4 ms·

Congressman wants WikiLeaks listed as terrorist group

17 points by Uncle_Sam 16y ago

scrrr 16y ago
They of course react totally wrong to WikiLeaks. Should they close the site down, arrest Assange or something similar, the same will happen, as with any BitTorrent-site take down: Two new ones will appear tomorrow.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I don't think Assange will be arrested or wikileaks shut down because they're afraid of how much damaging material could be in a 1.4G encrypted torrent.
iwr 16y ago
Having your organization on that list means that any members of it, or associates become non-persons (people without rights). It is striking that this is happening in a Western country today.
- alttab 16y ago
  We are "western" only by our location these days. Once cable TV gets shut down we may actually see a revolution.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Which is why they will do almost anything to keep it on.
extension 16y ago
I guess the New York Times is a terrorist group too since they did pretty much the same thing as WikiLeaks: someone handed them the cables and they happily published them.
- rorymarinich 16y ago
  Well, we've known certain parts of the right have wanted to classify the NTY as terrorists for years now.
jemfinch 16y ago
Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear. Wikileaks releases secret documents produced by the government of United States (et al). If Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, then secret documents produced by the government of the United States must cause fear. Is that really what King intends to say?
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? Absolutely; they represent a threat to his power, and so he'll use whatever tools he has at his disposal to disadvantage them in that fight. If they're a terrorist organization, it becomes illegal to give them monetary support, which they obviously need. It's much simpler than the definition of the word 'terrorist'.
- mquander 16y ago
  I disagree. "Terrorism" implies that a group is full of bad evil meanies who want to hurt America. I believe that is exactly what the honorable Rep. King wants to say about Wikileaks.
- Rhapso 16y ago
  The legal, societal, and political definition of Terrorism was changed around the same time as the patriot act was enacted. It now is used as a politically charged buzzword to assign to any group who practices guerilla warfare and the united states government does not like. Historically we tend to call them "Freedom Fighters" when we agree with them. Publicizing the secret actions of the government meets the above definition to said governments requirement.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Actually, no. What he says is, that one could qualify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization, if one were to take the definition of 'terrorist' from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Note that under this act various activities fall under 'terrorism', none of which requires 'causing fear'. For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. So his point is that to put anyone on the terrorist watch list, that person needs to be qualified as a terrorist, obviously. But the term 'terrorist' doesn't have a fixed, unambiguous meaning; it can mean many things to many people in different context (ergo that phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'). So if one were to use the definition from the INA, which he is arguing is just a good a definition as any others, Wikileaks (or its members/representatives) would qualify and as such be put on the watch list, which would then cause a whole bunch of other things. Note also that this definition of terrorism far outdates the post-9/11 terrorism scare, so it can't be blamed out overzealous Homeland Security stuff or anything. So nice try, but no cigar.
yequalsx 16y ago
The interesting thing to me is that nothing will change. We have gotten a glimpse into how messed up some things are but there's no public outcry for change. People just aren't upset about the stupid things governments do. Nobody really cares. It's a bit disheartening.
- nhangen 16y ago
  Because very few are capable of creating it. It's easy to find fault, but much more difficult to create a solution. That's why nothing is changing. No one wants the responsibility of doing it.
  - troutwine 16y ago
    I do, actually. The road to such enfranchisement is long and hard, however. I still require: * Independent funding, * a bit of age to serve in the House and * a broader social network. None of these are easy to collect.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    I'm not finding fault in anyone. My point was that talk of labeling Wikileaks as a terrorist organization or something evil are baseless when one considers that leaking these documents doesn't change anything. It's almost comical that the U.S. government raised a stink about this when the fact is that people don't care enough to demand change.
donohoe 16y ago
Odd. The TSA has had more of a detrimental affect on my (physically and emotionally) than Wikileaks ever could.
vaksel 16y ago
it saddens me that a congressman can say something like that and not be driven out of town for abusing the 1st amendment. How can you make laws, when you don't know that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. it's like religion, in Europe those who bring up religion in politics get laughed at....in U.S. it's next to impossible to get elected without it.
- AndrewMoffat 16y ago
  National Security vs. The First Amendment: The Ultimate Showdown
- roel_v 16y ago
  Non-exhaustive list of court-recognized exceptions to the First Amendment: (1) Defamation (2) Causing panic (3) Fighting words (4) Incitement to crime (5) Sedition (6) Obscenity I don't know what leads to you posit that the congressman doesn't know about the First Amendment. It's very well possible to limit certain expressions of speech, by 'the press', well within the boundaries of the First Amendment.
walkon 16y ago
Should the government ever be allowed to have secrets? To what level should government correspondence be public? Some situations (e.g. the Manhattan Project) necessitate secrecy. What exactly is wrong with that, at least in some situations, and why are we so willing to assume WikiLeaks/Assange knows what should (or shouldn't) be leaked? Just trying to understand as it appears the overall thought process here is, "leak everything - the end."
- redrobot5050 16y ago
  When Dick Cheney/Karl Rove/Scooter Libby "outed" Valerie Plame, they gave away a dummy corporation used by the CIA for agents like Valerie who (mostly) did not operate under a cover identity but gathered intelligence. It is estimated that by blowing her cover, over 70 other intelligence-friendly agents or sources were captured, imprisoned, or killed.
papertiger 16y ago
This is a truly horrifying prospect.
holdenc 16y ago
On 9/11/2001 it meant something to be a terrorist. However, these days it means nothing. Everything the government doesn't like is a potential terror threat, and every person acting against it could be a terrorist. There's a big difference between terrorist, activist and military combatant.
funkdobiest 16y ago
I would think that the US armed forces would get proactive and start securing their transmissions from end to end. Back when we had the cold war and Russia got a hold of some top secret document, you didn't hear whiney congress dolts saying they were a terrorist organization.. oh wait
ajays 16y ago
Why do New Yorkers keep electing this chump? Someone with such a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of our Constitution should not be elected.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  Electorates around the world are apathetic and too fixated on their own lives to vote or know their candidates, that's why.
tomjen3 16y ago
By that definition, they should add every lobby group and the senate to the same list. That might be a good thing, actually.
MichaelSalib 16y ago
This is especially hilarious because Rep Peter King has a long history of supporting terrorists and associating with terrorist groups, as recognized by several different governments: In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the UK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Northern_Ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Northern_Ireland for more information. One of the coolest things about being an Arab American living in the Boston metro area is the near certainty that anytime I'm in a busy public place, there are terrorists supporters and sympathizers with me, and they're all white Irish people.

17 points by Uncle_Sam 16y ago

scrrr 16y ago

They of course react totally wrong to WikiLeaks. Should they close the site down, arrest Assange or something similar, the same will happen, as with any BitTorrent-site take down: Two new ones will appear tomorrow.

jacquesm 16y ago
I don't think Assange will be arrested or wikileaks shut down because they're afraid of how much damaging material could be in a 1.4G encrypted torrent.

iwr 16y ago

Having your organization on that list means that any members of it, or associates become non-persons (people without rights). It is striking that this is happening in a Western country today.

alttab 16y ago
We are "western" only by our location these days. Once cable TV gets shut down we may actually see a revolution.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Which is why they will do almost anything to keep it on.

extension 16y ago

I guess the New York Times is a terrorist group too since they did pretty much the same thing as WikiLeaks: someone handed them the cables and they happily published them.

rorymarinich 16y ago
Well, we've known certain parts of the right have wanted to classify the NTY as terrorists for years now.

jemfinch 16y ago

Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear. Wikileaks releases secret documents produced by the government of United States (et al). If Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, then secret documents produced by the government of the United States must cause fear. Is that really what King intends to say?

steveklabnik 16y ago
> Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? Absolutely; they represent a threat to his power, and so he'll use whatever tools he has at his disposal to disadvantage them in that fight. If they're a terrorist organization, it becomes illegal to give them monetary support, which they obviously need. It's much simpler than the definition of the word 'terrorist'.
mquander 16y ago
I disagree. "Terrorism" implies that a group is full of bad evil meanies who want to hurt America. I believe that is exactly what the honorable Rep. King wants to say about Wikileaks.
Rhapso 16y ago
The legal, societal, and political definition of Terrorism was changed around the same time as the patriot act was enacted. It now is used as a politically charged buzzword to assign to any group who practices guerilla warfare and the united states government does not like. Historically we tend to call them "Freedom Fighters" when we agree with them. Publicizing the secret actions of the government meets the above definition to said governments requirement.
roel_v 16y ago
Actually, no. What he says is, that one could qualify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization, if one were to take the definition of 'terrorist' from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Note that under this act various activities fall under 'terrorism', none of which requires 'causing fear'. For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. So his point is that to put anyone on the terrorist watch list, that person needs to be qualified as a terrorist, obviously. But the term 'terrorist' doesn't have a fixed, unambiguous meaning; it can mean many things to many people in different context (ergo that phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'). So if one were to use the definition from the INA, which he is arguing is just a good a definition as any others, Wikileaks (or its members/representatives) would qualify and as such be put on the watch list, which would then cause a whole bunch of other things. Note also that this definition of terrorism far outdates the post-9/11 terrorism scare, so it can't be blamed out overzealous Homeland Security stuff or anything. So nice try, but no cigar.

yequalsx 16y ago

The interesting thing to me is that nothing will change. We have gotten a glimpse into how messed up some things are but there's no public outcry for change. People just aren't upset about the stupid things governments do. Nobody really cares. It's a bit disheartening.

nhangen 16y ago
Because very few are capable of creating it. It's easy to find fault, but much more difficult to create a solution. That's why nothing is changing. No one wants the responsibility of doing it.
- troutwine 16y ago
  I do, actually. The road to such enfranchisement is long and hard, however. I still require: * Independent funding, * a bit of age to serve in the House and * a broader social network. None of these are easy to collect.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  I'm not finding fault in anyone. My point was that talk of labeling Wikileaks as a terrorist organization or something evil are baseless when one considers that leaking these documents doesn't change anything. It's almost comical that the U.S. government raised a stink about this when the fact is that people don't care enough to demand change.

donohoe 16y ago

Odd. The TSA has had more of a detrimental affect on my (physically and emotionally) than Wikileaks ever could.

vaksel 16y ago

it saddens me that a congressman can say something like that and not be driven out of town for abusing the 1st amendment. How can you make laws, when you don't know that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. it's like religion, in Europe those who bring up religion in politics get laughed at....in U.S. it's next to impossible to get elected without it.

AndrewMoffat 16y ago
National Security vs. The First Amendment: The Ultimate Showdown
roel_v 16y ago
Non-exhaustive list of court-recognized exceptions to the First Amendment: (1) Defamation (2) Causing panic (3) Fighting words (4) Incitement to crime (5) Sedition (6) Obscenity I don't know what leads to you posit that the congressman doesn't know about the First Amendment. It's very well possible to limit certain expressions of speech, by 'the press', well within the boundaries of the First Amendment.

walkon 16y ago

Should the government ever be allowed to have secrets? To what level should government correspondence be public? Some situations (e.g. the Manhattan Project) necessitate secrecy. What exactly is wrong with that, at least in some situations, and why are we so willing to assume WikiLeaks/Assange knows what should (or shouldn't) be leaked? Just trying to understand as it appears the overall thought process here is, "leak everything - the end."

redrobot5050 16y ago
When Dick Cheney/Karl Rove/Scooter Libby "outed" Valerie Plame, they gave away a dummy corporation used by the CIA for agents like Valerie who (mostly) did not operate under a cover identity but gathered intelligence. It is estimated that by blowing her cover, over 70 other intelligence-friendly agents or sources were captured, imprisoned, or killed.

papertiger 16y ago

This is a truly horrifying prospect.

holdenc 16y ago

On 9/11/2001 it meant something to be a terrorist. However, these days it means nothing. Everything the government doesn't like is a potential terror threat, and every person acting against it could be a terrorist. There's a big difference between terrorist, activist and military combatant.

funkdobiest 16y ago

I would think that the US armed forces would get proactive and start securing their transmissions from end to end. Back when we had the cold war and Russia got a hold of some top secret document, you didn't hear whiney congress dolts saying they were a terrorist organization.. oh wait

ajays 16y ago

Why do New Yorkers keep electing this chump? Someone with such a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of our Constitution should not be elected.

slantyyz 16y ago
Electorates around the world are apathetic and too fixated on their own lives to vote or know their candidates, that's why.

tomjen3 16y ago

By that definition, they should add every lobby group and the senate to the same list. That might be a good thing, actually.

MichaelSalib 16y ago

This is especially hilarious because Rep Peter King has a long history of supporting terrorists and associating with terrorist groups, as recognized by several different governments: In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the UK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Northern_Ireland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Northern_Ireland for more information. One of the coolest things about being an Arab American living in the Boston metro area is the near certainty that anytime I'm in a busy public place, there are terrorists supporters and sympathizers with me, and they're all white Irish people.