Charles Krauthammer attempts in his newest column to rush to the head of the mob howling for Julian Assange's blood. He's in such a state that he can't decide how to persecute him, or for what. He suggests the Espionage Act of 1917 in one paragraph, a sabotage charge in another. Sabotage? Well, "Franklin Roosevelt had German saboteurs tried by military tribunal and shot," Krauthammer (no pun intended) notes while, "Assange has done far more damage to the U.S. than all six of those saboteurs combined." This is almost certainly true for the simple reason that the Germans accomplished nothing that I know of, but the difference between nothing and whatever Wikileaks has done is hard to characterize as "far more." But Krauthammer helpfully suggests that "Putting U.S. secrets on the Internet ... requires a reconceptualization of sabotage and espionage -- and the laws to punish and prevent them." Perhaps he's right, but trying Assange by reconceptualized standards would probably be what jurists call ex post facto law, which is a latinate way of saying it'd be wrong.
As if realizing this, Krauthammer suggests more pragmatically that Assange be subjected to terror. "Want to prevent this from happening again?" he asks, "Let the world see a man who can't sleep on consecutive nights...I'm not advocating that we bring out of retirement the KGB proxy who, on a London street, killed a Bulgarian dissident with a poisoned umbrella tip [Then why bring him up?]. But it would be nice if people like Assange were made to worry every time they go out in the rain."
Yeah, nice thoughts, scumbag. Assange doesn't have to bother with Krauthammer; the columnist does a fine job humiliating himself this week.