The writer of the letter to the editor, “Writer Reflects on Issue Surrounding WikiLeaks,” published in the News Transcript on Dec. 29, reflects a onesided position regarding WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. I respect the writer’s comments, but suggest the correct State Department definition of terrorism is as stated, but should be complete in its quote.
“Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, [usually intended to influence an audience.]”
There are actually a range of definitions for “terrorism,” e.g., Department of Defense, FBI, State Department.
But to the point: to state that “a government official … is willing to incite murder for a constitutionally protected activity” is really quite a stretch.
There are exceptions to the First Amendment. Falsely shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, i.e., shouting “fire!” when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
To view my complete take on Assange and Pfc. Bradley Manning, I recommend www.seniormediacommentaries.com, which incorporates an article “Espionage vs. Transparency,” e.g., Espionage: The practice of gathering, transmitting, or losing through gross negligence information relating to the defense of the United States with the intent that, or with reason to believe that, the information will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation.” (Merriam- Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996)
Where in the transfer of the documents to Pfc. Manning is the origination point? Someone leaked that material. They of course are both innocent until proven guilty.
Jerry Rubinsky
Marlboro