Fox News Pundits Call for Julian Assange's Assassination

[Gokul43201]

Assange should pray for rendition.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_16271913?source=rss&nclick_check=1
"Evidence gleaned in rendition interrogation barred in terror trial
"
"Speaking in Washington, Holder seemed to play down the ruling's significance.

"We are talking about one ruling, in one case by one judge," Holder said.

Ghailani was scheduled to begin trial on charges he conspired in the embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks, orchestrated by al-Qaida, killed 224 people."[/I]

I imagined the Ghailani case would have been a wake up call that torture and rendition can come back and bite you in the @$$. I didn't quite expect that people would take the opposite message from that outcome (edit: that's not entirely accurate; I did think that some people would).

Do you also think the prosecution of Richard Reid in Federal Court was an act of softness?

 

[turbo]

Signs that all might not be well in the Assange=sex offender program.

CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, flat & fatally in love with a man, can you even be all the time?

http://www.businessinsider.com/anna-ardin-stops-cooperating-in-assange-prosecution-2010-12

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe the part you quoted is meant to be ironic.

 

[WhoWee]

The sex charges do nothing but trivialize and distract - total nonsense.

 

[Gokul43201]

The sex charges do nothing but trivialize and distract - total nonsense.

Actually, they may do a lot more. If it turns out that the charges don't hold up, then Assange begins to look more and more like a hero, a champion of the people, who is being silenced by corrupt governments using cooked up charges.

 

[turbo]

I believe the part you quoted is meant to be ironic.

Perhaps, but she has relocated and is no longer cooperating with Swedish authorities. That much appears to be true, unlike so much of the press about Assange.

 

[Monique]

What a bold comments here, I suggest people look up the International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. You can't just go and kill anyone who is in your way, even if you think you are in a war. These are called war crimes.

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

"How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity"

The US has claimed the moral high ground in its recent wars. But how is this position tenable if those wars were in fact illegal?

Through a thorough exploration of the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, and the attempts of the US to legitimise them, Michael Mandel casts a critical eye on the claims the US makes for its wars – "humanitarian intervention" and "self-defence" – and unpacks the complex moral and legal issues underpinning recent US military action. Michael Mandel shows how international law is a malleable entity which the US can bend in its favour, but even then there are many times when it goes against the law and fights wars illegally.

Mandel also explores the recent war crimes trials of those who lose their battle with the US, and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic in particular. Mandel argues that the trials are not actually about ending war crimes, or impunity for war crimes, but about selectively punishing "the usual suspects" as part of the imperial strategy of the great powers – primarily the United States. Mandel also highlights how hypocritical such trials are – Milosevic is tried with great ceremony for his crimes, while America is not. In fact, Mandel shows how these tribunals shield America and its allies from responsibility for what is termed "collateral damage", but what is in reality murder on a vast scale.

 

[WhoWee]

What a bold comments here, I suggest people look up the International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. You can't just go and kill anyone who is in your way, even if you think you are in a war. These are called war crimes.

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

Just out of curiosity - are there any chapters devoted to Russia or China? Perhaps something on a border conflict involving Iraq, Korea, or somewhere in Africa - or is the US the only country discussed? Perhaps the issue of the torture known as "waterboarding" is discussed as being on par with medieval tactics?

Before taking the moral high ground -please consider the blackmail tactics at hand - when lives are being threatened > lethal force is used on a daily basis.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What a bold comments here, I suggest people look up the International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. You can't just go and kill anyone who is in your way, even if you think you are in a war. These are called war crimes.

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

We have always reserved the right to protect our national security interests. I can assure you that no one has ever surrendered that right. Assasination was legal under Presidential order, until Carter. We can change that standard at a moment's notice.

This isn't about past wars. This is about blackmail.

Assange's actions could start wars.

 

[NeoDevin]

The guy is trying to blackmail the US by threatening US security interests and endagering the lives of untold numbers of people. That is an act of war.

In order for it to be blackmail, Wikileaks would need to be demanding something in exchange for not revealing the information. Have they?

 

[WhoWee]

In order for it to be blackmail, Wikileaks would need to be demanding something in exchange for not revealing the information. Have they?

There are claims of a "poison pill" - who knows for sure?
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/12/06/wikileaks-blackmail-and-information-war/

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail
" WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in the face of increasingly heated criticism and calls for his prosecution, has made it known that he's prepared to unleash a vast reserve of government documents if he's detained on any charges, if the WikiLeaks Web site is shut down, or in the event that he himself is killed. In July, Assange began distributing an encrypted 1.3-gigabyte file over the Internet, which tens of thousands of people have since downloaded. Assange calls this file his "insurance policy," and his lawyer, Mark Stephens, told reporters that Assange will release the encryption key if he's brought to trial for his involvement with WikiLeaks, or for the sex crimes charges issued by Interpol.

The encrypted file is said to contain full, uncensored versions of all the U.S. documents WikiLeaks has obtained, with names and details left intact. Stephens has referred to the file as "a thermonuclear device," and commentators are measuring the importance of Assange's gambit as the furor over WikiLeaks grows ever higher."

 

[mheslep]

...
I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

Yes, well I suggest Mandel is a Canadian nut, academic or not.

Milosevic is tried with great ceremony for his crimes, while America is not.

ISRAEL'S WEST BANK AND GAZA SETTLEMENTS ARE WAR CRIMES IN CANADA

http://www.canpalnet.ca/archive/mandel.html

This book is poorly researched, and the author has a very clear anti-American bias. When the author lacks evidence, he simply speculates by saying things like "it seems" and notes how his conclusion is "evident". Rather than always citing to evidence, he favors political commentary and other biased sources. When I was pleasently suprised to find an unbiased reference, more often than not the author provided a slanted interpretation of it (often through omission). Lastly, the author blatantly misrepresents the legal aspects of international law in favor of how the author would like international law to be. As an attorney who works in international law, I found this to be the book's greatest flaw. In sum, this book is little more than an anti-American rant presented in a academic format. I do not recommend purchasing this book.

 

[cristo]

We have always reserved the right to protect our national security interests. I can assure you that no one has ever surrendered that right. Assasination was legal under Presidential order, until Carter. We can change that standard at a moment's notice.

You cannot make it 'legal' to enter another country (especially not a European country) and assassinate a citizen of a third country, regardless of how much power you think the Presidential order holds. You can apply for a third part to be extradited from said country to yours if you have enough evidence to show that you have a case against him. However, I think it's quite clear that you do not have the evidence, otherwise Assage would not be in court defending an extradition order to Sweden, but to the US.

 

[Fra]

...that means we have the right to kill him if necessary.

It should be obvious and unneccessary to point out, but there is no such thing as proper objectivity here. Each and everyone makes up their own mind about what's subjectively right and wong, and what's "right" in the _effective_ objective and internationally legal sense is all about negotiation, and negotiation is never one-sided, and it in particular involves the entire environment.

So it doesn't make a difference if US makes up a law that's justifies domestically for themselves various methods because unless your reasoning is backed up by the rest of the world you just make your self more trouble and more enemies by ignoring it.

I am pretty positive that any such action from US will be followed by massive international protest, and THAT alone, will DECREASE national security for US.

The question is what the objective is: Revenge at all cost, or a better more secure country?

The backreaction of the rest of the world, on US actions is something that some people doesn't seem to want to understand. To think that the dynamics can be analysed by ignoring the backreaction is simplistic IMO.

If you read media outside of US you will see that there is in fact plenty of public opinon for wikileaks. Particularly bad (for US) would it be to respond to the wikileaks deal in a way that merely reinforces the impression of a country that sometimes violates as it seems international negotiations for it's own purpose. If Assange was killed, it would reinforce wikileaks projection of US.

I honestly do not think this is the development most american wants because it will lead to more tension worldwide and less security.

I think the rational response would be to, reject the tempting revenge and instead show the world that wikileaks are wrong. And where they are right, measures will be taken to improve. This would I think gain more respect among than a response that is merely aggression. But this is probably a more DIFFUCULT action to take from the domestic perspective as a lot of people would see it as a sign of weakness. But it's rather a sign of strenght and courage to admit that you can improve.

/Fredrik

 

[Gokul43201]

There are claims of a "poison pill" - who knows for sure?
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/12/06/wikileaks-blackmail-and-information-war/

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/editorial-wikileaks-founder-edges-ever-closer-blackmail
" WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in the face of increasingly heated criticism and calls for his prosecution, has made it known that he's prepared to unleash a vast reserve of government documents if he's detained on any charges, if the WikiLeaks Web site is shut down, or in the event that he himself is killed. In July, Assange began distributing an encrypted 1.3-gigabyte file over the Internet, which tens of thousands of people have since downloaded. Assange calls this file his "insurance policy," and his lawyer, Mark Stephens, told reporters that Assange will release the encryption key if he's brought to trial for his involvement with WikiLeaks, or for the sex crimes charges issued by Interpol."

Where is that quote from? I couldn't find it in the links you provided.

If it is indeed true that his lawyer made the statements claimed above, I don't see how that wouldn't be a clear-cut case of blackmail.

 

[WhoWee]

Where is that quote from? I couldn't find it in the links you provided.

If it is indeed true that his lawyer made the statements claimed above, I don't see how that wouldn't be a clear-cut case of blackmail.

For some reason the scripps link posted twice instead of this one (sorry about that)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20101206/cm_atlantic/wikileaksheadwillreleasehugefileifarrested6052_1

 

[CAC1001]

Fox News is propaganda because BOB BECKEL said this!? Beckel is no right-winger!

 

[Jasongreat]

Fox News is propaganda because BOB BECKEL said this!? Beckel is no right-winger!

I guess that's the problem with being fair and balanced. ;)

 

[Mathnomalous]

Could you explain why you think it is propaganda? Are you saying that man works for the government?

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

2 :the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Bob Beckel accuses Julian Assange of being a traitor. Julian Assange is an Australian national and owes no allegiance to the US, therefore it is presently impossible for Julian Assange to commit treason against the United States.

Bob Beckel claims Julian Assange's character is "treasonous" but fails to provide any specific proof to back that claim; seems Bob Beckel expanded on the "traitor" claim.

Bob Beckel claims Julian Assange broke "every law in the US." Bob Beckel does not clarify what "every law in the US" means; taken at face value, it seems Bob Beckel claims Julian Assange violated every law from jaywalking to hindering a US citizen from exercising First Amendment rights, in every town, city, county, territory, and state where US law applies.

The other panel participants did not challenge Bob Beckel's claims and, instead, seemed to agree with him in various forms of vagueness. We may conclude Fox News just spewed propaganda in order to injure Julian Assange.

Can you explain why killing Assange would constitute murder?

Bob Beckel: "Illegally shoot the SOB."

 

[WhoWee]

Bob Beckel claims Julian Assange broke "every law in the US." Bob Beckel does not clarify what "every law in the US" means; taken at face value, it seems Bob Beckel claims Julian Assange violated every law from jaywalking to hindering a US citizen from exercising First Amendment rights, in every town, city, county, territory, and state where US law applies.

Given the sheer volume of the information leaked - how do we know he hasn't broken every law - maybe he admitted to that very thing on page 187,982.

 

[NeoDevin]

There are claims of a "poison pill" - who knows for sure?

If he's using it to avoid illegitimate charges and/or prevent himself from being killed, I don't think that qualifies as blackmail (basically he's just trying to make himself worth more alive and free than dead or imprisoned). If, however, he's using it to avoid legitimate charges, then I agree, it is blackmail.

Since we don't know yet if the charges are legitimate, it's hard to say for sure that it's blackmail.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this going to be a dictionary argument? Alright, I guess I'll go first.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder?show=0&t=1291905277

No. People who know me here know that one of my biggest pet peves is people playing fast-and-loose with definitions. If people stick to the dictionary definition, that would be great.

What I have an issue with is people not applying logic to the situtation. Just posting the definition is not applying logic. Logic is what connects the definition to the situation at hand. In the interest of saving time, I'll provide your logical argument for you - by all means, correct me if I get it wrong:

The Murder Argument: Assange is a civilian and as such is entitled to certain rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and/or related documents. Therefore, killing him is murder.

Close enough? It's simple, straightforward logic. So what is wrong with it?

The basis for The Murder Argument is the premise that Assange is a civilian. That's what I take issue with. So I'll lay out my argument for why he is, in reality, an enemy spy.

Disclaimer: Practical considerations and public opinion may prevent the US from acting based on the logic I lay out. That doesn't necessarily make the logic wrong, it just means people reject logic when strong feelings get in the way. This happens a lot in politics and it is the essence of why I have said several times that people are not taking/treating the issue seriously.

My argument is based on several well-known facts and a few logical inferences. For clarity, I'll explicitly call out which is which. Most of the common-knowledge facts can be found in the wiki entry for Wikileaks and sub-entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak

1. Fact: In July of this year, Wikileaks released the "Afghan War Diary".
2. Fact: The "Afghan War Diary" (AWD) contains 92,000 military log documents that show our troops' activities in Afghanistan, including troop strenghths, movements, engagements, causalties, tactics, etc - a veritable encyclopedia of our war effort.
3. Fact: Also included in the AWD are the names and known GPS coordinates of Afghani civilians and defecting enemy fighters assisting the US war effort by informing on the Taliban's movements.
4. Fact: The Taliban responded to the leak: "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them." (translation: kill them)
5. Fact: Wikileaks has hundreds of thousands of more documents it intends to release - releases have continued over the past few weeks.

6. Logical Inference: It is likely that the release of the AWD has resulted in the deaths of Afghanis and possibly also American soldiers.
7. It is likely that future releases will similarly endanger Afghanis and Americans.

So, to sum up and tie it all together:
Assange and his organization received stolen classified American military information and passed it on to our enemies in a war we are fighting. This likely killed people. That makes Assange and Wikileaks active participants in the war, on the side of the Taliban. Wikileaks continues to release informaiton that is likely to be of further use to the Taliban: In other words, they are continuing to participate in the war.

As active participants in the war against the US - and dangerous ones at that - the staff of Wikileaks are not civilians, they are at best enemy combatants and at worst illegal combatants. Either way, they are subject to military force to stop them from continuing to assist the Taliban. If the Wikileaks servers were located in Afghanistan or if the Wikileaks staff were passing documents by hand to the Taliban, the solution would be straightforward: drop a big bomb on their building or send in the SEALs to raid it. The fact that their servers are not physically located in the war zone does not affect the logic at all - just like a Predator pilot flying a bombing mission while sitting in a comfy swivel chair in a building in North Dakoda is a also a combatant.

Other arguments likely to come up from the other side:
A. Wikileaks staff aren't spies because they didn't steal the documents, they only released the documents. Irrelevant: It isn't just illegal to steal classified docs, it is illegal to possesses and disstribute them to our enemies. (in the Espionage Act of 1917: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 andhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...be-talking-himself-into-espionage-act-charges )

B. The Espionage Act does not apply to people who aren't American citizens. Incorrect. See links above.

C. Wikileaks is a news organization and Assange a reporter and therefore they are not spies. Irrelevant and/or incorrect. Assange has no history as a journalist. He's a hacker who has a prior conviction for hacking. He bounced around at various schools, studying various sciences; never journalism. If he can be considered a journalist, then anyone with a website is a journalist. That's illogical. It is also irrelevant, since being a journalist does not provide protection against the espionage act: http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/30-4/cov-reporter.html

D. Assange is in custody and as a prisoner can't be considered a threat and killed. That's a potential wrinkle/complication for him, but it doesn't apply to his servers or his staff.

So to reiterate my position: The continued release of classified documents by Wikileaks constitutes an act of war against the USA and as such, the organization should be stopped with military/CIA means, including - if necessary to stop them - killing the staff.

 

[mheslep]

You know what I think is the easiest way to silence WikiLeaks? Demonstrate that their actions have directly led to battlefield killing of American soldiers and the murder of civilians in the war zone (especially the latter).

I agree. Though there's some risk of a downside, I suspect Afghans already have likely made up their minds about the level of trust they can entertain with US forces there.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, so you're not saying that Math's characterization of Beckel's call for illegally taking out Assange does not constitute a call for murder. You are asking Math if he agrees with Beckel that killing Assange would be illegal?

Clearly, the OP - and a large number of others - agree that killing Assange [and others in his organization] would be illegal/murder. What I'm asking is for these people to think for themselves and come up with their own logical reasons for believing it, rather than just knee-jerk reacting to one-liners from random TV pundits.

 

[BobG]

If he's using it to avoid illegitimate charges and/or prevent himself from being killed, I don't think that qualifies as blackmail (basically he's just trying to make himself worth more alive and free than dead or imprisoned). If, however, he's using it to avoid legitimate charges, then I agree, it is blackmail.

Since we don't know yet if the charges are legitimate, it's hard to say for sure that it's blackmail.

How will we know if the charges are legitimate? By a trial?

Assange calls this file his "insurance policy," and his lawyer, Mark Stephens, told reporters that Assange will release the encryption key if he's brought to trial for his involvement with WikiLeaks, or for the sex crimes charges issued by Interpol."

(emphasis mine)

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know about that (as in, it may already be too late for that, if the news about the leaks has made it to most parts of Afghanistan), but I think it would be the easist and surest way of silencing WL.

If that's a tricky proposition, how about demonstrating that WL directly caused the death of an American soldier?

After thinking about this issue a little more, I realize it is actually three levels removed from reasonable/logical.

1. The war is ongoing, so we shouldn't just say, 'oops, too late, we might as well stop trying'. We have a responsibility to keep trying to keep Afghani civilians and American soldiers alive.

2. It doesn't make sense that the US government releasing proof that the information killed Afghanis would silence WL. Why would it? Are you suggesting these guys have a conscience and if they realized they were killing people they'd stop? I think that's unrealistic and doesn't fit with what I've read from Assange.

3. For the question of whether Assange or his staff should be stopped by physical force, whether they killed people in the past is irrelevant. What matters if they are going to release information in the future that could kill people. Killing them after the fact would be retribution. Killing them to interrrupt ongoing espionage would be a legitimate component of war.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. Though there's some risk of a downside, I suspect Afghans already have likely made up their minds about the level of trust they can entertain with US forces there.

Could you explain why you think releasing proof that WL's information killed people will matter? Are you saying you think Assange has a conscience and will stop if he see's proof that he's killing people? I'm not seeing that in his attitude and if that's not it, I'm not seeing your point.

Please explain!

 

[russ_watters]

Really?

I think it would be easier for Russ to explain how killing Assange (without due process, etc.) would not be murder. That would take a lot of guesswork and wasteful back-and-forth out of this discussion.

When you - and I mean pretty much everyone on your side in this discussion - treat this as too obvious to bother explaining, you imply that you haven't put enough thought into the issue to make a logical argument. You imply you're just knee-jerk reacting to a distasteful situation.

If it is so obvious, it should be simple to explain.

 

[mheslep]

The other panel participants did not challenge Bob Beckel's claims and, instead, seemed to agree with him in various forms of vagueness.

The host, the Fox Business host, did not comment on Beckel's pronouncement.

We may conclude Fox News just spewed propaganda in order to injure Julian Assange.

Can you name a single television news outlet that does not also on occasion entertain a guest on the show that, clearly expressing there own opinion, says some injurious thing about "an institution, a cause, or a person"? Regarding murder, can you see a difference between killing in war and murder, and if so would you consider that Assange is acting as an enemy combatant in war? I personally don't go that far (yet), but I certainly see the argument.

 

[BobG]

D. Assange is in custody and as a prisoner can't be considered a threat and killed. That's a potential wrinkle/complication for him, but it doesn't apply to his servers or his staff.

So to reiterate my position: The continued release of classified documents by Wikileaks constitutes an act of war against the USA and as such, the organization should be stopped with military/CIA means, including - if necessary to stop them - killing the staff.

Assange being in custody is a valid reason he can't be killed. Whether he's a criminal or an enemy prisoner of war, there's laws against killing him.

Your logic works better on his staff. Whether they're criminals jeopardizing innocent people or whether they're enemy combatants jeoparding our troops and/or allies troops, killing them to stop the threat is legitimate - at least in theory.

From a practical matter, locating the staff is the only challenge to apprehending them. Killing them is a little bit of an over reaction if they're merely criminals. If they're enemy combatants, I think it might be legal even if at least slightly unethical. As soon as they're located, the game is over and it's practically like shooting people waving a white flag of surrender.

 

[russ_watters]

I suggest reading the following book written by Michael Mandel, a legal academic, specialized in criminal law:

With this in his history, I suggest not reading it:

In 1999, during the NATO bombing of Serbia, he filed a formal complaint of NATO war crimes with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charging 67 NATO leaders with war crimes. Mandel's complaints were dismissed by the tribunal who claimed they had no jurisdiction over NATO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mandel_(law_professor )

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't about past wars. This is about blackmail.

Assange's actions could start wars.

For clarity, Ivan and I seem to be in agreement about the end result, but are taking slightly different tacks toward the same end. I'm mostly concerned with the Afghan War Diary, Ivan seems more interested in the diplomatic cable releases. I believe the AWD is a more direct path to Assange participating in a war. Nevertheless, as I said in a pervious post, I agree with the seriousnes of the leak of diplomatic cables: in less peaceful/stable times, such a release could start wars and even today it hinders diplomacy.

 

[russ_watters]

You cannot make it 'legal' to enter another country (especially not a European country) and assassinate a citizen of a third country, regardless of how much power you think the Presidential order holds. You can apply for a third part to be extradited from said country to yours if you have enough evidence to show that you have a case against him. However, I think it's quite clear that you do not have the evidence, otherwise Assage would not be in court defending an extradition order to Sweden, but to the US.

All of that is based on the assumption that legal proceedings apply here. I do not subscribe to that assumption. It is not illegal to kill a combatant in a war: the concept of murder simply does not apply.

And as a practical matter, if the staff of Wikileaks suddenly died of difficult to explain causes, there'd be an outcry, but that's about it. Remember the Russian spy assassinated in the UK a few years ago?

 

[russ_watters]

The question is what the objective is: Revenge at all cost, or a better more secure country?

In order to properly weigh the other argument, you have to understand it: This has nothing to do with revenge. The only justificatino for killing Assange/his staff would be to preven them from killing people.

 

[mheslep]

Could you explain why you think releasing proof that WL's information killed people will matter? Are you saying you think Assange has a conscience and will stop if he see's proof that he's killing people? I'm not seeing that in his attitude and if that's not it, I'm not seeing your point.

Please explain!

I this respect, I don't care about Assange. I want
i) to put an end to the pretense by Assange collaborators and sympathizers that this is some kind of parlor game (Berkley City Council, perhaps Wikileaks staff, hackers shutting down web sites, etc), and
ii) to stop other copy cats like the Navy bozo,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-posing-foreign-spy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml"o, who also likely fancies himself a crusader.

I agree with you that there might be a downside to forcing the point via hurting credibility more in Afghanistan, but I'm inclined to discount this as I doubt the hut crowd will be reading the 24/7 news cycle headlines for that kind of detail. Thus on balance I favor proving Assange's leaks have had lethal effects, if possible.