Some thoughts on Julian Assange

Just a thought on the NYT report that Assange has gotten the UK courts to get a bail amount set for him.

First off the publication of the information that prompted his detainment is not the first time he has done so against the US government, and prior ones included the names and information about our sources and methods in Afghanistan.

Second the civil law may not hold much of a venue against a mere publisher of such information.

Third, drafting any such ex-post facto law is truly horrific as one could never know what is and is not legal to do at any time. The civil law is not the place of venue for Mr. Assange on such publication matters, quite obviously.

Thus we start with the full documents on the International Humanitarian Law held by the ICRC, and go down to the Methods and Means of Warfare.

From that list I will start with the Lieber Code that was instantiated by President Abraham Lincoln for the Union forces 1863, which continued to be used into the 1890's.  Thus this part is of interest not only about Mr. Assange, but his informants and highlighting is mine throughout:

Art. 88. A spy is a person who secretly, in disguise or under false pretense, seeks information with the intention of communicating it to the enemy.
The spy is punishable with death by hanging by the neck, whether or not he succeed in obtaining the information or in conveying it to the enemy.

Art. 89. If a citizen of the United States obtains information in a legitimate manner, and betrays it to the enemy, be he a military or civil officer, or a private citizen, he shall suffer death.

Art. 90. A traitor under the law of war, or a war-traitor, is a person in a place or district under Martial Law who, unauthorized by the military commander, gives information of any kind to the enemy, or holds intercourse with him.

Art. 91. The war-traitor is always severely punished. If his offense consists in betraying to the enemy anything concerning the condition, safety, operations, or plans of the troops holding or occupying the place or district, his punishment is death.

Well that starts to put a sort of proper perspective on things as the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force is a Declaration of War.  Thus those helping us in Afghanistan are brought into the conflict and the publication of their names is a direct help to the enemies of the US.  Really, you shouldn't do that during wartime.

Now to skip ahead to the Hague Convention II 1899:

CHAPTER II
On spies
Art. 29. An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers or civilians, carrying out their mission openly, charged with the delivery of despatches destined either for their own army or for that of the enemy. To this class belong likewise individuals sent in balloons to deliver despatches, and generally to maintain communication between the various parts of an army or a territory.

Art. 30. A spy taken in the act cannot be punished without previous trial.

Art. 31. A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage.

Whoever provided the information to Mr. Assange would be considered a spy in the Hague Conventions.  Would Mr. Assange?  If he was just given the information and went through proper channels at DoD to ask about publication, the answer would be 'no': the information would have been cleared by a power in the war.  As he did not do so and did communicate the information to our enemies in the field, then his activity is that of espionage.  Similarly the 1907 Hague Convention IV has the same verbiage for Spies.

Now onto another part of this with the Hague Convention V 1907 which deals with Neutral countries:

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.

A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

I do love the formality of such things!

The Convention covers the countries and Neutral persons:

CHAPTER III

NEUTRAL PERSONS

Art. 16. The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.

Art. 17 A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality
(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;
(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties. In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severly treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

Art. 18. The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of
Article 17, letter (b):
(a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;
(b) Services rendered in matters of police or civil administration.

Well espionage, which includes the transmittal of information is helping out a party to a conflict or, more appropriately, against a party to a conflict.

Now a fascinating addition to the Hague Conventions are the Hague Rules 1923 that cover wireless transmission, as they would also apply to our current mixed-mode internet:

Art. 8. Neutral mobile wireless stations shall abstain from keeping a written copy of wireless messages received from belligerent military wireless stations, unless such messages are destined for the said neutral stations.

The violation of this rule entitles the belligerents to confiscate the texts in question.

Oh, and that would mean Mr. Assange was taking sides in the conflict(s) the US is in, by his own action.

The Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention only covers espionage as it relates to occupied territory, and deals more in the field than things outside of it.  Full trials are to be provided for 'protected persons' (civilians) in the area of occupation for any offenses (military or civil) done there.  Thus as Afghanistan has been liberated but still requires the presence of US forces to maintain its integrity against hostile elements at war with both Nations, that means that either party in the territory (Afghanistan or the US) may utilize the general schema.  Now given that full trial and appeals are available, lets look at what is within its confines:

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Art. 69. In all cases the duration of the period during which a protected person accused of an offence is under arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from any period of imprisonment of awarded.

Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.

Nationals of the occupying Power who, before the outbreak of hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences under common law committed before the outbreak of hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.

So it is a multipart thing that allows for trials: espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against military installations, or intentional offenses which caused the death of one or more persons.  For Afghanistan the recourse is to its own civil code to see what the punishments would be, while for the US we could use our military code or the Taliban civil code as that was pre-existing prior to hostilities.  Really you would have a better chance with the current regime than the US.  Perhaps Mr. Assange will give himself up to them?

The US has not signed up to the 1977 Geneva Convetions so they are not considered as part of what is or is not espionage for the US.

Thus we quickly run out of what to do with Mr. Assange: he is performing the act of partisan espionage contrary to his status as Neutral citizen.  He is violating the Neutrality that is garnered him by being a non-combatant civilian and actively working against one of the belligerents in a conflict to supply information to the enemies of that belligerent.  Yes our civil laws may be lacking here, but we are at war and peace has not been declared in either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor have the Congressionally set objectives given to the Executive been met.

The case of Julian Assange and Wikileaks is not one of civil courts, but courts martial, and any Nation involved in Afghanistan can put out that he is a threat to their troops in the field and their allies.

Of course that would be the civilized thing to do: get Mr. Assange a full military trial with defense lawyers to account for his activities of breaking his neutrality and publishing such information injurious to the US and those who have helped it, as well as those we have liberated.  But then we stopped acting civilized when we started trying to treat war as a 'police matter'... instead of as war.

Perhaps we can start to treat civil actions differently from martial actions, and start to recognize those making Private War upon us just as all Nations since the dawn of history have done.  Mind you, that isn't pretty.  But it is civilized, if you have the stomach to be civilized, that is.

John Edwards - running from responsibility

Does anyone out there remember World War II?

No, really!

Remember the great signing of the Peace Treaty on the Battleship Missouri?

Photo Courtesy: Signal Alpha

Something like that, 2 SEPT 1945?

Remember that?

Did the US just up and leave a couple of years later? No, we didn't. We actually stayed around for some time in force until 28 APR 1952. We did that to help stand up a new type of government and to make sure the Japanese People would have a voice in it and be able to be free from Imperial ambitions. A mere 2, 430 days! To help a people with almost no ethnic or cultural diversity to finally get to the point of being self governing and not to be a future threat to the United States.

And Germany?

Final surrender... remember that? Not so picturesque, but with all due German military propriety involved.


Photo Courtesy: Cold War Files
Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel on 7 MAY 1945 surrendering, officially, at the Russian HQ in Berlin.

Remember that?

Did the US then just leave Germany? You know, pack up and go home? Nasty old war all done with wasn't it?

Apparently the US stuck around for a while and implemented this thing called the Marshall Plan. Huge amount of the American budget and production capacity devoted to helping Europe out after the War with about $13 billion in aid over the next couple of decades. A puny amount by today's standards, even adjusted for inflation from 1945... only about $148 billion today. Congress can sneeze that away faster than you can say 'Pork Barrel Politics'. Mind you we had just come out of spending 50% of GDP, per year on WWII, so diverting just a smidge of that so it could help out Europe a bit wasn't really missed too much. Had a pretty good post-war economic boom in any event.

Say have we LEFT Germany yet?

No?

I mean we are now working with Japan to withdraw the last of our troops from Japanese territory... any sign of that in Germany? Well, EUCOM does cover a large swath of Africa, but, really, we seem to have about 115,000 troops there and, outside of the Balkans and a bit of democracy sustainment in Georgia and some light peacekeeping duties, are that many really needed to defend Europe?

Apparently America likes to stick around after a war to make sure that things get rebuilt, civilization has a chance to stand on its own and that Empires will not rise again after we leave. Pretty piss-poor thing to do, that. Spend lots of blood and money and time to knock down a tyrant and *then* leave the place in a shambles so that some new tinpot dictator can take over. Just means our sons and daughters will have to go BACK to that place, someday. Its happened before with Haiti, which seems to get regular attention from the US every couple of decades. Go in, bust up, leave and then be right back there again in a few more years.

Pretty asinine, that.

And even before that was the Philippine-American war, which ended very sprightly on 4 JUL 1901! Victory and all that declared and so forth. Yes a bit of goings on with some holdouts... but then the entire Moro business got way out of hand. That didn't end until 1911-13, thereabouts, to finally get the Philippines together without a family feud going on that would cause grief for decades on end. Pretty brutal, that, with folks being skinned alive and their stuffed skins hung up by trails and such. Not this petty 'panties on the head' or 'waterboarding' sort of deal, but just flensing knives without anesthetic. No point to it, just being brutal to show you can be and lower the morale of the enemy. Good thing the US Army put a stop to that, isn't it?

Quite a few Moros, to this day, have names like John and Pershing. To remind them of what a *real* commander and soldier IS.

So, when I get a nice little email from the Edwards Campaign, I really do have to wonder exactly WHICH United States they think they are in. Why is that? Well here is a nice bit from the email, which was a mass one so lots of folks should have gotten it:

Four years ago today, George Bush landed an S-3B Viking jet on the USS Lincoln and told America that major combat operations were over—mission accomplished. It wasn't. The troops have done everything they were asked. They deserve a hero's welcome. They deserve to come home.

Last November, we sent a new Congress to Washington with their own mission: stand up to President Bush and end the war. Congress has taken a critical first step, but it's up to us to make sure they finish the job.

We must send our voice directly to Washington: We're sending Congress customized postcards, calling on them to stand strong until they've accomplished their mission and brought the troops home. You can customize and send yours by clicking below: [link removed]

And we must speak up in our communities: MoveOn.org and a coalition of progressive groups are organizing emergency rallies in hundreds of cities nationwide, calling on Congress to stand firm. You can find and join a rally by clicking here [link removed].

However you choose to speak out, please encourage others to join you. It will take all of us working together to end this war.

Thank you,

David Bonior
Campaign Manager, John Edwards for President
Veteran, United States Air Force (1968-1972)

P.S. -- Here’s a larger version of the postcard you can customize and send to Congress:

Aren't they just the Sweetest? And even from a real, live veteran and all, too! Mr. Bonior currently works at American Rights at Work, a union and labor place for support of worker's rights and such. Just a quick look at one of their sponsored trips to have some international labor activists tour the US for human rights abuses at workplaces in America, and we can tell the sorts of people they get involved with:

One of the co-sponsors of that tour was the Equal Justice Center for a stop in Austin, TX, and it has a lowdown on the happenings. And their list of folks includes: Central Texas Immigrant Worker's Rights Center, Religion and Labor Network of Austin, Poultry Worker's Justice Project, Transnational Worker's Rights Clinic - UT Law School.

Mariclaire Acosta Urquidi - The folks at the Equal Justice Center characterize her with - "former Vice-Minister for Human Rights and Democracy (2001-2003) in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, international human rights expert and activist". She currently heads up the fund for global human rights, an organization handing out all sorts of little grants on the topic. In 2006 they funded this little gem:

Border Justice (Frontera con Justicia)
$15,000 for general support of this organization, whose activities include documenting human rights abuses committed by the police and providing legal aid to migrants in the northern state of Coahuila on the U.S. – Mexico border.

So good of them to be looking out for such things, isn't it? Notice that they are called by the generic 'migrants'. Perhaps they actually stopped some folks from going North illegally? Somehow I doubt that, given the nature of the grant. Somehow 'Border Justice' should include the idea that one does NOT break the law by illegally entering a foreign Nation. But then they don't seem to be too hot on borders, either, given another piece from the 2006 grant list:

Fray Matías de Córdova Human Rights Center
$8,000 for general support of this organization, whose activities include documenting human rights abuses and providing legal aid to Central American migrants in the Mexico – Guatemala border region.

Actually, Mexico does frown on that sort of thing and really doesn't want Central Americans flooding over their southern border. Well, that is Transnational Progressivism, for you - demeaning the idea of Nation State as much as they can. Still, not a bad organization, although one could hope that they actually would help with enforcing the laws and discouraging folks from breaking them, instead of just trying to clean up messes afterwards.

Véronique Marleau - Of whom the EJC say - "Ms. Marleau’s interests and expertise include comparative and international law, human rights, policy development and governance, labour law and labour relations, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), administrative and constitutional law, legal theory, jurisprudence and epistemology." Ms. Marleau can be found looking for gender equality in the workplace along with all sort of other intersting things going on, like working with Jobs with Justice. Here is a bit from one of their worker's rights tours with ARW in OCT 2005:

On October 21st, one group from the delegation went to New Bedford to speak with Guatemalan worker in the fish houses. These workers told of dangerous, dirty work that they were often under paid for. Workers pointed to their immigration status as the reason why fish house employers can get away with the poor working conditions and pay. Another group of delegates joined Rep. James McGovern (D- Mass) at a Workers Rights Board Hearing at Clark University in Worcester. Workers from central Massachusetts told of being fired for wanting a union on their job site. Workers from St. Gobain recounted their 5-year struggle, with the company demanding a decertification election, or they would close. The delegates Marieclaire Acosta and Veronique Marleau joined Rep. McGovern in expressing their outrage at the treatment of workers in Worcester. Massachusetts Jobs with Justice will be compiling the local stories for a report from the Workers’ Rights Board to be delivered on Dec. 8th in honor of International Human Rights Day.

Their 'immigrant status'? Yes, thats right, they are not here legally! Oh, bolding in that is theirs, italics mine. So, let me get this straight: come to the US illegally, complain that the 'good job' you came for is underpaying and cruddy and then be miffed when you can't form a Union because you are here illegally? Say what? That is just, plain whacko because no matter how much one puts forward the lovely Universal Declaration of Human Rights that only pertains to when one is someplace legally. As Nation States are the only bodies that can sign Sovereign Treaties, that must be the case of the very framework of diplomacy is undermined. Break the basis for the agreement by your actions and you do NOT get covered by it.

Maria Adela Mejia Perez - Again from the EJC - "Mary also played a key role in supporting apparel assembly workers in El Salvador in their organizing and bargaining campaigns and is well known and recognized throughout Central America for her organizing skills and her willingness to support fellow Central Americans to gain a voice at work. Mary is presently in the United States and is a political asylum petitioner."

Say, couldn't she work a bit more for 'social justice' back home? Or is that such a bad thing to do there that she has to come here to organize? Yes, I do applaud her the actual achievements, and if she is under death threat from her government for her views, then, by all means, a good petition. It would be more impressive if she documented that a bit more and helped those who would campaign against such a horrific regime rather than aid others trying to undermine a democracy.

Rev. Dr. Calvin Morris - (Source: The History Makers) - "Morris is a board member of the Golden Apple Foundation, Chicago Chamber Musicians, Chicago Theater Company, Sojourner and the Wieboldt Foundation.

He is a co-convener of the Justice Coalition of Greater Chicago and is a co-chairman of Jobs for Justice Clergy Committee. Morris was elected treasurer of the Board of Trustees of Lincoln University, his alma mater. He lives near his daughter in Chicago."

Rev. Morris gets invited to Plenary Meetings of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism at their National Session, and that has such panels as the following from their 2006 shindig:

• SOCIALIST VISION and CCDS


• POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR BUILDING A PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY IN 2006


• BUILDING A SOCIALIST LEFT WITHIN THE BROADER PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT: THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF CLASS, RACE, AND GENDER

Makes one feel so warm, doesn't it, having Mr. Bonior rub elbows with a Progressivist with Socialist viewpoints?

Allie Robbins, National Organizer for United Students Against Sweatshops. The following is from a GW Hatchet (An Independent Student Newspaper - it so boldly says on its masthead) article on Ms. Robbins on 10 MAY 2004:

Criticizing GW gets seniors award

by Brandon Butler

In March, University officials had senior Allison Robbins arrested for protesting in the Marvin Center. At Sunday's Commencement ceremony, they will honor her for it.

Robbins, along with senior Graham Murphy, will receive the first Manatt-Trachtenberg awards at the May 16 ceremony for "their efforts to inspire social consciousness" at the University. The newly created award is named for University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and Board of Trustees Chairman Charles Manatt.

[..]

The award honors the two students by giving them a $250 cash prize and engraving their names on a silver plaque. A committee comprised of an administrator, two faculty members, two staff members and two students looked at nominated seniors and referred a list of recommendations to Trachtenberg and Manatt, who selected the final winners.

Trachtenberg said the two leaders have left an indelible impact on the school.

"I may or may not agree with them, but you can't deny their enthusiasm, their sincerity and their commitment," he said.

Robbins, a workers' rights activist, is a member of the Progressive Student Union and has helped to organize marches, rallies and a sit-in at the Marvin Center March 29 where she and ten other students were arrested. Given all the controversy surrounding Robbins' actions, even she wondered why the University would choose to give her the award.

[..]

Murphy also said it was ironic that the University will honor Robbins with the award.

"I thought Allie was going to get the 'Pain in the Ass Award' from the administration," Murphy said. "I definitely think that she is more worthy than I am for this award."

One really does have to admire that! That said I have gone to school with similar in my time, and know the condition of loud, closed eared and protesting for just about everything but working to build very little. Great for political indoctrination, though! Needless to say she is on the JwJ folks' board as Vice-Chair.

Professor Harley Shaiken - from the ECJ - "Shaiken is the author of three books: Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the Computer Age; Automation and Global Production; and Mexico in the Global Economy, as well as numerous articles and reports in both scholarly and popular journals. He is an advisor on trade and labor issues to public and private organizations and leading members of the United States Congress. He is also a member of the advisory board of the Center for American Progress."

That last is, of course, a Progressivist place, the CAP. He is Professor of Education and Geography, Chair for Latin American Studies at Berkley.

That is the sort of people that David Bonior is sharing idea space with: Leftist, Socialists, 'Progressivists' and a Professor from Leftist Central at UC Berkley. Why am I not enthused to actually do anything for the Edwards campaign?

Could it be that I prefer my Nation *not* to head in the Socialist direction?

And just why, is Mr. Bonior working to undermine support for this Nation's military and its outlook on what a 'just peace' is? Does he have any interest in *having* a Nation at all?

John Edwards - Defeatocrat.