaking that informs of imminent danger to the state, e.g. Pearl Harbor. While there is a good argument against over-classification, the unauthorized publication of secret official communication cannot be left to individuals who make a business out of such an enterprise.
There are even some journalists who believe if they have the ability to obtain classified information, that is reason enough to publish it. The logic is that it’s the government’s job to keep matters secret — and if they can’t, well, that’s just too bad. Assange shares this concept and takes it one step further. He, and others like him, believe it’s their duty to expose anything they can regarding American political, economic and military affairs — the more apparently confidential the better.
For some self-serving reason these individuals and organizations are quite content to ignore the fact that the information is ultimately the property of the American people, who have delegated to their government the duty of gathering and securing all levels of intelligence and its analysis. The American people have an interest in restricting access to their information — and have the legal right to do so.
Without arguing the scope of the right to freedom of speech, it is clear that Julian Assange’s objective is to gather information that exposes official interests and views and embarrasses the United States. His intent is malevolent and targeted in such a manner as to endanger the American public through divulging the classified activities and analysis of its governmental representatives and institutions. Such an activity is not protected under the First Amendment.
The issue is not the content of the diplomatic cables — many of which actually show the United States’ foreign policy, as Gideon Rachman put it in the Financial Times, as “principled, intelligent and pragmatic.” Rather it is that Assange’s intent is to injure the United States Government and thereby diminish the status and ethic of the American public as a uniquely endowed body of people seeking to be “exceptional” in the world from which they have carved and built an unparalleled nation.
Jealousy and self-loathing are among the usual suspects in such hostility. But that’s for Assange’s psychiatrist to work out and not a political or legal analysis. In the end, Julian Assange is counting on falling legally under the “Pentagon Papers” ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court whereby the publisher of stolen classified documents is exonerated of responsibility. It will have to be proven that Pfc. Bradley Manning, who transmitted the classified communications to WikiLeaks, was enticed, encouraged, or guided by Assange and his group. Julian’s defense team seems a bit worried over that crucial issue.
Even if he “beats the rap” in the future, Julian Assange will have to live with the reality that he is viewed as an enemy of the United States. He may think now that this is a major enhancement to his influence, but one wonders whether such a social status has long-term positive value. If he hasn’t already, somewhere along the line he will make a mistake by going too far. The penalty then will be far greater than the current mansion-arrest in Ellingham, Norfolk and possible conviction for the sex crime in Sweden.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/21/merry-christmas-julian
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stephanie| 12.21.10 @ 6:34AM
He's such a creepy dirty looking guy. Can we perhaps find out who's giving him these documents? And why are we hearing little to nothing about the PFC being held by the US military who leaked previous documents to this America Hater? Is it because he's gay? Would that put a bad spin on the DADT repeal? Last week was the little traitor's b'day and some in the press wanted us to feel for the little bastard. What kind of country are we living in?
Mary | 12.21.10 @ 12:36PM
one that allows idots like you who dont know a thing. Wikileaks cant know who sends them the cables or any other documents for that matter. as far as the "trator" he hasnt even had his day in court and he has been in solitary confinment for the last 9 months , now that's the American way , hope you would feel the dame if you were there waiting for your trial.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:17PM
It's no use, Mary, these GOP pigheads don't care about anyone except their people. Here is a more objective (not objective, but MORE objective) spin on Wikileaks:
"When all is said and done, we are talking about the unauthorized distribution of less than 1 GB of uncompressed, unencrypted text files, which in contemporary technological terms approaches a rounding error. It’s a couple of medium-quality downloads of a TV show or a tiny part of a dirt-cheap USB drive, and the diversity of options to distribute and transfer it through the internet is staggering.
WikiLeaks, as a site and as an organization, might or might not be disrupteable, but both governments and the press (not to mention whistle-blowers themselves) seem quite unaware of the fact that this is as useful as closing barn doors to keep bacteria from getting out.
I suspect their underlying mental model is that of TV stations or printing presses, which can be taken over or destroyed when needed. Very few in politics or media seem the understand that unlike TV sets and TV transmitters, all networked computers are essentially the same. Private citizens might not be able to quickly replace a shelled TV station, or Google’s search infrastructure for that matter, but a cheap smartphone is perfectly capable of storing and distributing gigabytes of sensitive information.
The only thing that WikiLeaks provides, their unique value, lies in their well-earned ability to gather the attention of politicians and the press. The documents might have just as easily been given to, say, 4chan, who more likely than not would have proven to be even more resilient to government pressure than WikiLeaks. Or, for probably far less than the cost of hosting WikiLeaks traditionally, a botnet could have been rented to literally spam people with fragments of the documents.
WikiLeaks, which has a well-defined name, a website, and a face, is understandable enough for media to grudgingly pay attention to, and in turn this makes it noticeable enough for politicians to care about them. But this only proves how completely behind the curve they are. It might still be true that many voters (as well as many members of more restricted and influential groups) still only know what’s “on the papers,” but this situation has an unavoidable expiration date. Increasingly, things are only covered by news organizations after millions of people already know about them.
We live in information-rich societies led and covered by people trained for — and still believing themselves in — a situation of information scarcity. Therein lies the real threat… for them and for us."
Purple Lips| 12.21.10 @ 2:42PM
Me thinks you need to review federal law and the UCMJ. PFC Manning illegally downloaded and distributed information that was classified TS-SCI. That is a felony.
What is surprising to me is the fact that Manning, a known gay activists who let everyone and anyone know his dislike for official policy concerning gays was granted access to classified information.
Mary| 12.21.10 @ 7:55PM
hey asshole, he more than likely had security clearance so the act of DOWNLOADING onto a removable device was not illegal, just giving the information to some one with out clearance was. make sure you wont mind your freedom being taken away bit by bit.
Ihave16YearsMilitaryExperience| 12.21.10 @ 8:48PM
Mary, please continue to show not only your ignorance, your lack of education, and your inability to form coherent arguments - it really makes those of us who have served in the military feel wonderful about the free speech we defend. If you knew the first thing about security classifications, you'd know that it is not only a felony and against regulations and the UCMJ to distribute classified information to anyone without BOTH the clearance AND the need to know, it is also against UCMJ regulations, hence ILLEGAL, to DOWNLOAD classified materials onto unclassified or personal data devices. PFC Manning, in a lame attempt to promote his personal political agenda, took classified information and gave it to a foreign person without regard to the safety or effect on his military brethren. You need to factor in that is not your freedom or right to take information that is classified by the government and use it as you desire -- that is not a right, nor a privelege. You obviously cannot discern the difference between rights, freedoms, and illegal and immoral activities. I suggest you read the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and perhaps a bit of history instead of the drivel you seem to have absorbed.
Ihave16yearsMilitaryExperience| 12.21.10 @ 8:51PM
Oh, and the use of pejoratives, such as @ssho!e, really shows your mental acuity. Get a job. Or better yet, enlist and give a bit more to the country than you take. You'd be surprised how a bit of service can make you understand and truly internalize values, integrity, and knowledge.
E Joyce| 12.21.10 @ 9:47PM
Placing classified documents onto an unclassified computer is illegal. Downloading classified documents onto a CD or thumb drive without permission is illegal. All of this is covered in the non-disclosure agreement signed by anyone who is granted access to classified material. PFC Manning allegedly told someone in a chat room that he used a personal CD-ROM to download classified documents, playing music as a cover. If true, that is a violation of the UCMJ, whether or not he then passed the documents to Wikileaks.
"make sure you wont mind your freedom being taken away bit by bit." It's not clear what this sentence means, but if you're talking about being able to do whatever you want with classified information, you're wrong. Having a security clearance is a privilege, not a right, and securing the nation's secrets is a responsibility, not an option.
"hey asshole." Is it at all possible to express your opinions without name calling? Probably not.
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:29PM
The size of the leaked material is meaningless, Alan. For example, imagine the following passage being leaked in 1945 to Stalin: "The US has harnessed nuclear fission to make a bomb. Two varieties exist: a gun method, which is so infallible it does not have to be tested, and an implosion method of shaped conventional charges that push masses together to make a "critical mass," i.e., a sufficient amount of fissionable material to start an out of control chain reaction."
Roughly sixty words, Alan. An infintesimal amount of information in terms of space. In 1945, an act of treason great enough to deserve the death penalty.
The safety of the USA is not a "Liberal" or a "Conservative" issue. At least, I don't think Harry S Truman thought that way. Or FDR.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:30PM
The one thing Stalin did "right" (if only in the nationalistic sense of 'rectitude') was to protect Russia from not only Germany, but also Japan.
The Soviets were paranoid, but they had reason to be after the Axis invasion. Stalin did help bring on the invasion, but the West sold Russia out in 1936 (the remilitarization of the Rhineland), and at Munich. Now, it may have been in the West's interests to do so, however that is not how Russia saw it- and if you disagree you will have to dig up Stalin and argue with him, not me.
Nationalism is sticky wicket.
PolishKnight| 12.21.10 @ 11:10PM
Watch the DVD "The Soviet Story" but there's also other books and documentaries available if you're interested about how the Soviets and Nazis were allies long before the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact simply because they were natural allies. So it's rather amusing to read claims that the west "sold" Russia out in Munich. That's like saying that England "sold" America out at Dunkirk.
There's evidence that Stalin was intending to invade Germany from Poland before Barbarossa and he just got beaten to the punch.
The primary reason for "Soviet", namely, Stalin's paranoia of the era was probably simply because he worried that his opponents were just as untrustworthy and cruel as he was.
Mary| 12.21.10 @ 8:21PM
Well spoken, it's not the amount of information but what it contains. The BACTERIA you speak of is something the Government is letting slip over their heads, the internet has to many EYES. Smart Phones yes but still who is to say that America wont become another IRAN were cable news networks like CNN will censored. look at it this way IRAN had the NADEA video and AMERICA has the RUETERS journalist video, now tell me what's the difference. WikiLeaks actual handed over the cables and video to reputable Newspapers how and no one knew before hand. Seeing something is completely different that reading it. Finally INFORMATION is only scarce if you cant get to it, it's out there you just have to know the right people.
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 10:53PM
AB,
Once again you prove yourself to be a paragon ignorance. Just another mindless leftish shill. You will be in for rude awakening when you finally figure out the your islamic masters don't like fags.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 1:31PM
Ever stop to think that the reason that little salami swallower is in solitary is twofold:
One: Since he's a salami swallower IN PRISON, don't you think that he might be on someone's "b**ch list?"
Two: Ever stop to think that since he's in a military prison, there would be quite the number of people who would want to off him for what he did?
Oh, & the UCMJ does't work like the civilian justice system. But please keep crying about it. Its quite amusing to see you lefties cry tears of blood over how traitors are treated. Why not make a "Free Aldrich Ames" sign & stand in front of Supermax this weekend too?
PzKfw| 12.22.10 @ 12:41PM
Speaking of "idots", you need to improve your keyboard skills...this reads like a moron on Twitter. As for the "trator", hope he never sees daylight again...if he's convicted...of course
Spook| 12.23.10 @ 11:36PM
Mary just in case you happen to look back at this post. It is idiots like you who fail to research facts like the one that Julian paid several thousand pounds to the PFC for the information and had been in contact with him for some time.
jah jah| 12.21.10 @ 6:40AM
me thinks author has not read either wikileaked cables or julian assange's opinions.
me thinks author not living in real world, but naive, dream world.
me thinks author and his ilk are opponents of actual freedom.
me thinks my comment will be censored by person who claims to love the first amendment.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 9:00AM
Methinks that you're an imbecile.
Methinks that you don't care that the first round of documents Assflange released made public the names of Afghans who're working with our intel & military & that you don't care that those people, who know more about fighting for freedom than you or Assflange will EVER know, will have to spend the rest of their lives in fear for their safety & that of their families.
Methinks that you wouldn't know "freedom" if it slapped you upside the head.
Methinks that your comment should stay posted because everyone will know just how stupid people like you are.
PS. Assange is French for "raped in prison."
Queen Gertrude| 12.21.10 @ 11:06AM
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
GavInTucson| 12.21.10 @ 11:21PM
"Assflange"
That was priceless.
solidground| 12.21.10 @ 9:46AM
Methinks you should learn grammar.
Appleby| 12.21.10 @ 11:23AM
Methinks you should read Shakespeare.
mary| 12.21.10 @ 12:51PM
me thinks author sould see the video on "youtube" called "Wikileaks Documentary" then he can comment about how he thinks julian is such a "famehore" NOT
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:21PM
Jah Jah, please understand that AS are Repuglicans, not conservatives-- they no longer conserve anything whatsoever.
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 10:59PM
Jah Jah, please understand the AB only writes what his controllers tell him to, independent thought is a mystical realm for him, a place beyond his limited intelligence.
Louis Jenkins| 12.21.10 @ 8:16AM
So why not protect Assange under the first amendment? He's not a citizen, but in fact many people who are not citizens receive that right, including illegals. Glen Beck held a gathering and spoke his mind about Assange, but the crowd was not with him. Can't imagine anyone but Beck supporters attending one of his public appearances. Problem is that people are so fed up with the antics of our government any item that smells of wrong doing is okay by them. We've come down to that point. The enemy of my enemy is my friend regardless of how bad it makes the USA look.
Curly Smith| 12.21.10 @ 9:15AM
The First Amendment is about prior restraint, it says that the Government can't stop you from publishing and the documents have already been published. The First Amendment, however, doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you published. Leaving Assange aside for the moment, consider what would happen if you published an article full of malicious lies, rumor and innuendo and you weren't the New York Times. Your right to publish is protected by the First Amendment. However, the injured parties would sue you for libel.
But Assange really has nothing to worry about from the United States. We won't prosecute him because we routinely haven't prosecuted the New York Times or the Washington Post for publishing similar damaging material. You can't successfully argue that the title of "journalist" allows one to disseminate classified material and it's permissible to prosecute Assange because he's just a routine private citizen. That, however, doesn't mean that he shouldn't worry about Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Palestinian Authority or other more civilized governments taking steps to chastise him for his publishing of *their* secrets.
MikeBee| 12.21.10 @ 9:26AM
Curly,
Maybe I've got it wrong, but it is my understanding that J.A. is not a United States citizen. As such (if this is true), he has no rights in our courts. Our bill of rights, while spelling out rights which every world citizen SHOULD have, only speaks about the rights which citizens of the U.S. are deemed to have.
solidground| 12.21.10 @ 9:57AM
Assange has no rights in our courts, but the Christmas bomber along with his brethren in Guantanamo Bay do? If you're going to argue a point, you give up the convenience of being selective as to your evidence.
MikeBee| 12.21.10 @ 5:32PM
Solid,
I made no comment on the Christmas bomber or his brethren. However, since you bring it up, anyone who is not a U.S. citizen should not be seen as having the same rights as a U.S. citizen in our country. Those who are here illegally; those who are citizens of some other country in the world, but not of the U.S. -- none of these should be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens. For my part, I am very consistent in my application of this.
Curly Smith| 12.21.10 @ 11:07AM
MikeBee,
If you're arguing that he has no Constitutional protection because (a) he's not a citizen and (b) he didn't publish on US soil then that's true. But it's also immaterial because the First Amendment doesn't free one from consequences. Besides, the First Amendment is about censorship, it says the government can't stop publication except in extremely narrow circumstances. The information has already been published and there can't be prior restraint after the fact.
I think there's a widely held belief that "journalists" can publish anything they want (which is largely true) without any negative consequences (which is definitely not true). There's also the belief that the Constitutional protections accorded "the press" don't hold for bloggers but Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and others were the bloggers of their day. The First Amendment protection of the Press was designed to prevent Government from silencing criticism of, or comments detrimental to, the Government. Granted, neither the courts nor journalists have wanted to extend Constitutional protection to bloggers but that's because both groups are members of the Government that's being criticized.
Assange's problem isn't that he published documents damaging to our national security, it's that he made Governments look foolish, weak, immoral, clownish, infantile, hypocritical, buffoonish and thoroughly incompetent. He's not an enemy of the United States, he's an enemy of the professional bureaucrats around the world - and he will pay
MikeBee| 12.21.10 @ 5:34PM
Curly,
I'm simply saying that he has no rights in the U.S., as he is not a U.S. citizen. Period. I find myself in agreement with what you are saying about journalism.
Richard Armitage| 12.21.10 @ 9:26AM
Actually the leaks make America look good. Our Foreign Service is supplying realistic information to the Administration. The Administration is making poor use of what they get.
Red Phillips | 12.21.10 @ 9:35AM
"it is that Assange's intent is to injure the United States Government and thereby diminish the status and ethic of the American public as a uniquely endowed body of people seeking to be "exceptional" in the world from which they have carved and built an unparalleled nation."
Ah, so Assange is guilty of an attack on American exceptionalism? Thanks for the candor. Mr. Wittman, the true conservative does not wish his country to be exceptional (in the sense you are using it), nor does he believe his country to be "uniquely endowed" for some global mission. The Jacobin believes that.
solidground| 12.21.10 @ 9:52AM
I am always amused at the language which gets progressives up on their high-and-mighty horse. You and Barry could spend many long and gratifying hours together massaging your mutual and massive disdain for almost anything uniquely American.
Red Phillips | 12.21.10 @ 12:44PM
solidground, you are obviously not familiar with my track record here at AmSpec. That's fine. Not that you necessarily should be, so let me clarify my statement for you. I am a paleoconservative, not a progressive, and my criticism comes from the right, not the left. That is why I call people who yearn for America to play some unique role on the world stage because we are exceptional Jacobins. That is an attitude appropriate for a revolutionary, and an overly grandiose one at that, not a conservative. If I was a progressive do you think I would consider it a bad thing to compare someone to leftist French revolutionaries?
Negro X| 12.21.10 @ 11:03PM
Red,
You are a paleomoron, you stand for nothing.
Red Phillips | 12.21.10 @ 11:20PM
Wow! That was a brilliant retort!
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:33PM
Dear Red:
Wasn't there a Reagan quote about "a shining city on a hill?"
The PaleoConservative who shrinks from jihadists does not believe that the USA is special. The PaleoConservative who wishes his daughters abused and tortured by animals does not believe his country stands for anything.
But some of us do.
Red Phillips | 12.21.10 @ 8:16PM
We don't "shrink from jihadists." We want to keep jihadist out of the country by immigration restrictions.
"The PaleoConservative who wishes his daughters abused and tortured by animals does not believe his country stands for anything."
For the hundredth time in these interventionists vs. interventionists debates, please work that out for me. Draw me up a realistic scenario whereby my daughters will be tortured by jihadists. (I presume you are suggesting a takeover of America by jihadists because otherwise I don't know how my daughters would be tortured. So draw that up for me. Which countries invade us? What army, air force and naval capabilities allow them to do so successfully? Thanks. I anxiously await your reply.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 10:01AM
Red,
Once again you brilliantly stand up for stupid.
Thank you for reminding us.
Thank you again for demonstrating total self- absorption.
Occam's Tool| 12.21.10 @ 3:34PM
Ken,
thanks for putting in a few words what it took me many too say. Beautiful job as always.
Peter| 12.21.10 @ 11:00AM
I wonder where people get the idea that Julian Assange is solely responsible for anything that Wikileaks does. Can anyone name the other eight members of the Wikileaks "advisory council"?
Wikileaks is not some middle aged hacker publishing an online conspiracy theory newsletter from his mother's basement. It is a very well funded, international operation. And Julian Assange was not born into money and his business accomplishments are as a hacker and producer of FREE software. So, where did the money come from? Where does it continue to come from? Not from Julian Assange, that's for sure. This guy is nothing more than the face of the operation and the ultimate scapegoat. If you want to know who is behind Wikileaks and what their ultimate goals are, follow the money. Assange is merely a sideshow.
Stephanie| 12.21.10 @ 12:35PM
Michael Moore perhaps?
Diego Sierra| 12.21.10 @ 1:49PM
Michael Moore's greatest challenge is tying his shoelaces.
Mary | 12.21.10 @ 8:36PM
Aww now stop picking on SMORES lol
GavInTucson| 12.21.10 @ 11:26PM
Fitting through a doorway comes in at a close second.
Chuck| 12.21.10 @ 1:54PM
Thanks for nailing Hillary he now needs to target the Federal Reserve.
JP| 12.21.10 @ 2:52PM
Assange cannot legally be prosecuted in the US. The Constitution does not stretch beyond our borders. We cannot legally prosecute foreigners for crimes they committed on foreign land. That much I would think everyone agrees on. That was the whole reason for having Gitmo, military tribunals, etc...
However, international treaties can in certain cases allow foreigners to be extradicted here for prosecution. But, as far as I know that hasn't happened before. The Nuremberg Trials were essientially a show trial, and I think created dangerous precedent. The occupying forces could have simply dispatched the Nazis to Eternity without so much legal/moral preening.
Back to Assange. In a perfect world, the Aussies or the Euro weenies could have dealt with him via international law. Either that, or we dispatch some CIA operator and deal with him the way we dealt with many an enemy operator during the Cold War.
What does concern me the call for Congress to write some retro active law that gives he DOJ powers to arrest a foreigner for comitting some crime that is clearly not covered under our Constitution or statutory laws. That would be a dangerous precedent.
Shamus| 12.21.10 @ 3:13PM
US courts allow foreigners to be prosecuted in US courts for acts perpetrated in other countries. My personal opinion is that US courts should restrict their jurisdiction to US territory. However, this position is contrary to current court rulings.
Ihave16Years| 12.22.10 @ 12:22PM
Actually, if Assange as a foreign national knowingly received stolen information or property, under both INTERPOL and international agreements he can be extradited to the US and charged/prosecuted here for that act. One count for each document, perhaps?
Margie| 12.22.10 @ 1:01AM
Some hundred years ago, John Philip Sousa knew that there would be men such as Red Phillips. And so, he wrote this stirring march with equally stirring lyrics to remind us all, including Red, of the exceptionalism that is the
United States of America.
The Stars and Stripes Forever
by John Philip Sousa
By act of Congress, it is the National March of the United States of America.
Let martial note in triumph float
And liberty extend its mighty hand
A flag appears 'mid thunderous cheers,
The banner of the Western land.
The emblem of the brave and true
Its folds protect no tyrant crew;
The red and white and starry blue
Is freedom's shield and hope.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free!
May it wave as our standard forever,
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with mighty endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.
Let eagle shriek from lofty peak
The never-ending watchword of our land;
Let summer breeze waft through the trees
The echo of the chorus grand.
Sing out for liberty and light,
Sing out for freedom and the right.
Sing out for Union and its might,
O patriotic sons.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation,
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free.
May it wave as our standard forever
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with mighty endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray,
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.
~Just as true today as it was when he wrote them at the turn of the 20th Century.
Red Phillips | 12.22.10 @ 3:54PM
Margie, I don't care if Americans think America is exceptional. Its natural. Fans think their home team is exceptional. Children think their parents are exceptional. Nor do I care if Polish people think Poland exceptional or Italians think Italy exceptional, etc. Why shouldn't they. It's natural. The problem is in thinking America is exceptional meaning that it is our responsibility/duty/obligation to police the world. (Pax Americana as Ken calls it.) That is not a conservative sentiment. Period. Humility is the conservative (and Christian) sentiment. If you disagree then make your case instead of just sniping.