Wednesday, December 8, 2010

It's the First Amendment, Stupid!

Shooting the messenger won't work. WikiLeaks leader, Julian Assange and his cohorts are definitely arrogant, anti-American goons. Their reaction (conducting cyber-attacks on capitalist/business websites) to the negative actions by the United States and others is proof.

But... if WikiLeaks were an American publisher, they would have first amendment rights. According to the Constitution, it isn't illegal to publish -- anything. What is illegal is treason. Treason is the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It carries the death penalty. The leakers could be found guilty of treason, and executed. The founders wanted to make it clear that you could take illegal action against your government if you believe it is in the wrong, but you would be risking your life (just as they did, and knew only too well). If you aren't willing to die for your convictions, it isn't a conviction, it is merely a preference.

The current regime has become very bad at keeping secrets, because they're basically incompetent at everything. If they started treating traitors like traitors, and invaders like invaders, I think things would change for the better, very rapidly. WikiLeaks is shining a very valuable light on this regime.


  1. First of all, where's the proof of cyber-attacks by I find this hard to believe.

    Secondly, I thought treason was betraying the United States which is defined by the U.S. Constitution and is clearly for the purpose of preserving every citizen's right to life, liberty and property -- not for the purpose of lining the pockets of government officials and corporate insiders. If the purpose of the leaked documents is to expose these violations aren't the conspirators exposed by the leaked documents the real traitors?

    Thirdly, If any government can simply make its transgressions against the constitution and its citizens confidential and execute anyone who dares to expose their activities then how are the people ever to be aware of them?

  2. Anonymous,

    First of all, they claim they're doing it. Whether they are or not makes them goons.

    Secondly, treason is betraying the United States as defined in the US Constitution exactly as you say, as well as for any other reason. As far as I can tell, treason for selfish reasons is even worse.

    Thirdly, how indeed? As I said in an earlier post, if our government is doing things that it needs to be ashamed of, shame on them! On the other hand, I believe some government operations do require top secret classification.

    I stand by my original claim: People should be willing to die for their convictions, or they're just preferences. If someone leaks top secret documents, whether the secrets are truly evil or not, that person had better be prepared to pay the consequences. Otherwise, individuals will betray their government for all sorts of trivial reasons, causing death and destruction to others in their wake.

  3. I'm sorry. I haven't seen where has said they're mounting cyber attacks. On their website the only reference to cyber-attacks I see is this...
    Can you point me to the source of this information please?

  4. Thanks Karl,

    Ok, so this article says that people who have no known connection to wikileaks are upset and mounting cyber-attacks. This is what they are upset about:

    Notice the WSJ article says nothing about the cyber-attacks against wikileaks. This is interesting. The fact that a major US Paper (the WSJ) is making as much noise as possible about the allegations against Assange in the same article is also interesting.

    Who owns the WSJ?

  5. Anonymous, I wouldn't say one article in WSJ constitutes "making as much noise as possible".

    Assange and his sympathizers are trying to create as much chaos as possible. I believe that is one of their goals -- to create so much anger and confusion that the masses demand that government step in and do something, anything. It's the way to never let a good crisis go to waste, and ratchet up government size and scope.

    Be that as it may, while I believe Assange is a reprehensible sleaze bag, he hasn't done all that much damage, and publishing the stolen articles is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Assange isn't lucky enough to be an American citizen with Constitutional protection, so who knows what will happen to him. The leakers are the ones who would be at the most risk if we still followed the Constitution with any kind of fidelity here in the US.

    As I said in my original article, I believe WikiLeaks is actually doing a service by publishing these articles (if they're actually true). I suspect any new leaks will be riddled with disinformation. Bureaucrats... they adapt.


This is a moderated forum. Please try to avoid ad-hominem attacks and gratuitous profanity. Justifiable profanity may be tolerated.

I am sorry, but due to the un-manageable volume of spam comments, I have enabled the scrambled word verification. I apologize for the inconvenience.