I've never heard quite so much chatter, if you can call it that, about "execution" before WikiLeaks.
The real problem here is the helpless that it exposes the United States, the superpower, all its information is out there essentially with everybody enjoying impunity. I think what she [Hillary Clinton] should have said is nothing about the leaks themselves, simply say we're going to ask the military justice and the Justice Department to try to prosecute the alleged leaker, the alleged guy who stole this on treason, not just on mishandling – but on treason and to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law, up to and including execution if that is warranted.
I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty."
"It's time to up the charges. Let's charge him and try him for treason. If he's found guilty, he should be executed."
Along similar lines, Sarah Palin has called for Julian Assange to be pursued with same urgency as Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, while Tom Flanagan, former chief of staff to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, called for Assange to be "assassinated" -- although Flanagan later withdrew the comment.
Question: Volume aside, how different are this week's WikiLeaks from, say, the 2009 story Bob Woodward published in the Washington Post based on a leaked copy of Gen. McChrystal's 66-page Afghanistan assessment -- plus the publication online of the 66-page assessment itself? And did anyone call for anyone's execution, assassination or designation as a terrorist group?