Terrorism and Wikileaks: Know The Difference

Upon the release of 251, 287 United States Embassy cables, congressman Peter King has requested Wikileaks to be place upon the terrorist list.  He stated that the organisation, "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".

The problem is that he has not defined in legal or even layman's terms exactly how leaking diplomatic cables is a terrorist act.  Whilst terrorism is not officially defined by United Nations, in "Measures to eliminate terrorism", terrorism is defined as:

"criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them"

First, dependent upon which jurisdiction defines leaking United States diplomatic cables as a criminal act is the beginning of the problem.  A little over a month after 9/11, United States introduced the Patriot Act to as a measure to deter acts of terrorism in America and around the world.  United States have pumped billions of dollars into intelligence that the Washington Post reports as, "out of control".  Whilst the patriot act combined with a heavy intelligence community, might be successful within United States at defining Assange as a criminal, much is still yet to be questioned about the agents that broke their own laws to obtain monopolize the UN.  Sadly, the suggestion that Julian Assange is a terrorist or Wikileaks is a terrorist organisation is simply a diversion from the real crimes committed.

Second,  provoking a state of terror must be towards the general public, not the United States government.  If   revealing corruption by governments causes wide spread panic, it is more likely to stem from the governments responses or tightening up of laws surrounding freedom of speech.  Its as relevant as someone shooting their parents and then gaining sympathy for being an orphan.

Third, Wikileaks has published such a vast range of documents that have revealed many aspects that have supported both ends of the political spectrum.  Whilst there is a great deal of information exposing United States, all information is presented in a raw format even devoid of personal opinion to accompany the release.
It is certainly a stretch to suggest there is political motivation in raw releases.

If United States did decide to consider Wikileaks a terrorist organisation, they risk diluting the meaning for concern when there are real and far more dangerous threats to the population.  Other media organisations may avoid publishing even the slightest criticism against governments, creating another chilling effect.  Without that, governments cannot properly evolve from their mistakes which in most cases leads to the eventual fraying of foundation.   Any government that begins to see general civilians as threats, create them and thus losing the wide support that they once had, lose the very power that they were trying to protect.  If United States is to take any action surrounding the leaks, it is to identify the mistakes and learn from them.  Its more about not acting badly in the first place than trying to cover it up.