And it is straight up harassment.
It's really awkward to date when the n-th date involves a discussion of possible harassing police raids in the middle of the night.
I respect what you do, but I think it's unfair and myopic to label as "cowards" anyone who doesn't share your commitment.
On an unrelated note, does this mean the FBI will be serving pg with a warrant for our info?
The willingness to expose oneself to the kind of harassment Applebaum endures is derived from one's commitment to the cause. I can certainly applaud those who risk being ostracized by associating with someone being bullied, without condemning those who don't. The bullying is morally wrong, but the reaction of others is neutral.
Back in the days I used to live in quite a politically volatile area in a developing nation while trying to get myself an education. It is the kind of place where it is not uncommon to be knifed/hacked/soundly beaten in a public place in broad daylight for being on the wrong end of the political spectrum or even just for being bothersome.
It was eye opening for the young and somewhat naive me that very very few people were willing to interfere in this. Even to the point of not calling the police or an ambulance while someone slowly bleeds down.
I have had discussions with people on this topic. Every time the response was exactly the same as yours. Also everyone believed that nothing could be done about it. It was socially accepted that this sort of thing happen and all you can do is to keep your head down and go about your own business. People survived by holding the magical belief that whatever was happening to their fellow citizens won't happen to them .. Somehow ..
Irrespective of what we were always told (i.e. That the incredible apathy was the result of a lack of education and an issue endemic to poor third world nations), it appears that the attitude is not as uncommon as it was made out to be.
I don't advocate doing nothing in the face of injustice, but neither do I condemn those who are unwilling to risk their families and careers over causes they aren't wed to. Morality isn't binary, and so we can applaud those with the courage and conviction to suffer for a cause, without condemning those who lack such dedication.
And I don't think having a partner and child would change that. Because I don't want my children to grow up in a world where someone would walk by them getting raped and ignore it. I would rather they grow up in a world where their father died to help someone.
The same applies to Applebaum. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where it's considered good and decent for them to be ostracized by people like you for making choices like Jacob's. I wouldn't want them to grow up with a father who supported that.
Indeed. Nor would I want to live with a soul that knows it had ignored someone in such distress.
There is no doubt that a cowardly action might be safer under certain circumstances. But who wants to live like that?
Keep in mind when making this decision that it will still be a world where a rape victim can get ignored.
Also, you're speaking in VERY broad terms when you say "By refusing to associate with someone simply because they've been bullied, you have given your consent to the bullying and even (to a small degree) participated in it." Do you think this is equally true of ALL bullies? That is to say, do you see ZERO difference between (say) a wayward grade-school thug who picks on the most promising target, and armed federal agents who have clearly been given specific orders to harass, intimidate, and coerce a very specific individual for a very specific reason?
However, I use the word cowardly because the results you outlined are not certain. It's not even likely.
When fear rules you and limits otherwise desirable actions, you're acting as a coward without a doubt.
Need any help?
As you are finding out, the government can take a lot from you when you piss them off. In the case of people who otherwise share your sentiment, it's simple risk management to protect your loved ones from similar treatment, particularly if you're raising a family. Not many employers will stick with you if you get this kind of harassment in your personal life, because it will eventually affect them too; that cuts right into feeding your family, which is high on my list of things I will not sacrifice. Putting my family above an ideal is not cowardice, particularly when my family isn't even aware of the reason for an ideal and definitely doesn't share it.
It's also dangerous to assume that a given outcome is unlikely for any set of circumstances. Continuously, we read about things that blow our mind when governments abuse power, and there are probably far more things that we are not lucky enough to read about; if they really wanted you gone, you'd be gone tomorrow and none of us would ever know. It stands to reason that you haven't disappeared yet because they want Assange. Planning for the best from your adversary is a dangerous path, I think, but I know that you're far more familiar with your own circumstances than Mr. Internet Commenter here is.
What? That sounds insane. In what sense does he have nothing to lose?
Bowing to bullies is cowardice, no matter how rational it is. The reason "cowardice" is a perjorative word is that usually seeking your own rational self-interest by accommodating thugs ends up hurting other people, and I believe that's true in this case, as well. If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.
Based upon my quick reading, it sounds like he has nobody that depends on him. All of us have to consider that if we were to suddenly disappear from the face of the planet, who would suffer as a direct result?
> If you don't associate with Jacob because you think it risks your own livelihood, you are providing a clear incentive for the government to pursue this kind of harassment in the future; you are the mechanism of their attack.
Yeah, I detained him at the border. Good one.
You give the government a lot of credit for being extraordinarily clever. I have serious, serious doubts that people distancing themselves from inviting similar harassment (which means aiding Jacob, not necessarily knowing him -- I never committed on that point) is something that the government would consider a win. "We have succeeded by limiting new acquaintances!" That's hysterical.
This is the government we're talking about here, the world's legendary bureaucracy, the same government that can't even find bin Laden after how many years. They want Julian Assange, and they'll procedurally harass anybody they can to get to him until they get him. Assuming there's a shadowy evil plot to decrease Jacob's LinkedIn connection count is patently silly, and accusing me of furthering the government's attack because I don't want to risk my family for a cause is a pile of disrespectful and stupid.
I don't think it takes extraordinary cleverness to try to attack people by ostracizing them and indirectly threatening others who associate or collaborate with them. That sounds as straightforward as it gets. I guess I don't see what seems silly about it.
At any rate, I've said my piece, and I'm circling close to offending you -- which isn't my goal -- so don't take anything I say as intentionally offensive. It seems silly to argue about your life, anyway, from the perspective of someone not in your life.
I don't think "simple risk management" and "cowardice" are mutually exclusive, and I am deeply offended that you are accusing me and Jake and others of dishonesty for expressing that opinion. I understand the desire to defend yourself (however cowardly you may be) but I do not believe that desire justifies launching personal attacks on the integrity of those who disagree with you.
Indeed, it's rather ironic to hear someone justifying cowardice setting themself up as a judge of the integrity of others.
HN certainly gets more and more hostile as days go by, and I think it'd do us all a favor to assume the best in our conversational counterparts. Judge of integrity, indeed.
If a person is aware of a couple of explanations for something and has judgments about how much sense they make, those judgments represent their degree of belief in those explanations. If they claim to believe the one they actually believe in less, then they are being dishonest.
If they already had, would you even know? Twitter has fought the subpoena and gag order in court, which is the only reason we've heard about it. Presumably Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Hotmail, and other service providers have also had information requested from them, but we haven't heard anything from them, presumably because they cooperated instead of fighting.
Although I think removing that sign would be considered violating the gag order.
Oh, is "apathetic" a more comfortable label ?
> The level of harassment you put up with is obscene, and that you continue to stick to your guns in the face of it is admirable. That said, it's not something that most people want in their lives.
That guy is getting harassed a lot because he is alone. I don't think the overloads up there have the courage to harass tens of thousands - do they ? Wide ranging support means less heroism will be required to get what people want. He is not fighting a personal battle, right ? It is better to fight smaller battles now and avoid the possibility of all out wars that we are seeing in Africa and the Middle-East.
> Dealing with the level of harassment you face imperils all of those goals. Unless someone is dedicated to a cause and willing to sacrifice a lot to serve it, it's unreasonable to ask them to invite that kind of drama into their lives.
So, that person won't even "want to meet or correspond with" them. Do they realize the stark contrast between Jake's priorities and theirs.
You know you can stay at my house any time. It's far too late for me to be cowardly. I'm not aware of any repercussions Beatrice or I have suffered so far for our association with you.
> It's really awkward to date when the n-th date involves a discussion of possible harassing police raids in the middle of the night.
Seems like that's something to discuss before the 0th date. You well know there are zillions of girls and guys who find outlaws sexy, especially outlaws for a real cause (as opposed to just crooks.)
As an aside, but nevertheless siginificant to point out, these trips of Appelbaum's are AFAIK business trips, not recreational trips. Appelbaum is traveling because his employer asked him to. So why isn't Appelbaum's employer Tor, or the University of Washington for that matter, taking the necessary steps to assist a traveling researcher/proselytizer? If Appelbaum's employer demands that he travel, isn't it Appelbaum's employer own responsibility to make sure an employee can travel, assisting him with a lawyer or a co-traveling escort? And why would an employer put up with all this, when the employer can just as well hire another proselytizer, one who is not associated with Wikileaks and who can cross borders with a lot less hassle?
Sorry folks, it's just not adding up for me. (But your donations are certainly adding up for Tor!)
In any case, it doesn't cost anyone but me (in time, stress, etc) anything extra.
I just wanted to throw in there... I feel for you with the issues dating.. but in my experience it's not worth dating someone long-term who doesn't have the highest degree of respect for who you are. And for someone who really respects you, that conversation would only deepen their connection to you.
They may be few and far between, but anyone else isn't worth your time.
It says that (presumably in Newark?) you were handed over to a US Army official. Are you certain the individual worked for the Army?
Wikileaks and the Federal Government's response to it is fascinating to me. I'd love to hear more details than what little teaser of an article offers.
I don't know anything about the site that the article is on, but it corresponds pretty closely to what I've read elsewhere.
I suppose a lot of folks probably do consider this type of extralegal harassment to be a political left/right issue. Personally I don't understand that type of thinking and suspect it's probably not useful to attempt to reason about that degree of madness.
I do believe that a lot of politicians and prominent officials are earning their place in the history books...right next to Sen Joe McCarthy in the article on 'Un-American Douchebags'.
If noone called him out, he'd have just been another politician making hay out of fear and "the other".
But McCarthy & co. did more than simple fear-mongering and "making political hay". They were using the considerable power of the US Federal Govt against individuals for their politics and for not-justifiably-illegal actions. They were destroying livelihoods and putting people in jail.
It's easy to see in retrospect that the US was not at risk of the Red Tide because the economic fundamentals were absurdly better than what was needed for the leftist revolution.
McCarthy & co. degraded America and damaged our principles out of stupid hysteria and demagoguery. This only went on as long as it did because there weren't enough level-headed people who were willing to pay the price of questioning it openly.
Wikileaks/Manning/ioerror are not an existential threat to America, but this path of systematically abandoning principles of protecting individuals from the abuses of government power absolutely is.
Appelbaum wants you to think that the kind of treatment he is undergoing at airports is exceptional. It is not. It is almost identical to the treatment the likes of Ventura and Alex Jones and his staff are subjected to. Ventura is certainly suing, so why isn't Appelbaum? Something is not adding up here.
It's nowhere near as easy as pointing the finger at people with less means than yourself and calling them "cowards" for not having the financial means to pursue their rights. Using the law is expesive, but this particular person is not poor. He deliberately chooses to not use the law.
"I make more than the amount you quote, but I don't have enough money to go around suing the government."
Well, I'd have to ask, why don't you? Maybe that's the problem: all you people who really do have the means to sue the government aren't doing so. Instead, you're just pointing the finger at the "sheeple" who make a lot less than you do, saying: "Look at those cowards over there, they're doing anything to resist,the country is going down the drain because of them, bla bla bla".
Listen, we are all on leash, and those of you with the longer leash should be doing more to resist than those of us with the shorter leash. Instead, you point the finger and call those with the shorter leash "cowards" and "collaborators". That's "lifestyle activism" for ya.
The fact that we crushed Al Qaeda in the opening years of the war doesn't diminish the threat that existed at the time. The Treasury Department essentially rewrote the rules of international finance in a matter of months, devastating their financing, and the followup in Afghanistan crippled them.
This hasn't been a "war", it's been a War.
The biggest problem is that we haven't gone far enough yet- security theater in the airports instead of Israeli-style real security. No screening of cargo containers. Virtually all American cities lack plans for how to deal with nuclear terrorism.
Nuclear terrorism is not a realistic scenario, if only because it's much easier and much more terrorific to have a bunch of quadrotors dropping poison-tipped darts on a city.
It is extremely relevant to all of this discussion, including the question of whether one should sacrifice the wellbeing and safety of one's family in order to promote a cause that's somewhat secondary to them.
Lots of people lied under oath, or turned other people in in order to protect their families, because they didn't want to "risk it". But Trumbo and several others stood up for their right to free speech and paid dearly for it.
(See my comment elsewhere in this thread).
To me, it looks like you're being made an example of.
(Thanks, btw, the world needs more people willing to endure that)
Some goals: to deter others, to extra-legally punish me personally, to pressure me into taking some kind of action that is subject to punishment, to upset others into action that is also subject to punishment, to profile me under stress, to monitor my associates as I am harassed, to watch the tactics or long term strategy, to attempt to provide comfort for these stresses (that's a weird story), and so.
So yeah, they're trying to make an example of me but it's not limited to run ins with CBP. The ongoing legal issue with a specific microblog is another example. Visiting me when I give talks is another.
There are others but I'm not comfortable discussing them at this time.
This article made me angry, but also sad, as I believe if we allow the government (in many cases we already have) to use tools like the Patriot Act as a kind of umbrella document to provide cover to go after normal American citizens - academia, free-speech advocates, journalists, hackers working on Tor - we allow an extremely dangerous precedent to be set that will likely lead to all kinds of future abuses of civil rights of people who simply want things like transparency in government. (I mean the real kind, not the kind you promise to implement when you are running for office).
Anyway, Glen Greenwald gave an excellent talk on WikiLeaks and Why They Matter (55:00 minutes mark of video) He speaks eloquently on this very issue. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/09...
I wonder if this article or any of the others will change the way that Customs and the rest of the Federal Government treat me?
I'm guessing "no" - care to take any bets?
I think the only thing that's going to change this is getting the right people in the right room to have the right quiet conversation to understand that they're inhibiting research and academic freedom with this nonsense. Unfortunately those types of conversations haven't happened much in the last three decades. The system is broken.
Everytime I read about you coming home on your twitter I'm sad and angry. The types of things that happen to you aren't supposed to be how our country works, which happens sometimes, but shouldn't be happening here. Whenever I mention you around people who work for the government it is a conversation killer. It is rare to find someone who is given enough responsibility where they feel they can be anything but helpless even if they wanted to. (Which how could they not? I don't understand it. There has to be a hell of a classified file on you that paints a nice smear job so that these normally reasonable people can sleep at night.) The worst part is so few of the individuals in this mess are evil, it is the system that we've created that does the evil and the responsibility for this is widely distributed.
You're getting screwed. I hope that changes. In the meantime... I hope they have a light touch in Texas.
The exponentially increasing lawless behavior of the US over the past decade, particularly as it relates to its own citizens, is genuinely frightening.
Note: YES, I'm aware of the charges against him. Any impartial observer would label them as trumped up. Use of the word "rape" in an accusation doesn't make it more authentic.
Is it possible that Jacob is calling others "cowardly" because he wants to prove how brave he is?
Taking a leadership role in a movement of moral prescience is at once commendable, laudable but also dangerous, onerous. I really appreciate what Jacob is doing by putting his face to the Wikileaks organization. It is something that I personally would not want to do.
Wikileaks' stated goal is to "...be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations." In this, Jacob is succeeding. He is assuredly revealing this behavior through personal sacrifice. Part one is complete. Rejoice. Step two will be about knowledge. Now it is up to supporters of this cause to spread that information as far and as wide as possible. We've already seen the power of knowledge in this first quarter of 2011. A reality that wikileaks, twitter, the internet and the freedom of information has wrought.
Instead of spreading this message, Jacob seems to sprinkle a bit of guilt and self aggrandizing. Maybe I am speaking out of turn because the only interaction with Jacob I have is seen in here in this thread. However, let's take a step back from our Jacob- and self-imposed guilt and execute the next stage.
Edit: By all means we should empathize with Jacob and try to understand his sacrifice. We do not, however, all have to be martyrs in order to be Good(tm).
Upon 5th reread: are you actually accusing him of falsely accusing others of cowardice for self-aggrandizement because these 'others' (aka: us) are not spreading the word of governmental misbehavior fast enough?
I seriously can't see any other statement in your comment, and it seems like even the anti-Jacob sentiment I quote above died after the third sentence - I'm just trying to string a single thought through the whole comment. Please clarify.
Let me give an example: In my country, when a motorist witnesses an accident with injured people, he is required by law to provide first aid to the injured and call additional help to the scene. Needless to say, first aid education is required when applying for a drivers license here.
Some people will help if they see injured people on the side of the road and some people will not. I call the latter cowards and they are doing harm by not providing timely help or even call for professional help. People die because other people look away and ignore them.
Now, I think what ioerror is doing is brave, and everybody not doing the same or more is a coward (including me, I'd like to do more, yet all I can do is trying to make information available to as many people as possible). He does not look away.
Bradley Manning did not look away. He is the one who is the bravest man in this equation. He knew what he did would have consequences, yet looking away while innocent people get mown down video-game stile needs a special kind of ignorance and evil to be able to ignore or even call it OK.
The US government is able to do that at the moment including large parts of the population. Cowards, all of them.
I don't think they are cowards, though I do think that Appelbaum's public defeatism with regards to his refusal to sue the DHS is going to discourage a lot of people who would have also sued the DHS over similar treatment (Appelbaum is not alone, though he wants you to think he is) from doing so. Appelbaum earns triple the American average and can't get a lawyer. People who earn less than him (the overwhelming majority of Americans) are going to look at this, think to themselves: "This guy has more money than I do, yet even he can't get a lawyer to sue the DHS", and give up before they've even started.
Hammerdr, I couldn't agree with you more. Willfull masochism is not bravery, or some activist good guy bagde of achievement. It's sad that our society mistakes the one with the other.
Appelbaum, I will be even more blunt than the previous commenter and say that I think you are wallowing in your Jesus complex. If you were serious about all this you would have already sued the DHS the first time you were harassed. You've been held up and hassled, how many times already? I've already lost count. You would have called up Jesse Ventura's lawyer and asked him to represent you as well. You would have contacted Alex Jones from Infowars, who specializes in reporting on DHS harassment, and gotten on his show. Instead, you keep coming back for more abuse like a masochist. You're 100% Jesus to me, and I don't mean that in a flattering way. Stop taking it, stop being a politically correct victim, get a lawyer and fight back. And stop calling people who question your ineffectual and pointless public masochism "trolls", "cowards" and "stalkers".
For example, if I filed formal complaints or suit against CBP, would you support my actions? If so, why do you not support the actions that you have seen so far? If not, why are you here? Just to tell me that there is a single way to respond and that I'm wrong?
Do you really believe that I should simply be silent about the specific harassment that I receive?
There is more than one way to respond and I'm taking all of my options seriously. Your presumption of knowledge about my actions is of course incorrect and your arrogance is showing.
You made a HN account just to throw personal attacks at Jacob and think it's unfair to be called a troll or a stalker?
That's exactly what you are.
An open letter to President Obama on retaliation against whistleblowers.
Don't get me wrong, I love the principles your country was founded upon, but somehow you turned into testicle grabbing sociopaths.
Did you know the law or precedent being cited that allows customs to seize computers, cell phones, etc can be circumvented by just fed-ex'ing the device across the border?
Now tell me, if I know this than why cannot a suspect of illegal activities such as a Mobster, credit card phisher, etc do it? They already do it folks..
EDIT: I used to work with a guy who had $300 worth of Made-to-measure shirts from the UK seized by customs. If they can do that, I'm sure they can find a regulation that lets them seize a laptop.
I'm seriously surprised the customs agents keep getting away with that. I'd like to think any Australian customs agent responsible for those sorts of tricks would very quickly be without a job and paying for his own defense lawyers... (And yeah, I'd probably be sadly disappointed in my own countries response to customs abuse of power too...)
Another difference is that if your fedexed laptop gets opened and a hardware keylogger or rootkit inserted, you don't have any indication that anything untoward happened.
That is to say -- if the intent is to sneak some data into the country, it seems obvious that it should not be available in plaintext on a physical device. With that in mind, is there ever a legitimate reason to seize all electronics, up to and including gaming consoles, from a security researcher (warrant had to do with MySpace, not anything console related)?
Sure! A court would never convict the guy of anything, but Someone still thinks the guy should be punished. "Hi, we stole all your possessions again!" can be a good way to persuade people to interest themselves in a different field.
(I have to think this is intentional. If the government didn't want seizures to be punitive, then there would be a law that every device has to be paid for or returned within 10 days. But this is like the bill of rights for the government; a convenient way of circumventing "oppressive" laws when necessary.
Oh. I made myself sad...)
Hey, I can dream.
Downside, you were detained for sixteen hours without counsel... But hey, free upgrade to the latest Macbook refresh!
Here's an idea:
Take your primary hard drive out of your machine when crossing borders and put some vanilla install of whateveer on the machine. Fedex the primary drive to your destination or keep all your shit in the cloud.
Some years ago I did a design spec for what is now the atrix -- I wrote a paper and tried to get some google eng contacts to work with me on the idea that all machiens are jsut a KVM for your data - and that our primary data device would be both our phones and datasets in the cloud...
Sadly, I couldnt convince them this was true then - but i is clear now.
So it would be great to have a /home/ on your mobile that you can sync to your machine when they are close. If the machine dissapears, no big deal.
Here is how I would model that today:
You carry three devices - laptop, mobile and a USB stick and cloud storage.
Under normal operating circumstance, you work on your laptop as you would any other time.
The mobile has some 32GB of storage -- this is a clean install backup of all your installed apps.
The USB has a BASE install of your OS and whatever apps you can fit -- in a live USB install.
All your personal data is in the cloud, such that if you lose any of the three devices - none of your data goes with it.
Swap the HDD of the laptop when travelling to a clean install drive with no data - do not sync till you get to the destination.
Should you lose your laptop, you can use the USB to run a live session on any machine you can boot to it from.
I have a possible solution. I'll publish a paper on the topic in the near future for the benefit of everyone that has to deal with this kind of nonsense.
Why wouldn't having all your critical data online work. The idea being that you wouldn't access/sync any of it until you reached your destination and while you were traveling you only had a base install of the OS of choice?
Further, I can see that if you were intending to malicious activities that this would be illegal -- but is there some other laws that would preclude one from using this model for 'user session portability'?
It would be interesting to hear inside stories about what kind of conversations are going on on how to best handle Wikileaks. Perhaps via Wikileaks itself?
Also, I'm very grateful that people like ioerror exists. Stay strong and best of luck.
You're providing material support to a terrorist organization! (presuming some number of harassed people are terrorized by the harassment.)
What are you doing to compensate for this material support? Are you going to stop it, withdraw your support? Or are you going to expend energy to compensate for the aiding these oppressors?
This is a rhetorical question. I've my own answer, and I hope you have yours.
Still, what can I do? I'm disabled, and dependent on the government for survival. The only way I'm going to be able to get out of this country is by dying.
Its a great docu about wikileaks.
A programmer, who just-so-happens to be a founder of noisebridge, is being harassed by the federal government for participating in an online newspaper.
He's effectively being harassed for participating in the types of things that programmers participate in. Since this is hacker news, most of the people here are programmers, meaning most of the people here are interested in it, meaning that it's appropriate.
tl;dr: programmers tend to be interested in news about programmers and how their activities as programmers can effect them.
A parallel might be a musician being harassed by their government for writing anti-war songs, and a story about it being covered on a music website.
PS. I don't buy the argument about publishing any news article related to programmers, especially if it is not related to the field of programming. For instance, if a programmer runs a meth lab and gets in trouble, is it necessarily hacker news material?
The scattershot releases show that the goal is to hurt the US, not to affect change. There was real legitimate news in the releases so far- hidden in mounds of classified information that had no news value beyond exposing sources, risking lives, and slinging mud at the State Department.
There's HUGE value in an organization like Wikileaks, as shown in Tunisia.
Wikileaks itself, though, has shown that it is blatantly anti-American, risking the lives of our allies and sources. I really, really hope that one of the splinter groups takes off, with a bit more respect for the human cost of these kind of releases.
Well, they aren't operating with the intent to cause terror in enemy civilians. Further, an enemy combatant is usually considered to be someone armed on the field of combat. I believe there is a very technical legal definition of an enemy combatant.
They - Wikileaks - are pursuing anti-US goals, however. That is not illegal. It should be expected, however, that the US will retaliate in various fashions, because the interests of the US dictate that anti-US interests be diminished.
I am not certain in the least of the facts of Jacob Appelbaum's case.
Certainly, if he was definitively operating against the US government in a terrorist fashion, he would deny it. But if he was an honest man, he would also deny that he was operating against the US government.
After spending an amount of my time in the last few months reading about the USSR's beginnings and the fall of the Tsar, I can assure him that he is living in a very nice country where dissidents don't simply get shot out without a trial. Being stuck in a holding cell is quite gentle comparatively. Which does not make it perfectly upright either, nontheless.
There is a higher problem here. The conventions of warfare since 1812 or so describe nation-states at war with each other, including how to deal with prisoners and manage trials. However, today we do not have significant nation-state actors in active war with each other, we have un-uniformed militias operating against nation-states. I do not know of any serious attempt in international circles to define the non-nation-state actors in legal categories. This has led to the Guantanemo Bay problem. A terrorist is neither a civilian nor a military officer, but current law - to the best of my knowledge - does not handle that.
Nor does current law - to the best of my knowledge - handle the 'info-war' legal categories well. What are the legal details on publishing sensitive or classified material in time of peace, if you are not constrained to silence by your duties? I don't know that that's ever been seriously treated in the US.
So how should the laws of a country handle someone who appears to be acting as the ambassador for an anti-country interest? That's the real question.
 At least in the narrow eyes of the law, uniforms matter, according to a former US Army officer I know.
Treason? Applies to citizens acting against their own sovereign nation. I don't know what you call it from a non-citizen. Perhaps sedition?
Treason also has a fairly narrow meaning, "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".
I don't believe Wikileaks' actions falls under sedition or treason. Certainly I've never heard them of them advocating insurrections or US government overthrow.
What they did do is publish large amounts of data classified by the US.
Legally, that should be a crime, I believe. I'm not sure it is. From my brief (and IANAL) reading on the question, it's never been adequately addressed, and it brings up massive First Amendment issues.
There is also the question of Assange, who is not a US citizen, and therefore not per se subject to US law, and then Applebaum, who is a US citizen, and therefore unquestionably subject to US law. Even under harsher strictures is Manning (and other soldiers), who are under military US law, which is not like civilian law.
The laws have to deal with the "electronic frontier". They must, or we will continually mire ourselves in grey areas of general suspiciousness.
That's not how the justice system works.
"Wikileaks itself, though, has shown that it is blatantly anti-American"
So fucking what?
In the same way, when someone participates in an organization that's going out of its way to acquire and distribute classified stuff, regardless of news value, but rather simply because it's there, I'd hope that our government would make life hard on them.
Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism- it's engaging in infowar against America. That's not legally defined yet, and the legal ramifications have not been decided yet- but I hope that it is defined, and there are severe legal ramifications for it.
That's what Wikileaks is trying to make happen: they're making those people who "operate against society" accountable to that society, secondarily so that those people can get screwed, but primarily to protect society from them. Here's a partial list of people "operating against society" who have gotten screwed so far by Wikileaks: Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Gamal Mubarak, Omar Suleiman, US troops that murdered civilians in Iraq, Magnus Gudmundsson, Ágúst and Lýður Guðmundsson, Hreidar Mar Sigurdsson, the US diplomats promoting ACTA, and most recently Robert Tchenguiz.
People "operating against society" who still may get screwed by Wikileaks include Björgólfur Guðmundsson, various tax evaders protected by Julius Baer, and some Bank of America executives.
This is not "infowar against America". War involves killing people and creating confusion. This is the opposite of war: exposing corruption and conspiracy, creating accountability, protecting the public.
So what you're saying is that you're a fuckwad who's just making shit up?
"Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism"
In Your Opinion. There is a reason they haven't brought the law down on them, and have to resort to Mafia like tactics.
Perhaps it is a sign that this avenue of discussion is finally maturing enough to understand the difference between a comment that merely uses taboo words, and a comment that actually contains uncivil content.
I would agree that Wikileaks have recently had much material relating to the US leaked to it, and has then published it.
However, I think this ignores their publications in relation to Kenya, Peru, various banks, Scientology, Iran, and so on. They publish what they get.
So, while it could be argued that Wikileaks uses intimidation or coercion, it most certainly can not be argued that Wikileaks uses nor threatens violence. This means that they cannot be definition be a terrorist organization.
What evidence is there that Wikileaks is anti-American? They post leaks from every- and anywhere, but they got a HUGE leak that happened to be from the U.S. Of course they're going to concentrate on it! Wikileaks is against opaque government, and the only way it can be called "anti-American" is to recognize that the U.S. government is anything but transparent. This view encompasses many other governments, though, so calling them "anti-American" is disingenuous.
Terrorism involves violence or, at least, the threat of violence.