Plain and simple he is a terrorist. Look, you can gussy it up however you want about semantic differences and definitions, but he is causing a lot of unnecessary panic for a lot of people, and he's threatening the country (and countries) that if he's arrested or shutdown he will release more classified documents. As any liberal will tell you (I'm not one) it's about their motives and intent... he intends to hurt the credibility and security of the country. To what end? He claims "people need to know" but he's not an American as you pointed out yourself-- so he's not protected by freedom of speech or press. In fact, such a right barely exists anywhere else in the world.
He is creating undue panic and chaos using information obtained illegally and distributed illegally. Plain and simple. Hold people accountable for their actions.
Last week, I had another opportunity to be interviewed by Voice of America. I often like giving VOA interviews, because they ask questions that get me thinking about topics I’m working on from a new perspective.
In this particular interview, Kate Woodsome asked, “You asserted that Assange is, essentially, a terrorist?”
The question came as something of a surprise to me, because I hadn’t actually previously identified Julian Assange as, by actual definition, a terrorist, although I had alluded to him as “essentially” such in a previous article. The question got me thinking about precision in our terminology. (UPDATE: This paragraph has been updated to correct an inaccuracy)
Is, in fact, Julian Assange a terrorist? Or is he something else?
Some of my readers, of course, consider him a hero. I don’t and so for the purpose of this discussion, for those of you who feel that way, let’s just agree to disagree. Let’s instead look at how we might characterize this new actor on the international scene.
Let’s first start with labels. Is he an extortionist? Is he a blackmailer? Is he a spy? Is he a traitor? Is he a terrorist?
Do any of these labels apply?
Is Assange an extortionist or blackmailer?
In complete violation of that high school rule we all learned about not defining something in terms of the same term, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines extortion as:
The act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice.
Webster’s goes on to define extorting as:
To obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : wring; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument
This is where things become interesting. There is no doubt that Assange has been engaged in intimidation. He’s been attempting to intimidate most Western governments.
According to Webster’s, blackmail is a subset of extortion:
a : extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution, b : the payment that is extorted
But the key to extortion, at least as implied here, is that the person doing the extorting has to want something in return and here, Assange is a curious little beast. With the exception of his attempted blackmail of Amnesty International, we haven’t seen anything Assange wants in return for his exploits, at least monetarily.
On the other hand, he’s definitely scoring big if he wants fame and notoriety. Is he trying to obtain anything else? Really, that goes to the question of what he’s after.
For now — with the exception of the Amnesty International incident — I think the jury is out on whether Assange is an extortionist. I think it’s clear he could be. He has all the ingredients, all the documents apparently necessary to freak out governments, countries, and companies.
But until he clearly asks for something in return, he’s not the dictionary definition of an extortionist.
Is Assange a spy or a traitor?
Despite what Sarah Palin may have you think, Assange and Wikileaks have not engaged in acts treasonous to the United States.
The reason is simple, at least for Assange. He’s not a U.S. resident or citizen. Treason is a betrayal of your country. Webster’s defines treason as either:
the betrayal of a trust : treachery
or
the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family.
Assange did not betray a trust. No government trusted him with documents. America trusted Bradley Manning with documents, and he did (allegedly) betray that trust. That’s why I’ve stated that Manning is most likely a traitor.
But Assange does not hold any allegiance to the United States. He is Australian, and it is possible that some of the documents disclosed betray the trust of Australia. That said, nothing has come up about it (and Australia has been surprisingly quiet on the Assange issue).
Assange is also not a spy. He did not engage in covert activities. If anything, he’s been overt as frak. So, no matter how frustrating his behavior, he’s neither traitor nor spy.
