Why Wikileaks is a threat to International Security and Julian Assange is a traitor, Part 2

By Zach Foster

Click to view Part 1

Let us pay closer attention to the language used by Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz.  They both elaborate on how information can hurt the enemy.  But wait!  The information posted by Wikileaks helped terrorists and hurt the Coalition which includes the Australian military.  Assange is an Australian citizen!  Could this appearance of treason be innocent, merely an accidental side effect in a dedicated journalist’s quest for freedom of information for the public?  Perhaps.  However, Assange was warned by the Australian government in 2009 that his site would be censored in Australia for national security reasons over the posting of numerous classified documents of many governments, including the Australian government (He couldn’t realistically be arrested by Australian authorities as he doesn’t formally reside anywhere, always on the move from one country to another).  Then he leaked military documents again.  The second leak certainly makes circumstances appear that he has made his choice about whom his enemies are, and one of them is his own country as he continues to leak information that aids terrorists and insurgents in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Assange’s CONTINUED act of releasing military intelligence to the world public, knowing that terrorist and insurgent organizations benefit from it, satisfied the requirement for treason in Australian Criminal Code 80.12 (d), since he is now levying war as an intelligence spy for terrorists.  His continued leaks of military intelligence shows engagement in conduct that assists an enemy at war with the Commonwealth—treason according to paragraph (e).

While his treason according to paragraphs (d) and (e) could ALMOST be argued against on philosophical grounds, paragraph (f) was very explicitly fit by Assange’s actions, since he has engaged in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist (ii) an organization that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.  Perhaps the first leak wasn’t intended to assist terrorists, but the knowing disregard for that during repeat offenses does constitute intent.  Several Australian soldiers were wounded by hostile fire and explosions in the Iraq War and twenty-one Australian Defense Force troops have been killed in the ongoing Afghanistan War at the time this article was written.  All of the above fulfillments of treason serve to fulfill the “overt act” mentioned in paragraph (h).

While Assange cannot be tried or convicted of treason by any foreign court, he certainly can face those charges and that trial in Australia.  Furthermore, if it can be proven that these leaks of military intelligence by the terrorist spy Assange caused the deaths of American servicemembers in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Assange legally falls under the jurisdiction for prosecution by the United States, and could very well face trial if Great Britain (his current jailers) allow his extradition to the United States.  Remember those historical figures mentioned who were killed abroad for intervening in foreign affairs and violating foreign laws while abroad.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines a spy as “one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information.”  Spying is what Assange and his underlings do in order to fuel Wikileaks.  There is no question about it.  Furthermore, Assange and the Wikileaks contributors are aware that this leak of governments’ classified information provides valuable information to terrorist groups.  Assange’s conduct as a terrorist spy fulfills the requirements for seditious conspiracy against the United States according to United States Code Title 18, section 2384, “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States…”

Assange’s actions which have been proven above to have levied war against Australia have also levied war against the United States, since terrorists and insurgents fighting against the United States have benefited on several occasions from intelligence posted online by Assange.  Assange obviously didn’t know this vital military information before he received it, but the fact that someone sent this military information to him AND he approved (and has since defended) its posting, this proves that two or more people in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States have conspired to levy war against the United States (war zones are under martial law and the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any cyberspace holding U.S. military secrets can be acted upon by agents of the United States for purposes of national and international security.  Even through engaging in cyber warfare, Assange has made himself an enemy combatant).

Assange can also be prosecuted for crimes against the United States according to Title 18, section 2388, “Activities affecting armed forces during war.”  While much speculation has been given to the vast jurisdiction that both the United States and Australian governments have for prosecution of Assange, no one has speculated on the numerous grounds whereupon the governments of IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN can prosecute him!  After all, his actions and the actions of the organization for which he is editor-in-chief have directly contributed (if not led) to the danger and serious harm or deaths of their countries’ citizens.  Let it be known that, while many of these arguments are philosophical in nature, their basis is firmly founded on written law.

Concluded in Part 3.