It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Julian Assange and Wikileaks Named "Enemies of the State"

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:32 PM
Russia Today is reporting that Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been officially designated by the US government as "Enemies of the State". Has there been any other confirmation of this? I haven't seen a similar report in the Canadian or American media, although I haven't looked intensively.

We all know that the US would love to charge Assange in relation to the publication of leaked diplomatic emails and documents, but to declare him an "enemy of the state" seems a little theatrical. I'm not sure what the legal ramifications of this are.

I know there is an Enemy Alien Act that governs detention and treatment of people designated as being associated with the military forces of states at war with the United States, but I don't know much about this "enemy of the state" designation and the legal entailments it brings into play.

Anybody familiar with this stuff?

Edit: Here is a quotation from a legal dictionary that might be significant in the Assange case.

An early standard by which the constitutionality of laws regulating subversive expression were evaluated in light of the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech.

Justice oliver wendell holmes jr., writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919), stated: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Presumably Assange would be charged with publication of documents that might be considered a clear and present danger to interests of the United States.

My understanding of the Enemy Alien Act is meager but it seems to be intended to give a legal instrument with which to deal with people inside the United States who are not American citizens and not members of the armed forces of another nation but who are acting in concert with the forces of a nation at war with the United States.

In the Assange case, they are attempting to extract someone they consider dangerous from another country, not at war with the United States, and bring him to the United States where there is an existing legal framework for prosecution.

Isn't that a little like dragging a person across the "Go" square and sending him to jail for an illegal crossing?

Does this, "enemy of the state" designation, if indeed it has been declared, compare to the fatwa issued by Ayatolla Khomeini against Salman Rushdie? Is it a license to kill Assange wherever he may be found? Clarification please Hillary.
edit on 30-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 04:32 PM
I'm still trying to find out if, in fact, the US Government has made an official statement on this "enemy of the state" designation with regard to Assange, but it appears that the notion might be emanating from the Assange camp, specifically legal representatives of Wikileaks who may be attempting to prod the US government into competely revealing their attitude to Assange and those who may communicate with Wikileaks as whistleblowers or informants.

According to declassified Air Force counterintelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), he (Assange) and military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or its supporters may be declared "enemies of the state."

The charge carries a possible death sentence if convicted. Article 104 of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states:

"Any person who….aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy" in any way, "with proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."

On September 27, Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights president emeritus and Assange's legal adviser, was interviewed on Democracy Now.

He said FOIA obtained information revealed that a UK-based US analyst, "a soldier who had top security clearance, (became) sympathetic with Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks."

An investigation followed under UCMJ Article 104. She met with friends of Assange. From "the face of the documents, it appears that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are looked at as the enemy."

edit on 30-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 04:41 PM
Apparently what is going on is that because there is contemplation of charging a US service person in the UK with "communicating with the enemy" and the "enemy" in question was Wikileaks, the inference is being made that Wikileaks has been declared an "enemy of the state" although no official declaration to that effect has been made by US government spokespersons.

The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" - not releasable to non-US nationals - record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.

The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

Watching the US justice system nowadays is like Kremlin watching or reading the tea leaves on the Chinese leadership. The inference and logical deduction come to the fore as the most useful tools for attempting to understand what is going on.
edit on 30-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 04:59 PM
There is a good article in The Manchester Guardian about the serious ramifications of the documents, released as a result of a FOIA request, that sparked the speculation concerning the American government's attitude to Julian Assange.

It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" even if no information is passed directly to the "enemy" and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it "indirectly" informs the enemy.

One reason that the government has not made its true attitude to Assange public is that the extradition treaty with Sweden, that could, ultimately, decide Assange's fate, might well forbid extraditon to a country where there is danger of imposition of the death penalty for the offense at issue.

(I have read, online, that this is indeed the case, for Sweden, the UK and other EEC countries.)

(I also read that Sweden's government is considered right wing and the Karl Rove is an advisor to the Swedish PM. I'm not sure if that is still up to date information. Apparently Sweden has been regarded as very cooperative in the US as the "war on terror" has blossomed.)

Assange's legal advisers might be quite concerned to make this aspect of the case an open discussion and make the Swedish government, and particularly the Swedish public and those of Ecuador aware of this most sinister side of the Assange case.
edit on 30-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by ipsedixit

sounds like a mexican stand-off
basically this enemy of the state declaration [probably made on the QT]
is the USGOV/MIC threatening to murder assange and wikileaks
for fear of some revelation being made.

on the other hand that revelation may very well be the deathblow that puts an end to the USGOV/MIC

stay tuned...

that said, anyone with a half-eaten cantaloupe for a brain that does not have head firmly stuck up their a**
realizes these days that what is meant by "national security" has nothing at all to do with the security of the nation or it's people but that of it's oligarchy.
the proper response to any claims by public officials concerning national security

is to interrupt them right there and then and say:

"what you mean is YOUR security!"
edit on 30-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:20 PM
This case raises a lot of issues. Jurisdiction. The State. Enemies. Freedom of Speech.

It used to be that administration of justice had to be like "Caesar's Wife" not only honest but seen to be honest. Is either requirement taken seriously any more?

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:42 PM
This sounds more like a marketing campaign for Wikileaks.

By naming the Assange as an enemy, the U.S. would essentially be saying communicating with Assange would be punishable under U.S. law.

If the U.S. were going to make such a designation, they would have to publish it somewhere publicly to be upheld in a court of law

The only source to have made this claim is Assange himself, Chief Marketing Officer of Wikileaks.

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by Zarniwoop

They are inferring it from the section under which charges are being considered for a US service person in the UK who communicated with Wikileaks, the "enemy" under the section.

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

Read more:

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:46 PM
Here is what a prominent former Australian diplomat had to say about Assange and Sweden:

Tony Kevin retired from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1998, after a 30-year public service career in DFAT and Prime Minister's Department. He was Australia's ambassador to Poland (1991–94) and Cambodia (1994–97).

If I were Assange, I would not feel safe going to Sweden now (December, 2011). Though Assange has not been charged in Sweden, the Swedish public prosecutor has declined many offers over the past year that she question him in the UK. This raises questions of good faith.

Also, it is not clear how Sweden might respond to any US request for his temporary surrender to the US, if American charges were laid against him on arrival in Sweden. The present conservative Swedish Government has a history of acceding to all US rendition requests during the War on Terror.

Also, Karl Rove is an adviser to the Swedish Prime Minister. Rove had a notorious public history as a ruthless senior White House official. For example he was allegedly implicated in the Bush White House's career destruction of 'outed' CIA agent Valerie Plame and her diplomat husband Joe Wilson.

edit on 30-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

A very interesting point made by Mr. Kevin, an important procedural consideration, in fact, is that

If he is soon extradited from UK to Sweden, as now seems likely, he faces the danger of early 'temporary surrender' from there to the US, under a Swedish-US arrangement for transferring people charged with crimes in both countries. This enables the two governments to avoid procedural requirements and opportunities for appeal that exist under normal extradition arrangements.

This might turn out to be the short cut to Assange's execution, extradition treaties and their compassion clauses notwithstanding.
edit on 30-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:00 AM
Ofcourse , in the eye of any government , people like Assange is a threat but for people , he is a Hero

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by crowzeroq

It underlines the distinction between the people and the State. That's about the only positive aspect of the situation.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:45 PM
Here is a video presentation from "The Young Turks" covering the same ground as above, putting a little more emotional ooomph into it.

People really should be asking themselves, "What am I going to do when they come for me?"

top topics


log in