Yesterday, Representative Peter King, ranking member and soon-to-be Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Wikileaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization.
Wikileaks, “… appears to meet the legal criteria” of a US-designated terrorist organization..,” King wrote. “Wikileaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.”
Representative King also has written to Attoney General Holder, urging the criminal prosecutor of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for violation of the Espionage Act.
WikiLeaks a terrorist organization? The pen really must be mightier than the sword!
CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html) reports that Peter King, (Blowhard-NY), who is slated to become the next Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is seeking the designation of Wikileaks as a terrorist organization.
King has decried Islamic Terrorism and has milked the Park51/Cordoba House controversy for every drop of attention that he could get out of it.
========================
King has been much more circumspect about Irish terrorism, however. See, e.g., the following links.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonath…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/b…
http://www.nysun.com/national/…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
========================
King provides the text of his letter to Secretary Clinton at his own web site, http://www.house.gov/apps/list…
November 28, 2010
The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520Dear Secretary Clinton:
I am writing to request that you undertake an immediate review to determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in accordance with Section 210 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In addition, I urge you to work with the Swedish government to determine the means by which Mr. Julian Assange can be brought to justice for his actions while recognizing and respecting Swedish sovereign law.
As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded, the “irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information.” I concur with Chairman Mullen’s statement.
As you know, on Sunday, November 28, 2010, WikiLeaks released its third trove of classified information, in part consisting of 250,000 classified documents from the Department of State, causing grave damage to U.S. national security and our diplomatic relations. The latest release follows WikiLeaks’ October 22, 2010 disclosure, which surmounted to the largest classified military leak in history. The latter, known as “The Iraq War Logs,” included 391,832 classified documents pertaining to U.S. military operations in Iraq from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009. That release followed WikiLeaks’ July 2010 release of 76,900 classified documents pertaining to U.S. operations military in Afghanistan. By the sheer volume of the classified materials released, rendering harm to the United States seems inevitable and perhaps irreversible.
From these acts, WikiLeaks appears to meet the legal criteria for FTO designation as a (1) a foreign organization; (2) engaging in terrorist activity or terrorism which (3) threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. Specifically, pursuant to Section 212 (a)(3)(B) of INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)) WikiLeaks engaged in terrorist activity by committing acts that it knew, or reasonably should have known, would afford material support for the commission of terrorist activity.
The Department of Defense has already recognized that WikiLeaks’ dissemination of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents affords material support to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al Shabaab, and Hezbollah. In fact, On October 22, 2010, Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lappan stated:
We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us and this Iraq leak is more than four times as large. By disclosing such sensitive information, WikiLeaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us.
The WikiLeaks releases provide valuable information and insights to FTOs throughout the world on U.S. military and diplomatic sources and methods and allow our enemies to better prepare for future U.S. and allied military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations targeting them. In addition, the leaks allow nation-states such as Russia, China, and Iran access to information regarding how the United States collects, analyzes, and produces intelligence products.
WikiLeaks presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. I strongly urge you to work within the Administration to use every offensive capability of the U.S. government to prevent further damaging releases by WikiLeaks.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
PETER T. KING
Ranking Member
Whatever one thinks of Wikileaks, asserting that Wikileaks is a “terrorist organization” and is engaging in “terrorist activity” seems like a real stretch. His citation to § 212 (a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc… seems particularly weak.
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general Any alien who-
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of-
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D (c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.(ii) Exception Subclause (IX) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child-
(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or
(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.
(iii) “Terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116 (b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any-
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(iv) “Engage in terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization-
(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for-
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(V) to solicit any individual-
(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;
(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or
(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training-
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or
(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.
(v) “Representative” defined As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.
(vi) “Terrorist organization” defined As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization-
(I) designated under section 1189 of this title;
(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause
(iv); or
(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).
They say that the pen is mightier than the sword, but really, how can anyone with a straight face say that what Wikileaks has done falls into the above definition of terrorist activity?
The Congressman has also written to Attorney General Holder, asking that the Justice Department criminally charge WikiLeaks activist Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793.
November 28, 2010
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Room 5111
Washington, DC 20530Dear Attorney General Holder:
I am writing to urge you to criminally charge WikiLeaks activist Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793.
On Sunday, November 28, 2010, WikiLeaks released its third trove of classified information, which in part consists of 250,000 classified documents from the Department of State, causing grave damage to U.S. national security and our diplomatic relations. This latest release follows WikiLeaks’ October 22, 2010 disclosure, which surmounted to the largest classified military leak in history. The latter, known as “The Iraq War Logs,” included 391,832 classified documents pertaining to U.S. military operations in Iraq from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009. That release followed WikiLeaks’ July 2010 release of 76,900 classified documents pertaining to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. By the sheer volume of the classified materials released, rendering harm to the United States seems inevitable and perhaps irreversible. Moreover, the repeated releases of classified information from WikiLeaks, which have garnered international attention, manifests Mr. Assange’s purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Department of Defense has explicitly recognized, WikiLeaks’ dissemination of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents affords material support to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Al Shabaab.
As you are aware, following Private First Class Bradley E. Manning’s unauthorized access and transmission of classified materials, he was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for several counts, including violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) for willfully transmitting a “classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007 to a person not entitled to receive it.” Given Mr. Assange’s active role in encouraging the theft and distribution of classified material, he should be held liable pursuant to section 793(g), which provides that if more than one person conspire to violate any section of the Espionage Act and perform an act to the conspiracy, then “each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.” In addition, Mr. Assange should be chargeable for obtaining classified documents pertaining to national defense initially acquired in violation of the Espionage Act and for willfully retaining such documents with the knowledge that he was not entitled to receive them.
There should be no misconception that Mr. Assange passively operates a forum for others to exploit their misappropriation of classified information. He actively encourages and solicits the leaking of national defense information. He pursues a malicious agenda, for which he remains totally immune to the consequences of his actions. In his July 2010 interview, Mr. Assange discussed his editorial control over the classified materials, noting that WikiLeaks is “clear about what we will publish and what we will not. We do not have ad hoc editorial decisions.” He was even more resolute in his motivations: “I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.”
As Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded, the “irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information.” I concur with Chairman Mullen’s assessment.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
PETER T. KING
Ranking Member
4 comments