Wikileaks a Terrorist Organization? Time for Cooler heads to Prevail.

There's a new trend in town.  Everyone from the National Review Online to Sarah Palin and GOP congressman Peter King is screaming for Julian Assange's head, insisting that Wikileaks is a "terrorist organization." Palin is even claiming that Assange "has blood on his hands."

Is anyone even asking if this is true?  With the last round of Wikileaks disclosures, the Pentagon found absolutely no evidence that anyone's lives were ever endangered.  This hasn't stopped Sarah Palin from insisting that Assange should be pursued as though he was an Al Qaeda operative - indicating that he should be assassinated. 

It's time for cooler heads to prevail.  What we need to do is look at the nature of each classified leak. Was anyone put in danger? If so, that's a crime and should be prosecuted, the way I wish Rove was prosecuted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity. Then again, this may be another example of Wikileaks publishing a bunch of embarrassing but otherwise harmless and relatively useless information.

For one thing, it defies belief that:

1. Assange got information that actual spies were unable to get, even after they've hacked into our largest computers and sites.
2. That Assange is only able to get "classified" information from readily accessible people and places, whereas more secretive governments (such as China) have yet to fall prey to Wikileaks disclosures.   This indicates to me that the information might not have been all that secret, which brings me to point #3.
3. That the U.S. referred to material as "classified" when 3 million people had access to it. If 3 million people had access to anything about me, that information would hardly be top secret.
4. That Assange has any real clue if the information is accurate, let alone useful. There is no real way to tell if his sources are who they claimed to be or if they could back what they were saying.  This could allow Assange to be used by any government which wants to plant false information - assuming it hasn't already happened.
5. That people are treating what is often little more than gossip as something akin to a terrorist act. NO ONE is surprised that certain heads of state dislike other heads of state and might want to cause embarrassment.  Tabloid allegations about the Duke of York are not a threat to national security.  Geez.
6. That leaking classified information is in and of itself a terrorist act. By this definition, Deep Throat was the granddaddy of all terrorists.
7. That the media can become cozy with Wikileaks while getting absolute immunity, even cutting bargains to see who among them can publish the leaks.
8. That those who insist they are opposed to big government would therefore detest those acts which make government more transparent.

On a final note for Sarah Palin and other wingnuts:  I feel a little embarrassed having to explain this to you but "treason" is a crime committed against one's own country.  Julian Assange is not an American and Wikileaks is not an American organization.  Therefore, he cannot be accused of treason.  It's also pretty silly to assume an American court order would have stopped either him or his information from appearing in print or on the web in a multitude of different countries.

I know, reality isn't always good political spin.

In the meantime, you could do us all a favor and try to see North Korea from your house. They are the nuclear power who are about to start a war and pose much more of an immediate threat than the man leaking catty information about heads of state.