WikiLeaks creating predictable convolution

In my first installment regarding WikiLeaks, I did exactly what I suggested against: give in to bad rhetoric.

I was called-out – and rightfully so – on the passage stating, "I agree that some action deserves to be taken against [Julian] Assange," WikiLeaks founder. I allowed myself to give-in to the "kill the messenger" rhetoric that has been gaining ever greater circulation in recent weeks.

Even after local columnist Thomas J. Lucente, Jr., refuted that thought with a defense of the First Amendment, I insisted on countering on the grounds of protecting our national security. And, I did it blindly.

I'll admit that the temptation to resort to a useless argument of semantics and context presented itself: "'action… to be taken' doesn’t necessarily mean legal or covert; blah blah blah!"

Now, to engage in minutiae as I often customarily do, my mentioning of potential repercussions for Assange were really meant to be little more than a peripheral lead-in toward my larger point about the ineffectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security.

However, even a nondescript comment in passing such as that illustrates how easy it is to let old habits creep back in. If we believe in the Constitution, then it must apply at all times, not just when it suits our sensibilities.

And, to some greater or smaller extent, that may be part of the intent behind the entire WikiLeaks controversy. A lot of American and international far-left groups are steadily coming to Assange's defense. The Progressive Left – especially domestically – are notorious for their lack of genuine enthusiasm for constitutional rights.

Generating a crisis such as this at a time when White House staffers in the Federal Communication Commission are angling toward a bypass of both the Judicial and Legislative branches in order to establish so-called Net Neutrality regulations creates a perfect atmosphere to whip-up the general public into an angry storm of complicity.

Arguing for government action against Assange falls right in line with that mindset.

While his journalistic claims in this endeavor are dubious at best, in all fairness the same could be said for my crappy little Website.

If there is anyone who could legitimately face criminal consequences, it is Pfc. Bradley Manning, who violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by improperly downloading the information in the first place and then passing it along to unauthorized recipients.

Even then, as I stated in my previous essay, too much regarding Manning does not add-up for me to believe he truly acted alone or possibly is little more than a patsy for someone else.

In the meantime, what the United States ought to do with Assange is what they should have done when faced with possible entry into World War I: declare that Assange – like that war nearly 100 years ago – is Europe's problem; let them deal with him.

If he is convicted on the criminal sexual conduct charges filed in Sweden, the best choice is to wash our hands on his situation and then brush him aside and into the circular file of history.

My thoughts on capital punishment

(The following blog was originally posted in my Notes of my Facebook profile on Sunday, October 4, 2009.)

This note is in response to a recent column (also available via Facebook) by Lima columnist Thomas J. Lucente, Jr.

In his column, he lays out his case for ending the death penalty. Lucente makes valid points about the risk of executing innocent people. I have no doubt it has happened many times in America's past and I pray it never happens again.

He also points to the failed execution attempt last month of Romell Broom, whose lack of viable veins for insertion of intravenous needles led to multiple, unsuccessful poke attempts in the effort to carry his sentence of death by lethal injection. The argument there centers on the potential cruelty involved with carrying out executions.

Like Lucente, my perspective on the death penalty has been evolving as well over the years. But, I cannot support its complete abolition.

I do not advocate or believe in execution for the sake of justice. To say a criminal "deserves to die" in essence makes those who pass judgment over him or her no different than the convicts themselves: wasn't that allegedly their reasoning when ending another human life?

But, I do believe there are individuals out there who are truly too dangerous to be allowed to continue living. An example of that is William Earl Lynd, who was executed in Georgia in May '08. In the example of Lynd, I'm referring to individuals whose extreme lack of regard for human life combined with the personal precedent of murder (like Lynd, who murdered a second woman in Ohio as easily as he had his girfriend) demonstrate they will kill again.

I believe these individuals are a danger not only to society in terms of the threat of escape, but also an equal danger to those corrections officers who would be tasked with watching them and the other inmates with whom they are incarcerated.

On that point, I say why should someone who has been convicted of a lesser crime (lesser than first-degree murder, let me be clear) be forced to endure the same risks by having to serve their sentences while in the same prison population holding such individuals as Lynd?

I do agree that States which retain the death penalty too freely hand down such sentences. There are cases, though, when capital punishment truly is a matter of self defense for society.