The Hon. Dr. Ron Paul Speaks to Julian Assange About the CIA & Pompeo

[Y_Participant 4591]

The Hon. Dr. Ron Paul Speaks to Julian Assange About the CIA and Mike Pompeo

Last month, Donald’s Trump choice to head the CIA, Mike Pompeo, dedicated much of his first speech toward a hysterical and disturbing rant against Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange

Although the entire episode was an absurd and embarrassing spectacle, what really caught people off guard was Pompeo’s assertion that Assange cannot claim a First Amendment defence within the U.S. legal system because he is not an American citizen.

Although the fact that the head of the CIA would harbour such an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution isn’t surprising, it’s alarming nonetheless. The following excellent interview addresses this claim and expounds on many other important topics.

The real issue here is not about Julian Assange. The real issue is the US Constitution – which is now under threat. Either the Constitution applies or it does not – there are no half measures that cannot be circumvented once the legal means are available.

The second point is whether the CIA and other US government departments are subject to the Constitution and when they are not. This is also a condition that will have to be ruled on as part of the legal framework.

This is a half-hour video but a necessary one

Streamed live on Apr 27, 2017

Synopsis

Wikileaks Founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange joins the Liberty Report to discuss the latest push by the Trump Administration to bring charges against him and his organization for publishing US Government documents. How will they get around the First Amendment and the Espionage Act?

The US government and the mainstream media — some of which gladly publish Wikileaks documents — are pushing to demonize Assange in the court of public opinion. Wikileaks is registered as a 501(c)3 organization in the US. Find out more about the organization and how you can help: https://wikileaks.org/

Citations
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/05/01/video-of-the-day-ron-paul-speaks-to-julian-assange/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwkrtpXp-wg

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Good post and the from a legal point of view the US Constitution does not apply to non-citizens unless and until the US government asserts its authority over someone THEN it does apply. This was the same quandary Bush II faced with Gitmo. Either the prisoners there are criminals and then subject to the protections of the US Constitution OR they are prisoners of war in which case the Geneva protocols apply yet Bush tried to argue that they were neither and both.

“The first amendment of the constitution, which ensures citizens the freedom of speech, expression, the freedom of religion and from religion, the freedom to protest, etc…, seems so basic and fundamental, that its absoluteness is often not questioned. However, it is clear, that the modern ideal of the First Amendment, one which is broad, progressive and encompasses almost any manner of expression, is a new phenomenon.

With the onset of WWI and the rise of the United States as a global power, the extent to entails protected speech was tested. When speech seemingly runs counter to the needs and actions of a government, said speech is deemed non-protected and in violation of sedition, libel and obscene. In the case of anti-war sentiment during WWI, which overtly opposed government policies, the United States government silenced and imprisoned citizens, many of whom were socialist and anarchist, political ideologies which law makers felt challenged the foundations of the republic.

Congressional Authorized Censorship

The Espionage Act of 1917, authorized the state to punish all individuals who engaged in expression which supposedly undermined the United States economic and political policies. The law prohibited any individual form undermining the war effort in any way, particularly in regards to protesting conscription and also the war itself. Conviction under the Espionage Act carried with it a possible 20years prison sentence. Publicans and individuals who were convicted of such unprotected speech were censored and subject to lengthy prison sentences and large fines.

WWI and the Limitationson Speech

Howard Zinn states that “War is the Health of the State”, a statement which illustrates the extent to which law makers viewed anti-war socialists and anarchists as threatening the health of the United States. When the United States declared war in 1917, the government attempted to stifle and censor any and all critical opposition. As seen in this editorial cartoon, the United States needed patriotic, unquestioning soldiers to engae in its questionable war. In doing so, the United States congress passed legislation which censored anti war activist, socialists, anarchist, communists and any political ideology that ran counter to the interests of the current government. In particular, the socialist workers organization, the Industrial Workers of the World, who engaged in leftist political activism, were raided, as seen in this photograph, by the the United States Government, and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, under the Espionage Act of 1917. Although the IWW was seemingly acting within the bounds of the First Amendment, the Espionage Act of 1917 allowed the government to interpret the First Amendment for purposes of its own self interest.

Eugene V. Debs

As a founder of the IWW, a powerful labor leader, and also the countries most out spoken and well known socialist and radicals, Debs was a clear target for censorship under the Espionage Act. After criticisizing Americas involvement in WWI, advocating principles of non violence and pacificism, the government viewed Debs as a clear threat to the stability of the United State’s free market and war effort. In violation of the Espionage Act and Sedition Act, the United States government sentenced Deb to ten years in prison for seditious expression made during a public speech. In Debs response to his sentencing, the former presidential candidate remained committed to his socialist principles and his rights of expression and protest.

A Clear and Present Danger

With the passage of the Espionage and Sedition act in 1917, the United States begin to prosecute a number radicals. Charles Schenck, a socialist, distributed fliers which protested the conscription of citizens and also the United State’s involvement in WWI. Using the Espionage Act, the government charged Schenk with espionage and sedition, with the intent of interfering with the conscription of soldiers. The case was eventually brought to the Supreme Court, which ruled against Schenk

In his ruling opinion, Supreme Court Justice Holmes stated that speech which presents a clear and present danger to society and the government is not constitutionally protected. This ruling set a precedent for the prosecution of radical thought for many decades.

Conclusion

Although the United States Government was certainly acting on behalf of its self interest, and with the intention fo the coutnry at large, the prosecution of individuals under the Espionage Act is questionable. Students should look at the primary sources provided, and determine to what extent First Amendment rights should be limited. In doing so, one should consider what constitutes legally protected speech and whether potentially dangerous speech is unprotected.”

So the Espionage Act is a formal limitation on the 1st Amendment BUT note the country needs to be in a state of war. I think Assange’s best defense is that there is no official declaration of war sooooo sorry the Act does not apply.

[Anonymous 14]

PistolPete wrote:

So the Espionage Act is a formal limitation on the 1st Amendment BUT note the country needs to be in a state of war. I think Assange’s best defense is that there is no official declaration of war sooooo sorry the Act does not apply.

Ha, exactly. Also, if the wars and actions of war are to be declared or undertaken, they need to be done so CONSTITUTIONALY via Congressional approval, because what we have without this is a ROGUE STATE. The current paradigm the U.S. government presents us with is akin to having it’s cake and wanting to eat it too in regards to their hypocrisy in their pursuit to silence people.

I have read Zinn as well, and agree his statement that “War is health to the State” as certainly this is where we stand now in the U.S. having easily the largest war machine ever. It’s a monster that will one day eat it’s own tail, not to mention p~~~ everyone around the globe off and continue to be responsible for a good deal of blowback that it clearly creates at a seemingly exponential rate. Also, I feel that the allowing of refugees into Western countries is all a part of the plan. They know more terrorism will rise, and therefore give them more reason to “put the fire out”. It’s good for business ya know? Problem is, they are pouring fire on fire at this point.

[Y_Participant 4591]

PistolPete wrote:

Although the United States Government was certainly acting on behalf of its self interest, and with the intention fo the coutnry at large, the prosecution of individuals under the Espionage Act is questionable. Students should look at the primary sources provided, and determine to what extent First Amendment rights should be limited. In doing so, one should consider what constitutes legally protected speech and whether potentially dangerous speech is unprotected.”

Brilliant follow-up as usual. Thank you.

[Y_Participant 4591]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha, exactly. Also, if the wars and actions of war are to be declared or undertaken, they need to be done so CONSTITUTIONALY via Congressional approval, because what we have without this is a ROGUE STATE. The current paradigm the U.S. government presents us with is akin to having it’s cake and wanting to eat it too in regards to their hypocrisy in their pursuit to silence people.

Good point.

I also view this video and its content as the ‘coming out’ of the security services now they have been unmasked by a lot of the social media. They have in action stated there is no need to adhere by the US Constitution and if necessary will find a way around it. This would apply to their counterparts in other countries by the way – I can only surmise how this is done.

This is worrying in that very soon no one – not even Americans will be safe. The push to enact some form of Security Act that overrides the constitution seems to be in the making. They may need another war for that. Korea then makes sense as a flashpoint to enact such draconian laws.

[IRuleMeParticipant]

Way for the Trump administration to stab Assange in the back after he helped get Trump elected. The amount of Clinton wikileaks that came out during the election really helped Trump. Don’t see how this is a good move for Trump.

[Author]

Posts