Posted on 12/03/2010 1:30:26 PM PST by lormand
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is taking a stand as one of Julian Assange’s few defenders in Washington, arguing that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protections as the media.
Attorney General Eric Holder said this week that the Justice Department is examining whether Assange can be charged with a crime for posting hundreds of thousands of leaked government intelligence documents and diplomatic cables.
Many Republicans have gone even further in their attacks on Assange, especially former Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said this week that the source who leaked to the WikiLeaks founder should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty.
But in a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said the idea of prosecuting Assange crosses the line.
“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”
“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”
Paul followed up with a post to his Twitter account Friday morning: "Re: WikiLeaks — In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."
Paultards are Closet LIBERALS...they sound like one, they act like one, they debate like one, and they WHINE like one.
Whenever a paultard demands evidence, there is nothing left but .... apology... forgetit!
Oh yah, you and the "chemtrails conspiracy" people would get along fine...
>Whenever a paultard demands evidence, there is nothing left but .... apology... forgetit!
Ah, so I am a “paultard” by virtue of being accused and any request for evidence is null and void?
I’m REALLY glad you didn’t write the 6th Amendment.
Ron Paul might be naive and sometimes kooky, but an attention whore, he’s Not. I know we love our name calling on FR but at least have them make sense.
I don’t know guys. If the Federal government can deny internet reporters the same free speech protections it gives to the NYT who printed classified war information, the internet will become a dangerous place mighty quick.
I can not stand this freak and I was mighty upset at the NYT for publishing military classified information. But I don’t want a double standard for internet reporters versus members of the DNC press.
ROFL. That's why the Libertarian crank runs for the GOP nomination every 4 years, because he has such a good chance of winning, (huge /s) not because he's not an attention-whore, and that's just one sterling example. LOLOLOLOLOL.
You very well may be right. BUT, I was listening to NPR last week when they interviewed Floyd Abrams. As you may be aware, Abrams is perhaps the preeminent authority on 1A issues - an unfailing champion of the First Amendment. He opines that Assange may be screwing himself here, and very well may have exposed himself to prosecution under The Espionage Act of 1917.
I'll try to find the audio. NPR keeps pretty good archives. If I can find it, I'll post it.
“kook”
I see you’re programmed correctly.
Thanks for that, Floyd does make a case for Assange’s persecution. Interesting how the intent comes from Assange’s general vocal anti-American position rather than the actual actions. But it does make sense.
Well, that's not to be unexpected. Intent is part of the Espionage Act. IOW, the prosecution would shoulder the burden of demonstrating malicious intent by the accused to prove the government's case. That's why Assange is digging a hole.
As any competent defense attorney will tell EVERY client who's under criminal investigation, STFU, and stay that way.
Its a legal grey area, to be sure. But why is he still breathing? We used to know how to handle business.
>As any competent defense attorney will tell EVERY client who’s under criminal investigation, STFU, and stay that way.
Agreed; but then again the government doesn’t actually play by the rules. {Or to put it more accurately the rules tend to be not only defined by the government but redefined by the government [at will]; we are seeing more and more of this, especially in regards to things like the DHS ‘domestic extremest’ list.}
Strictly speaking, ‘Treason’ could be applied to him; as defined in the Constitution no mention of nationality is made:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The argument that this cannot apply to the Wikileaks founder would have to be that he is not under the Law of the Constitution; this should be fairly easy as he is a foreign citizen living in a foreign country — further it would be bad form*, and possibly an act of war, to target [a foreign country’s citizen] and declare that he does fall under the Constitution and demand he be produced for prosecution under our Constitution.
*If such a argument were made, then it is possible that we could try all of Russia’s generals from the Cold war for treason; this makes little sense as they were adhering to their homeland and country of citizenship: Russia. Also such a stance could be mirrored by some foreign power and such charges leveled against American citizens.
The other alternatives are:
— Charging him with some internationally recognized law, or
— an extra-legal black-ops mission.
The latter option could be considered an act of war against his country-of-citizenship and/or the country-of-residence and so should be VERY CAREFULLY considered [and reconsidered] before committing to it. In addition to that, the moral question/impact should be considered; if America is to engage in off-record black-ops assassination [or kidnapping], especially those targeting a single private citizen, then does America-as-a-nation have any moral authority to condemn those countries who act likewise [though perhaps in a more open manner]?
I believe it is good for truth to be exposed. I can’t see how hiding and deceiving will result in any good. If the means and ends are good there should be no need to hide and deceive (even when dealing with enemies or the ignorant).
Bravo Ron Paul, it takes great courage to take such a principled stand in this political climate.
“Let the people know the facts and the country will be safe.” Abraham Lincoln
...arguing that the WikiLeaks founder should get the same protections as the media.Thanks lormand.
Rep Paul doesn't change his position every 4 years. It's the same one time and again. Standing on principle isn't something a good man does only if winning is certain.
An attention whore is somebody like Romney who is now for government run healthcare, and then not. Or McCain who would at one time build the damn fence, and then doesn't. These guys will bend almost any principle to get elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.