More on Julian Assange and Wikileaks: The Sarah Palin View...

Julian Assange has certainly found more fame than he may have craved in developing Wikileaks into a whistleblower of world renown. The recent release of some 250,000 US diplomatic cables has intensified the hunt for Assange and the "need" to bring him to justice. Assange has some serious legal problems aside from the alleged rape and sexual molestation of which he stands accused of committing in Sweden. There are quite a number of states looking to prosecute him for his part in the publication of the "illegally" obtained diplomatic cables.

Australia is clearly looking to build a case against Assange. However, it would seem that the US is also exploring what options it has in making the case and prosecuting Assange in the US. This has obviously brought the ranting and railing conservative right out. Among them is the former Vice-Presidential candidate from the Grand Old Party (GOP), Sarah Palin. The fact that some might consider her a legitimate contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 is scary enough, but the latest outburst is indicative as to what lengths this woman will go to try and capitalise on conservative popular opinion. It is also indicative of the fact that she really does not understand the difference between Osama bin Laden and Julian Assange. It is pretty clear that she obviously missed the advocacy class on why not to use exaggeration.

Sarah Palin in her infinite wisdom has taken to Facebook to condemn Assange for his role in releasing to the world some 250,000 confidential and secret diplomatic cables. Fair enough! There are good arguments to be made that it was irresponsible for Assange to publish via Wikileaks. However, Palin was not satisfied stopping there. In order to really ratchet-up the rhetoric she decided to add that Assnage should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden.

Well, after ten years of searching the US has not found or been able to confirm that it has killed bin Laden. So, it would seem that Assange really need not fear the US if it was to mount a similar "search and destroy" campaign that has been mounted for bin Laden. Although, on a more serious note, it would appear that all those who need to know where Assange is, in fact know where he is. It would also appear that an arrest is not that far away once the arrest warrant(s) are in order, assuming Assange decides to surrender to authorities and not seek political asylum in a country favourable to that proposition, Switzerland perhaps.

To further reinforce her point she suggested that Assange is not a journalist in any shape or form and compared this lack of journalistic skill to the current editor of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine, Inspire. Further intensifying the rhetoric saw Assange labeled as anti-American and with blood on his hands.

In any event, this was a political point scoring opportunity that was more about Palin slamming the White House and President Obama by implying that they were complicit in Assange's Wikileaks work because they have not been serious in hunting him down or arresting him.

Yet, this generally fits into the overall rhetoric of US politics with recent claims seeking to force the US government to declare Wikileaks a terrorist organisation. A whistleblower as a terrorist organisation, what an interesting development. However, it is symptomatic of the way the world is post 9/11. Anything that annoys us or possible effects many as opposed to a few is almost immediately labeled a terrorist organisation. I wonder what the Tea Party might need to do to be labeled a terrorist organisation? What about the Republicans or the Democrats?

However, the US is looking to invoke the Espionage Act with a view to criminal prosecution. And, it is imperative in the US view that they do this one by the numbers, and make the case bullet-proof.

The case to shut down sites that release confidential documents needs to be assessed on a merits basis. The reality is that releasing secret or confidential information can always be criminalised, but at what cost?

The question that must be answered here was whether there was any value in the releasing of these particular diplomatic cables? Simply, does the public need to know outweigh the need to maintain confidentiality?

Ho hum...

Marriott Hotel -- Pakistan

Look at the size of that crater! It is not surprising that more than 200 have been injured in this terrorist attack. However, what is surprising is that there have only been about 60 deaths.

What I fail to understand is how this kind of violence wins the "hearts and minds" of the people you want to convince of the justness of your cause? It might scare them but it certainly does not convince them!

Bombings like this one do not discriminate, they kill anything in their path. I find it hard to fathom that there was a legitimate target at the Marriott Hotel to warrant this kind of indiscriminate attack.

No one has claimed responsibility yet. However, if this is ultimately claimed by the Taliban or al-Qaeda, then it would be worth getting a breakdown of the victim's religions. To see how many Muslims were killed, this would in turn emphasize my earlier point of winning the 'hearts and minds'.

Yet, for me the abhorrence of such actions are that the victims are the innocent. I find it amazing that anyone can justify the killing of innocents in the name of independence, let alone in the name of religion.

This was a planned and premeditated attack on innocent civilians.

For me this is just plain wrong on all fronts.

Death Penalty for al-Qaeda 'Terrorists'

The Military Tribunals to be held and Guantanamo Bay has seen the Prosecutors list six detainees that have now been charged and indicted with conspiracy, murder in violation of the laws of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property, terrorism, and material support for terrorism. Four were also charged with hijacking or hazarding an aircraft.

The six are:

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind;
• Walid bin Attash, who allegedly trained two hijackers;
• Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an alleged would-be hijacker but denied a visa to enter US;
• Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, alleged financier of the plot;
• Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who allegedly provided material support (money and clothes); and
• Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker

The US military has said that the hearings are to be held in a manner that will allow the defense to have access to and contest all of the evidence that the prosecution intends to adduce before the tribunal.

This would seem to be contrary to earlier statements and attempts in other similar cases where the US government has tried to claim among other things the necessity to keep some evidence secret as revealing its source will directly impact on national security. It seems unlikely that the prosecution would not be attempting the same methods to circumvent traditional rules of evidence and the rights to a fair trial in these cases as well.

The defendants have the right to appeal and this process would ultimately lead to the US Supreme Court. However, the issue that is most likely to be the subject of appeal is any confessions from the defendants that are admitted into evidence. By the US government's own admission they tortured Khalid Sheik Mohammed through the use of waterboarding (simulated drowning) and it is likely to be submitted by the defense that the US government permitted the use of 'enhanced' interrogation techniques against the others.

Enhanced interrogation techniques here must be understood to be treatment that borders on torture, or perhaps even falls within the gambit of torture, but under some suspect White House Counsel or US Justice Department memo that states that the President may authorize such treatment to be carried out.

The US government has backed away from these memos publicly but whether it has done so in practice is unclear. The US government will maintain that all the interrogation techniques that the used at the time were legal at that time and were therefore valid. In essence, even if these techniques have since been declared illegal, invalid, or have become of quesionable legality, it does not matter because at the time they were legal under US law.

My early posts clearly indicate that I am not for the death penalty. I am for justice! Terrorists need to be punished and they should rot in jail for the rest of their natural lives. But justice must not only be seen to be done but must be done. Therefore, it is crucial that the process be credible, be justifiable, and be legal! Without this any conviction would be a hollow one and the imposition of the death penalty unjustifiable.

I accept international law allows for the death penalty to be imposed in death penalty states, but the process must always be above reproach. If the State is going to sanction the killing of human beings then the process must evidence that all opportunites were afforded to the defense to make and state their case.