Incoming GOP Rep. Allen West: News Outlets Publishing WikiLeaks Should Be Censored

CBS News ^ | December 14th, 2010 | Lucy Madison

[ozguy]

During an online radio interview last week, newly-elected Florida Republican Allen West called for the censorship of media outlets publishing information obtained by WikiLeaks.

In the interview, which aired on Dec. 7 on blogtalkradio's "African American Conservatives" program, West rails against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He also says he holds the American media partially responsible for the publication of classified information.

The comments were first flagged by ThinkProgress' Lee Fang. You can listen to the full interview here, and the relevant portion here.

"Regardless of whether or not you think this really does cause any harm, the fact [is] that, here is an individual that is not an American citizen, first and foremost, [who has] for whatever reason gotten his hands on classified American material and has put it out there in the public domain," West said, speaking of Assange.

He continued: "And I think that we also should be censoring the American news agencies which enabled him to be able to do this and then also supporting him and applauding him for the efforts. So that's kind of aiding and abetting of a serious crime."

"This is espionage," added the incoming Florida representative. "And I think we need to take it very seriously."

[rarestia]

I’m on the fence here. I love West, and I’m ecstatic that he’s going to be in DC soon. However, censoring media outlets for publishing the Wikileaks docs is tantamount to Communist Chinese censorship and detention of the Nobel Peace Prize winner or the prohibition of Internet access to the Wikileaks documents. People would get them online or hear about them from others. Censoring the media would’ve done nothing more than elicit cries of foul against the 1A.

I think this response from West is more knee-jerk; however, I respect the man for his views. This is a difficult subject to wrangle, and I think there are more fencesitters than are letting on.

[screaminsunshine]

It will not help if it is blathering all over the world net. It is out the cat is out of the bag. This mess is insane and unfixable. Get prepared.

[Irenic]

I think that we also should be censoring the American news agencies which enabled him to be able to do this
***************************************************

Uh, no.

[cripplecreek]

I’d rather plug the leaks and leave anarchist Assange with nothing to publish but conspiracy theories.

[Tzimisce]

Bet you guys who are risking your lives to defend our nation feel like real chumps now.

Just think: now your medical information is in our government’s incompetant, shakey hands. Better watch out for who you cross.

It’s funny to listen to the people who demand government regulation of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News now lecturing us about 1st Amendment protections.

When are the “unbiased” wikileaks and New York Times going to bring us stories about ClimateGate?

[Carley]

The house and senate passed legislation making the publishing of classified information a crime.

The legislation was vetoed by President Klinton upon pressure form NYSlimes and Washington comPost. CNN was also opposed.

[theoldmarine]

If Assange aided in any way the acquisition of this material we should kidnap him and try him in front of a military tribunal. If this material was placed in hiss hands by a third party, as much as we despise him, let’s leave the first amendment intact.

[Old Badger]

I think he made a poor choice of words here because he later refers to it as a crime and may have meant to file a criminal complaint against those news outlets that publish secrets. That’s my take anyhow and if that is what he meant ...... I’m all for it with the N.Y. Times to be the first prosecution.

[muddler]

Strike one!

[Tupelo]

“African American Conservatives”

Isn't this an oxymoron?

[LastNorwegian]

Of course it is. Having a press card should exempt you from any laws regarding treason.

Hmmmm. If “journalists” publish classified info stolen from the military there should be no repercussions even if people die as a result. But if those same people were to publish an mp3 of Britney Spears’ latest tunes we throw the book at them. Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

Going after them after the fact may not stop this leak any more than punishing any other crime will undo that crime. But it will cause people to think twice before committing treason in the future. Going after Assange and his ilk is vital to prevent similar or worse leaks in the future.

[meyer]

The house and senate passed legislation making the publishing of classified information a crime.

I'm not sure that such a law would be constitutional. I'm not sure that we would WANT it to be constitutional. What if there were evidence that could lead to the conviction of a high-level politician. All that politician would need to do would be to classify that information and he'd be able to skate. The present administration comes to mind...

[pepperdog]

I do not understand why Wikileaks isn’t prosecuted for receiving stolen property. And anyone else who gets the classified info should also be prosecuted for the same crime. Why is this being treated differently? Seems to me every blogger who publishes this stuff is a guilty party. After all it’s no different than stealing books, records, private information etc., other than the fact it can do so much harm to individuals and countries.

[Irenic]

I want to know when they’re going to do something to that little gay chit who leaked this stuff to Wiki.

I also want to know more about his superiors—the ones who let him bebop around the office with headphones and a CD player, pretending to sing lady gaga.

CD player, access to classified documents...besides that, it’s not professional.

[don-o]

read later

[mgstarr]

As defined in the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), passed by Congress in 1980, classified information is any information or material that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to an executive order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security and any restricted data, as defined in paragraph R of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014[y])

Just a tad broad to me. And I agree with you.

[mgstarr]

New York Times v. United States

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873/

[meyer]

I realize that it's fashionable to want to prosecute and behead those responsible for Wikileaks, but let's suppose that the information leaked is NOT a security risk at all but instead only serves to inform people of things that certain politicians don't want people to know. We've heard, for example, that there's information there about how the US is trying to strongarm and blackmail other countries into going along with the government's "plan" WRT global warming. We've also heard that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction found by US forces in Iraq.

We should watch carefully who's the most upset about Wikileaks - those that speak out the strongest against these leaks are quite possibly the ones that stand to lose the most. If it's a bunch of democrats and their media lapdogs, then you can be sure that the leaks don't hurt the country but do hurt the rats. For if the leaked information were harmful to the US, the democrats would be strongly in favor of distributing the information.

Side issue - looks like Pelosi has introduced Hitlery Clinton to her Botox doctor. Hitlery's looking, well, different. Younger and older at the same time.

[rarestia]

I’d rather plug the leaks and leave anarchist Assange with nothing to publish but conspiracy theories.

/agree