We know that conservatives are extremists for order, but why have so many liberals lost their minds and joined the frenzy over Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? As the secrets of power are unmasked, there is a growing bipartisan demand that Julian Assange must die.
Once-liberal Democrat Bob Beckel said on FOX, “there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son-of-a-bitch.” Center-liberal legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN that Assange is “absurd", "ridiculous", "delusional", and "well beyond sympathy of anyone”.The Washington Times called for treating him as an "enemy combatant"; Rep. Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee who wants himprosecuted as a terrorist; and of course, Sarah Palin wants Assange "pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders", or a wolf in Alaska.
This is a lynch-mob moment, when the bloodlust runs over. We have this mad overreaction many times since the witch-burnings and Jim Crow, including the Palmer Raids of the 1920s, the McCarthy purges of the 1950s, the Nixon-era conspiracy trials, the Watergate break-ins, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11.
Most Americans now know that those frenzied periods of scapegoating did nothing for our security, which instead damaged our democracy and left in their wake a secretive National Security State.
There is wisdom in expecting calmer heads to prevail in the WikiLeaks matter, but what can be done when the calmer heads are going nuts or hiding in silence?
Do the frothing pundits remember that we have a legal system in which the accused is entitled to due process, legal representation and the right to a defense? The first obligation of our threatened elected officials, bureaucrats and pundits is to calm down.
No one has died as a result of the WikiLeaks disclosures. But the escalation by the prosecutors in this case could lead to an escalation, with more sensitive documents being released in a retaliatory spiral of this first cyber-war. Imprisoning the messenger will amplify his message and further threats of execution.
I can understand the reasonable questions that reasonable people have about this case. It is clearly illegal to release and distribute the 15,652 documents stamped as “secret.” Why should underground whistleblowers have the unlimited right to release those documents? There is a risk that some individuals might be harmed by the release. There is a concern that ordinary diplomatic business might be interrupted.
All fair, these concerns have to be weighed against two considerations, it seems to me. First, how important is the content of the documents? And how serious is the secrecy system in preventing our right to know more about the policies – especially wars – being carried out in our name? And finally, is there a reasonable alternative to letting the secrets mount, such as pursuing the “transparency” agenda, which the White House purports to support?
Let me weigh these questions with regard to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and the “Long War” scenario that has occupied my full attention these past nine years.
It will be remembered that the Iraq War was based on fabricated evidence by U.S. and British intelligence services, the Bush-Cheney White House, and even the New York Times through the deceptive reporting of Judith Miller. The leading television media invited top military officials to provide the nightly narrative of the war lest there be any doubts in the mesmerized audience. Secrecy and false narratives were crucial to the invasions, special operations, renditions, tortures, and mass detentions that plunged us into the quagmires where we now are stranded. The secret-keepers were incompetent to protect our national security, even when cables warned of an immanent attack by hijacked airliners.
The secrecy grew like a cancer on democracy. Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported in “Top Secret America” that there were 854,000 people with top-security clearances. That was the tip of the iceberg. The number of new secrets rose 75% between 1996 and 2009, to 183, 224; the number of documents using those secrets has exploded from 5.6 million in 1996 to 54.6 million last year. The secrecy cult appears uncontrollable: the Clinton executive order 12958 [1995] gave only twenty officials the power to stamp documents top-secret, but those twenty could delegate the power to 1,336 others, while a “derivative” procedure extended the power to three million more officials and contractors. [Time, Dec. 13, 2010]
The 1917 U.S. espionage statute requires that Assange received secret documents and willfully, with bad faith, intended to harm the United States by releasing “national defense information.” That’s a tough standard. Perhaps in order to close what U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder describes as “gaps in our laws”, the State Department on Saturday sent a letter demanding that Assange cease the releases, return all classified documents and destroy any records on WikiLeaks databases.
These are difficult legal hurdles for the Justice Department under the First Amendment, but, according to a source close to the defense with experience in such cases, it seems clear that the U.S. government will prosecute Assange with every tool at their disposal, perhaps even rendition.
"What President Obama needs is a photo of Assange in chains brought into a federal court," the source said.
This week the Assange defense team will appeal the London court’s decision to deny bail. If that fails, he will appear in court December 14 to face extradition to Sweden.
Assange has the right to appeal an extradition order to the European Court of Human Rights.
He has a very strong base of support in London where public anger over the fabrications that led to war still runs high. An extradition fight in London could carry on for weeks, providing an important platform for the defense. Or the UK government could take the risk of an accelerated emergency deportation process to send him to Stockholm, or even the U.S. in the most extreme scenario.
If Assange winds up in Stockholm, it could take several weeks to fight his way through a bizarre and complicated sexual harassment trial. Anything is possible there, from all charges being dropped, to the finding of a technical infraction, to jail time. Or Sweden could make an emergency finding to extradite him straight to the US, risking an adverse public reaction for serving as to a handmaiden of the Pentagon.
In the atmosphere of hysteria ahead, it is important for peace and justice advocates to remember and share what Americans owe to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
The secretive wars exposed by WikiLeaks will cost $159.3 billion in the coming fiscal year, and several trillion dollars since 2001. The American death toll in Afghanistan will reach 500 this year, or fifty per month, for a total of 1,423, and 9,583 wounded overall -- over half of the wounded during this year alone. The Iraq War has left 4,430 U.S. soldiers dead and 32,000 wounded as of today. The civilian casualties are ignored, but range in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis.
Is it possible that Julian Assange is the scapegoat for arrogant American officials who would rather point the fingers of blame than see the blood on their own hands? What else can explain their frenzy to see Assange dead?
It may be too late to prevent an escalation. The lynch-mob is rabid, terrorized by what they cannot control, completely out of balance, at their most dangerous. If they realize their darkest desires, they will make Assange a martyr – a “warrior for openness” – in the new age now beginning. A legion of hackers are fingering their Send buttons in response, and who can say what flood they may release?
The trial of Julian Assange is becoming a trial of secrecy itself. Wherever the line is drawn, secrecy has become the mask of power, and without new rules, the revolt of the hackers will continue.
WikiLeaks Did Nothing Illegal
By Lane, David at Dec 16, 2010 19:01 PM
You wrote that "[i]t is clearly illegal to release and distribute the 15,652 documents stamped as 'secret.'"
Under what theory is publishing (i.e., releasing and distributing) classified information illegal, much less clearly illegal?
Reply this comment
Fighting Fire with Fire?
By Cooper, Curtis at Dec 14, 2010 01:06 AM
Many people in the United States are strongly suspicious of the massive and sophisticated governmental surveillance apparatus. Assange and Wikileaks operate according to principals; but many people here do not doubt the excesses of our own government's surveillance operations. Maybe worth appealing to people's own sense of security.
Reply this comment
why surprising?
By Addison, Michael at Dec 13, 2010 21:27 PM
And what do you mean by the following:
"This is a lynch-mob moment, when the bloodlust runs over. We have this mad overreaction many times since the witch-burnings and Jim Crow, including the Palmer Raids of the 1920s, the McCarthy purges of the 1950s, the Nixon-era conspiracy trials, the Watergate break-ins, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11.
Most Americans now know that those frenzied periods of scapegoating did nothing for our security, which instead damaged our democracy and left in their wake a secretive National Security State."
The way you include these statements in your article makes it seem as though you are comparing the current reaction to the leaked cables to these earlier events. For one thing, you say "we have had this mad overreaction many times since...". No. Really no. I wasn't alive then. So "we" Americans have reacted this way, you mean. Again, not so much... maybe in the way "we" attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Why go for the plural here? This is a propaganda technique.
You also describe the events you refer to as "frenzied periods of scapegoating" which "did nothing for our security". So you are referring to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as caused or enabled by "frenzied scapegoating". OK, I am starting to see what's behind your dubious usage of "we" now... you're suggesting that "we" got frenzied and caused Bush to start these wars to placate "us", rather than that the invasion of Iraq was something certain "I's" had wanted very badly for some time. Well, I'm sure you're aware of the public opinion polls on the lead up to the Iraq war. But in case you forgot:
"A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War
And these numbers reflect public opinion only after a parade of generals and talking heads spoke in the MSM about the dangers of anthrax, yellow cake, and rabid wombats from hell. In fact, there was no "Iraq situation", and those leading the country to war damn well knew it. Can "we" stir "our" own pot? Or is that something only shills like you do?
I can't speak for "we", but the conservatives I know appreciate what Wikileaks is doing. If Assange gets shot don't blame us, and certainly not me. I'll be looking at you, though.
One more thing... the Marist-McClathy poll that supposedly found that "we" are overwhelmingly in favor of prosecuting Assange and Wikileaks asked exactly that. I imagine most people are in favor of prosecuting people who break the law. However, publishing leaked classified information happens to be legal. I wonder what the poll would have revealed if the question had been asked:
"Publishing classified leaked documents has precedent and is legal under US law. Are you in favor of prosecuting Wikileaks and Assange for conducting these legal activities?"
The CBS poll was just as bad if not worse. I suggest a new poll. Here's my question:
"Are you in favor of prosecuting Tom Hayden for creating and dispensing propaganda which may be harmful to national security?"
You are, in effect, writing in a way that implies "we" are out of our minds. Well, if that's the case I guess more responsible people will have to conduct our affairs for us, ya douche.
Reply this comment