Gainor Column: Media Can't Decide Whether Espionage is Journalism
Imagine the year is 1942 and the German government runs a news bureau in Washington, D.C. collecting government secrets. Even FDR would have laughed at claims they were actual journalists, locked them up and thrown away the key.
He would have been right. There's a huge difference between an individual or an organization reporting abuses in government or business one at a time and the same people stealing enough classified material to run a spy agency.
But sleazy Julian Assange and his spy agency WikiLeaks are trying to pretend they are journalists. He even calls himself 'editor-in-chief,' sort of like Mata Hari calling herself H.L. Mencken or the Rosenbergs claiming to be Woodward and Bernstein. Assange even argued in a recent column that 'WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism.' As a sign just how far that profession has fallen, many in the media are agreeing with the spin.
The Society of Professional Journalists (to which I belong) can't even decide. SPJ President Hagit Limor released a press release and blogged making it clear 'we can't even agree on the most basic question: Is WikiLeaks journalism?'
The why is easy. It seems many journalists are more worried about protecting their industry than national security. Limor claims 'the question of whether WikiLeaks is journalism matters not a whit to the general public.' She followed that line with the journalistic equivalent of the Internet adage that 'information wants to be free.' To Limor, 'the world audience just wants information.'
Well, I guess that makes it all OK. Some traitor can give away U.S. secrets to the world or to a spy agency, but that's fine because the world wants information. I imagine the world wants Limor's bank account information too. Or those of the staff of The New York Times or other news outlets running with this story. Should that information be public? How about every personal e-mail journalists write? We saw what a little sunlight brought to the concept that reporters are neutral when the Journolist story broke.
Unfortunately, SPJ reflects the confusion and self-centered concerns of the profession. Some old school journalists have come out against WikiLeaks. Former Washington Post Managing Editor Steve Coll, now president of New America Foundation, said of WikiLeaks, 'so far it lacks an ethical culture that is consonant with the ideals of free media.' For that seemingly mild criticism, he was in turn criticized by David Samuels in the Atlantic. Samuels claims 'Julian Assange and Pfc Bradley Manning have done a huge public service.'
Samuels is not alone. The Spectator UK headlined one piece 'Yes, Julian Assange Is A Journalist.' Another example of Assange's news support comes from a petition headlined 'Journalists from more than 60 countries join in support for WikiLeaks.' They claim Assange has made 'an outstanding contribution to transparency and accountability on the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.' Of course, most of those supporters aren't from the United States and couldn't care less about our national interest.
The Centre for Investigative Journalism earlier had Assange teach classes over the summer and calls Assange 'the main architect of the remarkably successful public interest project Wikileaks.' The group posted comments from the International Federation of Journalists accusing the United States of 'attacking free speech.' That statement gets to the heart of the issue that criticisms of Assange and Manning 'show a mood of intolerance and persecution that is dangerous not just for the two men but for all journalists engaged in investigating public affairs.' (Italics added.)
In other words, they have to protect their jobs, forget about American lives.
This isn't the first time there's been confusion over whether journalists act as spies. It was a huge concern during the Civil War when generals feared reporters would leak troop movements. Those concerns continued for decades and got even worse as the media took an active role undermining the Vietnam War.
But WikiLeaks is nothing like that. It is an organization based on theft of classified documents that then reveals communications that could cost lives, crush American diplomatic efforts or cause wars. Then when Assange gets in trouble, he threatens to release more data, his so-called 'insurance file' of even more dangerous, but encrypted, information. That completes the circle by adding blackmail to his list of daily activities.
Now the Associated Press is reporting WikiLeaks 'has put out a secret cable that lists sites worldwide that the U.S. considers crucial to its national security.' American officials 'said the leak amounts to giving a hit list to terrorists.' And speaking of terrorists, Assange supporters have attacked websites of 'perceived enemies of founder Julian Assange,' including MasterCard.com. Hardly Pulitzer Prize material.
That's because WikiLeaks isn't a news organization. It's a crime syndicate that aids the enemies of the United States. It must be shut down and its operatives and helpers jailed at bare minimum.
Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum. He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.
- Dan Gainor's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Another story
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:01pm.
The story not being covered is how a PFC soldier was able to access this information, download it and give it to it WikiLeaks. I say that if this happened while GW was prez the media would be blaming him. This is a case of shooting the messenger. Deserved in this case, but ignoring the whole truth. Someone really screwed up and is being protected!
It's simple really...
Submitted by c5then on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:09pm.
A journalist would have sorted through the raw data and reported on the information without revealing names or other information that could put people's lives or careers at risk. Journalism isn't about just dumping the raw data on the internet and then claiming to be engaged in journalism. Wikileakes didn't even do anything to gather this information, they were given it by a traitor.
I do not believe that Asange or WikiLeaks is prosecutable, but that doesn't make them journalists.
I think that what they did was exactly what countries like North Korea or Iran or Venezuela would have done given the same information. They dumped it in order to damage the US and their relations with other countries. I think that WikiLeaks should be declared and treated just as a foreign intelligence service. Any contact with them should be a criminal offense for any government employee or military member without prior authorization.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
We need a Democrat like FDR
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:58pm.
We need a Democrat like FDR in office to cap assauge and hang the private.
James Fallows nailed it 15 years ago
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 3:23pm.
James Fallows wrote "Why Americans Hate the Media," published in the February 1996 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. It speaks directly to a lot of what we see happening here in the Wikileaks case, in which the NYT proudly publishes the stolen cables because they reveal hidden procedures of our diplomatic services and besides they're interesting, but refused to publish the Climategate papers because they were stolen.
I won't belabor the topic any more or try to summarize Fallows's article. Here it is:
Why Americans Hate the Media - Magazine - The Atlantic
It's all about Bias*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:54pm.
The media will chase this rabbit in all directions as long as there is no discussion of actual substance. None of the media have actually discussed the contents of the 450,000 leaked documents. The reason is first, they must study the documents to screen those that would continue to support their agenda. Any information leaked that would contradict that agenda will never be openly reviewed.The climate gate emails were never discussed in the media for that reason. Doesnt meet the criteria for their agenda. Safety and soveriegnty of our country is not nearly as important as the liberal bias.
This article is a clear example of how the media cherrypicks information to be distorted or spun for the far left progressive agenda. This article should be studied carefully. It brings up a great number of issues that should be openly discussed...dont wait for it at the SRM.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2010/12/09/the_wikileaks_vindication_of_george_w_bush
What media?
Submitted by MacWell on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 4:44pm.
The only media that holds water these days, is the medium at which you are viewing at this moment. I think we're very lucky in a way, I believe we're witnessing an awaking in America, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 18th century. We may not all agree on the minutia of governance, but we all seem to agree that there is a very large problem with our government. I do believe that there are men and women in America who are capable of leading the way toward fixing it. We the people must support them. We must watch and listen and continue to talk about it here, in this medium. We must never fall asleep again, our children and grandchildren are depending on us. It seems it is our turn to be the greatest generation, let's not blow it!
States, Corporations, and
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:05pm.
States, Corporations, and individuals must be responsible for their own privacy. To put the onus on the reporting entity (the exact status of wikileaks as journalists notwithstanding) is to misplace the rights and responsibilities inherent to privacy.
Imagine if a NewsBusters reporter had received a bundle of 10 private diplomatic cables from an anonymous source. If he wanted a Pulitzer, he'd research and rewrite the information contained within the cables, then publish. If any of the cables contained things likely to put an individual in danger, he'd likely redact the information.
Increase the number from 10 to 250,000 and the nature of the game changes just a little bit. there is no longer any practical way to redact potentially dangerous information. The material is still as newsworthy, as well as the accompanying risk of parallel leaks - other organizations probably have the matieral as well.
WikiLeaks answer to potentially endangering people was to engage the US government directly. They told the US what they had, and asked for recommendations for redactions. WikiLeaks was ignored, and then started releasing the cables publicly and directly to media. Further interactions by media organizations with the US government resulted in redaction recommendations for publication.
The duty to protect the information fell on the shoulders of the US government. They failed in that duty. They also ignored a chance to mitigate any potential damage, by engaging in WikiLeaks offer to redact the source material.
WikiLeaks founder, Assange, has now been arrested... for not wearing a condom. One of his accusers is one of the best known femi-nazi activists in Europe, who is one of the biggest attention whores in history. Seriously - an international arrest warrant and no bail, extradition to a foriegn country... because you didnt wear a condom?
While it's clear Assange needs to keep it in his pants, it's not exactly uncommon or unexpected behavior from an adult male.
I think it's rather hypocritical for NewsBusters to be all sorts of excited about the ClimateGate doc leaks (which were sought out and actively stolen) and self-righteously angry about the WikiLeak's publication of genuinely leaked materials.
Bradley Manning is the villain here. He is a traitor and should receive the maximum punishment for his crimes. A massive overhaul of privacy safeguards is also in order. And as far as it goes, it could have been leaked to a spy and nobody would know anything until the information was used to harm the country. At least with public information, we know what has been leaked and can start doing damage control.
While no knight in shining armor, Assange is not a villain. Stop villifying the messenger and start taking a hard look at the crap that caused this situation in the first place. Our government privacy procedures are ridiculously weak. If a private can access so much information this easily, how many of our state secrets are open books to the real spies?
So, JRowe,
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:20pm.
If I were to somehow come into possession of a great deal of personal information about you - social security number, home address, home and mobile phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account information, your car's license plate number, where you work, how much you make, your tax information - and published all that on the web, no one should blame me because you didn't protect your information? You'd be okay with that?
It's not about being ok with it
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:02am.
"You'd be okay with that?"
It's about being legal or illegal. Not being ok with something doesn't make it illegal.
You missed the point there,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:14am.
You missed the point there, cowpoke. Shouldn't you be over on another thread defending Shawn?
It's not a matter of
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:56pm.
It's not a matter of "somehow". Information doesn't just magically appear. Someone, somewhere would have to steal it. My information is protected by law - the only entities possessing it have a responsibility not to divulge sensitive information (otherwise they wouldn't have it... I don't casually give out information like that.) I would follow through with whatever legal avenues were available to prosecute the individual/s responsible for the breach of privacy. I have relatively high confidence that my information is obscure enough to prevent casual identity theft. I don't put my crap online for the world to see.
I wouldn't fault you for publishing, if you were given the information unsolicited and gave me the chance to protect my interests by suggesting redactions.
Also, there's a world of difference between sensitive personal information and government documents. The general newsworthiness of either are starkly contrasted.
I'm not trying to justify the original leak. That should never have happened. However, once the leak occured, the information became public. Villifying an organization for publishing the material is putting the responsbility for the crime in the wrong place.
There is also a world of difference between---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 7:45pm.
the revealing of certain government documents, and my ability as an American citizen to feel safe knowing my government will vigorously prosecute anyone who does so.
The "messenger" you are seeking to protect from any blame, did indeed put Americas "crap", 'online' , for all the world to see.
MD
They are vigorously
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 8:38pm.
They are vigorously prosecuting the one who made the material public. Manning is going down.
Should we prosecute the newspapers for relaying information from the cables and Afghan war docs? Should we prosecute Matt Drudge for linking to articles with information that WikiLeaks scooped? Should we prosecute individuals for having read articles containing classified material? And then perhaps their neighbors, just in case?
The violation of privacy occured the second Manning distributed the material. WikiLeaks did not violate the privacy of the material. Manning did. What Manning did should have been prevented.
I have yet to see any legitimate reasons for taking WikiLeaks down.
Again, this is a completely different scenario than one in which WikiLeaks actively engaged in espionage - they didn't. They passively received a cache of documents from an anonymous source, and published them. If they had actively espoused Manning's cooperation in obtaining classified material, I'd be screaming for their blood. However, the responsibility for the privacy of the information rested in Manning's hands, and ended there once he distributed the material.
I'm willing to reconsider - Assange is an amoral putz, to be perfectly frank, and I have no particular investment in protecting him. However, it looks to me like governments are persecuting an individual on trumped up charges because they were embarrassed.
Seriously, who the hell gets an international arrest warrant put out, jailed without bail, and extradition to a foreign country because they didn't wear a condom?!?
You are right in that---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:09pm.
the words aiding and abetting hold no sway with real world denizens who dislike America.
Yes, Assange is an amoral putz; and yes, government entities and personnel, without fail, do whatever is necessary to fade the heat.
The possibility of any criminal culpability aside, to say that Manning "arbitrarily stole information", but to in turn imply that Wikileaks was just doing their job, like the print media, and was acting either normally or responsibly in passing on purloined material, is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
MD
I agree with you 100%. Very
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:38pm.
I agree with you 100%. Very well said.
Note to self---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:18pm.
Always make sure, before cursing a blue streak, which poster SatchelMouth is aiming his reply post at.
JRowe is welcome to embrace SatchelMouth's praise.
Personally, if SatchelMouth were to agree with anything I posted, I would know immediately my outlook was FUBAR.
MD
Prosecute all who disseminate
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:33am.
Prosecute all who disseminate and are in receivership of secret or classified documents. Hang manning after a speedy trail and put a hit out on all wikkileaks people.
What is wrong with you JRowe.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 10:23am.
So we need to only prosecute the guy that took the gold bars from Fort Knox. No the guy he handed them to or anyone else that resold STOLEN PROPERTY.
Wikileaks is NOT journalism or journalists. They knowingly published classified documents.
Once the documents are world readable, you cannot blame journalists that repeat what they find. I said ONCE the documents are out there. Wikileaks had a choice, they would not be out there but for them.
SO KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE LIES THAT ASSANGE IS INNOCENT.
Journalism, definitely not,
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:36pm.
Journalism, definitely not, but I'm not so sure it's espionage. Certainly Pfc. Manning should be in front of a firing squad as soon as possible, and his execution should be televised, but calling WikiLeakes a spy agency or crime syndicate is hyperbole.
Yeah, yeah, espionage,
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:07am.
Yeah, yeah, espionage, incest, all semantics...
My standards for this
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:51pm.
My standards for this scenario go something like this: What would the Times of London (or any other news media outlet) have done, given the documents that WikiLeaks received? I think that much of the same material would have been published. The choice bits would have been milked for their sensationalistic value, and profit would have been a motive in the pace, order, and presentation. WikiLeaks purportedly publishes the documents with no commentary and no bias in pace, order, or presentation.
The only flagrantly unethical thing I've seen on WikiLeaks side is the whole "poison pill" threat. That sets off alarm bells in my head.
And believe me, I understand the discomfort some people have with the information being published, at all, and not just by WikiLeaks, NYTimes, and so forth. Aiding and abetting aren't quite applicable - WikiLeaks didn't aid Manning, nor did they abet his crime. The Supreme Court has said that puiblishing information, even if it was originally obtained illegally, is protected speech.
Also, free speech advocates will tell you that unless information presents an immediate danger to someone, it should be published. WikiLeaks is actually preferable to print media, in that the material isn't spun - no ideological bias is present unless it's inherent to the docs being published.
This article references several interesting points: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-and-...
Something cynical inside me keeps whispering that this is all just a sideshow so that someone in Hollywood can make an epic movie about Assange in 3 or 4 years.
You misinterpreted my aiding and abetting comment---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:32pm.
which was pointing out that there are no criminal acts to be committed against America, as far as those who hate her are concerned.
Anything and everything is justified.
Odd how the fruit from the poison tree exists only when convenient for some.
Regarding the "protected" speech ruling by SCOTUS; as far as Supreme Court infallibility, Roe vs. Wade sets the standard for any reliance I would place on a proper, common sense decision by a group of fallible people.
Which is to say, not much.
MD
The Supreme Court
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:08am.
The Supreme Court doesn't apply to Assange anyway. He's not an American, doesn't live in America, and has no allegiance to America.
So you understand
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:39pm.
the discomfort of some people with having the information published? Wow, I'll bet that's a comfort to the people in Afghanistan who've been targeted by the Taliban for their cooperation with their own governement and the U.S.
So, I think most of us are quite familiar with your "standards".
Crimes committed by Wikileaks?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:19am.
Possession of stolen property? The offense of property possession of stolen property is made up of two parts. First, a person charged with this offense must have property that was (or was partly) gained by theft, fraud, or any other crime. Second, the person must have known that the property was stolen or gained by fraud. Also, if the prosecutor can show that it was obvious that a reasonable person would have thought the property was stolen and the accused failed to investigate whether it was stolen or not, he or she can be found guilty of possession of stolen property.
Dissemination of stolen property?
Receipt of stolen government property?
In my view, Manning is the main criminal and should be tried for Treason. During a time of war, I assume this carries a fairly stiff penalty. But Wikileaks is in possession of- and has distributed stolen US Government property. These are illegal under US law. And journalists, though they often believe they're above it, are actually subject to US law. Just ask Judith Miller. Take custody of Assange and put him in a cell with Manning. For a very long time.
Ignorance isn't purely the
Submitted by Gone4Good on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:22am.
Ignorance isn't purely the provenance of the Left, it would seem. It's rather hard to discuss something sanely when there's a bunch of rabid idiots contributing their gut-reactions to headlines, without actually knowing anything about what they're commenting on.
It's too much work to try to correct all of the blatant misconceptions in this thread, so I'll leave the discussion with a few relevant factoids:
1.) Assange is not a US citizen, and cannot be tried with treason. He hasn't betrayed anything.
2.) WikiLeaks published documents given to them by an anonymous source, after due diligence with the US to ascertain if there were any redactions necessary to protect the lives and livelihoods of individuals pertinent to the documents being published. It was only after US investigation that the source was discovered to be PFC Manning.
3.) WikiLeaks has not overtly broken any laws. This type of event, on this scale, is unprecedented. No laws exist that cover the full scope of the scenario. It is unclear what type of action is possible, ethical, or legal at this point. US law wouldn't apply unless we show that WikiLeaks was engaged in conspiracy to commit espionage. This doesn't seem to be the case.
Time will tell.
Well, take a moment of your time, JRowe---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:11am.
And correct a few of the blatant misconceptions in this thread, even though it's rather hard to discuss something sanely when there's a bunch of rabid idiots contributing their gut reactions to headlines without actually knowing anything about what they're commenting on.
Maybe you could explain how it is you know that Wikileaks conducted a due diligence discussion with the US, and explain further, who exactly represents the US in this particular instance.
Maybe you could then take an extra minute or two and detail how it is, since this type of event, on this scale, is unprecedented, that you know for sure that Wikileaks has not broken any laws, whether overtly or covertly.
You seem to obviously be a person with great knowledge of and experience in what is and what is not to be considered law breaking as it relates to espionage, communications leaks, the military, and the media aspect of the Internet.
However, since you do state that "No laws exist that cover the full scope of the scenario.", and further that "It is unclear what type of action is possible, ethical, or legal at this point.", you should not just drop insulting pronouncements about rabid idiots contributing without actually knowing anything about what they're commenting on, and then just drift off into the ether after leaving us with the cryptic comment "Time will tell."
Man up.
Share with us plebeians.
Tell us how you know what is or isn't possible, ethical, or legal if there are no laws that exist that cover the full scope of the scenario.
How is it that you seem to even know what the "full scope" of the scenario is?
If only "Time will tell", then you apparently don't know jack about the 'full" scope.
Whether you choose to dazzle us with pearls of experiential knowledge regarding espionage gathered during your time with the CIA, or just mundane facts about domestic and international law from your time clerking for several (or was it all?) of the Supreme Court justices, we await enlightement from the lips of such a majestic pedantic wonder as yourself.
Knowledge means survival.
I insist, nay, I demand that you instruct us from your vast storehouse of life experience, intellectual probity, and what seems to be an unlimited amount of chutzpah.
You can leave the insults at home, though; they ain't that impressive.
MD
I've been called worse than
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:06pm.
I've been called worse than "idiot" but I'm pretty sure I don't have rabies. But be that as it may, it seems that by your rationale, Assange cannot be charged since he's not a citizen of the United States. Now, I know that large factions of DHS agree with your assertion, and that DoJ isn't keen on doing -anything- but in all of your great wisdom, surely you can find some instance of a foreign national being charged under US Law...
That isn't his rationale.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:28pm.
That isn't his rationale. JRowe said that because Assange is not a US citizen, he cannot be charged with treason.
There you are Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:46pm.
You made an accusation and then ran off. Just like you have done with nearly every case of Stupid you have dropped here. That is not a nice little troll at all. Now answer the question back in the original blog where you dropped your Stupid.
When did the Bush administration use the context of 9/11 and terrorism as a prelude to the Iraq War?
Are you one of those Butt Hurt trolls that run off when people tell them to back up what they say? We really don't like that kind of troll.
Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:55pm.
Yeah, I can read. But thanks for interjecting.
His rationale is that Assange did nothing illegal, and then repeatedly emphasizes that with the fact that he is not a US citizen. It's not a difficult leap to surmise Rowe believes that Assange's citizenship has much to do with whether or not he can be charged under US law.
The Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll does love interjecting.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:18pm.
JRowe said WikiLeaks has not overtly broken any laws. How is it the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll managed to miss that? JRowe is a liar. And the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll loves him liars and trolls.
Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act
The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison
The Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll focuses in on one tiny part of a multi-paragraph whine and equates that with claiming it is all true. You are a liar Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll. And we are still waiting for you to back up what you said in the other blog.
No, he specifically said that
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:58pm.
No, he specifically said that the US can't charge him with treason because he's not a US citizen.
Hey Butt Hurt Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:52pm.
Tell us again how people die from CO2 poisoning from leaving their cars running in their garage.
Espionage and treason are not synonyms, Perfessor
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:07pm.
Both are crimes, however.
I have said it before...
Submitted by ljacone on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:38pm.
...and I will say it again, when it comes to Assange and his ilk: Smiert Spionem! Death to spies!