Some Common Sense About Wiki Leaks
The New McCarthyism, The Real Terrorists—The Case of Wikileaks, Part II
My dear readers we all lived through the recent protests in Iran. The internet was alive with coverage. The Iranian government,even with all of their oil money, did not unleash the full power of the state on the protesters for one reason-fear of world public opinion. Imagine if we had had the internet 70-80 years ago when Stalin was pulling off his mass killings or later when Hitler did the same. Perhaps world public opinion could have stopped these two monsters or,at least, limited the scale of the slaughter.
If there was something horrible of that scale going on now with the US government or any government, it would be the duty of all of us to report these transgressions.
On the other hand, what Wiki Leaks has done is "read other people's private mail "and make it public. Wiki Leaks has compromised the ability of the US government to conduct diplomacy and even military operations.
I have lived with my wonderful wife for ten years. After sharing the same bed for ten years I do not know the password to her email account. I do not read her private papers. I rarely ask her personal question. She affords me the same courtesy, by the way.
Here is a superb blog post by Gonzalo Lira who sees things different than me:
If there was something horrible of that scale going on now with the US government or any government, it would be the duty of all of us to report these transgressions.
On the other hand, what Wiki Leaks has done is "read other people's private mail "and make it public. Wiki Leaks has compromised the ability of the US government to conduct diplomacy and even military operations.
I have lived with my wonderful wife for ten years. After sharing the same bed for ten years I do not know the password to her email account. I do not read her private papers. I rarely ask her personal question. She affords me the same courtesy, by the way.
Here is a superb blog post by Gonzalo Lira who sees things different than me:
In my previous post, “The Hacker’s Treehouse”, I discussed Wikileaks, its founder and leader Julian Assange, and the latest hubbub they’ve stirred with the State Department cable scandal.
In this post, I discuss the reaction of the various governments to the Wikileaks revelations, and what these reactions say about our current state of affairs. At the end of the piece, I conclude that we are living in the era of the New McCarthyism.
The New McCarthyism, The Real Terrorism
 |
| Can you identify the terrorist? Or do they all look the same to you? |
Someone who uses violence and intimidation in order to achieve a political goal.
What is a criminal?
Someone who, whether by action or omission, carries out an offense proscribed by the law, an offense which is therefore punishable by the State.
It’s important to know what these words mean, because both of them—criminal and terrorist—have been liberally applied to Julian Assange and Wikileaks, since it posted its very first batch of documents.
Now, with the State Department cable leaks, those calls have become a collective roar of condemnation, in America:
“Terrorist!”
“Criminal!”
Now, with the State Department cable leaks, those calls have become a collective roar of condemnation, in America:
“Terrorist!”
“Criminal!”
Of course, Assange is neither a terrorist nor a criminal: He simply published some leaked documents that embarrassed some people.
He’s not a terrorist, because he did not commit a single act of violence or intimidation, in order to achieve his political goal.
He’s not a criminal, at least not in the United States, because he has not broken any law in America, and he is not an American citizen, subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
But you wouldn’t know it, from the uproar over the Wikileaks’ case.
The examples are too numerous to list—so let’s go to the highlight reel:
• Sarah Palin: The former vice-presidential candidate and current Tea Party powerhouse said that Assange “is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands”, though even the Pentagon has admitted that no harm has come to any American serviceman because of any of the Wikileaks revelations. Then Palin asked, “Why was he [Assange] not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”—i.e., why isn’t Assange hunted down like a terrorist. The implication seemed to be that Assange should be pursued and then killed, though in fairness, Palin did not say so outright. Source for Palin’s comments is here. Source for Pentagon determination is here. Additionally, see “Veteran’s Today” story.
• Bill O’Reilly: The high-profile media personality has called Assange “a traitor, who should be executed or put in jail for the rest of his life.” (My self-respect demands that I point out that Assange is an Australian—he can’t “betray” the United States, which is not his country.) He also casually said that he would like to see “a drone hit Assange”, though the comment was a throw-away. Video is here.
• Tom Flanagan: A former senior aide to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Flanagan did what Palin shied away from—he openly called for the assassination of Julian Assange on an American network news broadcast. Unlike O’Reilly, who could explain it away as an off-the-cuff gaff, Flanagan’s call to murder Assange was quite vicious, serious, and repeated. Video is here.
Personally, these people remind me of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and his call to murder Salman Rushdie for having written The Satanic Verses. Ironically, I don’t believe Cristopher Hitchens—Rushdie’s great pal—has said a word in condemnation of these calls to kill Assange. He’s condemned Assange—but not any of these calls to kill him.
But I digress.
None of these people have condemned the New York Times—which I find weird: After all, the classified and secret State Department documents were published by the Times before they were published by Wikileaks.
Personally, these people remind me of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and his call to murder Salman Rushdie for having written The Satanic Verses. Ironically, I don’t believe Cristopher Hitchens—Rushdie’s great pal—has said a word in condemnation of these calls to kill Assange. He’s condemned Assange—but not any of these calls to kill him.
But I digress.
None of these people have condemned the New York Times—which I find weird: After all, the classified and secret State Department documents were published by the Times before they were published by Wikileaks.
So if Assange/Wikileaks ought to get lynched for being a “terrorist”, shouldn’t the Times’ editorial staff wind up swinging from the branches of the same tree? You know: As “co-conspirators” or “fellow terrorists” or something?
But again: I digress.
No matter how vitriolic—not to say borderline insane—these people might get, they are merely private citizens. They are certainly influential, but they do not have their hand on any lever of real power.
No matter how vitriolic—not to say borderline insane—these people might get, they are merely private citizens. They are certainly influential, but they do not have their hand on any lever of real power.
But what about figures in the government? What about people with real power—what are they doing about Assange and Wikileaks.
Well, they’ve been busy.
Well, they’ve been busy.
 |
| Rep. Peter King (R-NY) |
We’re not talking here about some marginal Mickey Mouse figure, jumping up and down on the sidelines and demanding in a ridiculous helium-high voice of a cartoon character, “Get the terrorists! Get the terrorists! Get the terrorists!”—
—no: Rep. King is a powerful man, soon to be the Chairman of a very powerful House Committee, demanding that the State Department and the Department of Justice have Assange and Wikileaks declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
—no: Rep. King is a powerful man, soon to be the Chairman of a very powerful House Committee, demanding that the State Department and the Department of Justice have Assange and Wikileaks declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
This is no joke: If Rep. King succeeds in having the designation applied to Wikileaks—and as of this writing, there is every reason to think that he will—then any American who interacts with Wikileaks, including by way of donations, technical assistance, even legal assistance, can be prosecuted as aiding and abetting a foreign terrorist organization—and that’s serious jail time, not to mention ruined-life time. The State Department criteria, list of, and effects of being designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization can be found here.
That’s not all: The Obama administration reminded all Federal workers at all levels of government that reading any of the documents of the Wikileaks’ State Department cable dump “would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the Federal government.” Source is here.
For its part, the American military has not only warned its members not to look at the documents, it has in fact cut off access to websites which might carry the information, including Foxnews.com, the New York Times’ website, CNN.com, and other such mainstream sites. Source is here.
The State Department has even made it clear to future recruits that if they access the documents anywhere, ever, they shouldn’t even bother applying for a job in Foggy Bottom: According to the Columbia University student news site, students at their School of International and Public Affairs received an e-mail from their Office of Career Services, warning them not to discuss on any social media site (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) the Wikileaks affair. Students were warned with the same letter the Obama administration used to warn Federal employees that looking at the material constituted a violation of the law. Source is here.
Now of course, one thing is obvious: None of these cables and documents that have so far been released are secret anymore. They are on the pages of the New York Times, and reprinted in countless other newspapers, websites and television programs. So pretending they are still classified is rather beside the point—isn’t it? And prohibiting people from seeing, or even reading about, or even commenting on information that is completely within the public realm is . . . Crazy? Illegal? Stupid?
But the effort from the Federal government continues on.
That’s not all: The Obama administration reminded all Federal workers at all levels of government that reading any of the documents of the Wikileaks’ State Department cable dump “would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the Federal government.” Source is here.
For its part, the American military has not only warned its members not to look at the documents, it has in fact cut off access to websites which might carry the information, including Foxnews.com, the New York Times’ website, CNN.com, and other such mainstream sites. Source is here.
The State Department has even made it clear to future recruits that if they access the documents anywhere, ever, they shouldn’t even bother applying for a job in Foggy Bottom: According to the Columbia University student news site, students at their School of International and Public Affairs received an e-mail from their Office of Career Services, warning them not to discuss on any social media site (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) the Wikileaks affair. Students were warned with the same letter the Obama administration used to warn Federal employees that looking at the material constituted a violation of the law. Source is here.
Now of course, one thing is obvious: None of these cables and documents that have so far been released are secret anymore. They are on the pages of the New York Times, and reprinted in countless other newspapers, websites and television programs. So pretending they are still classified is rather beside the point—isn’t it? And prohibiting people from seeing, or even reading about, or even commenting on information that is completely within the public realm is . . . Crazy? Illegal? Stupid?
But the effort from the Federal government continues on.
 |
| Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) |
Almost immediately after the Wikileaks release of the State Department cables started up, Sen. Lieberman demanded that Amazon, the online bookseller and retailer, rescind its hosting of Wikileaks—
—and Amazon complied: They cut off Wikileaks for unspecified reasons, even though the site has not been charged with breaking any law in the United States, much less convicted.
Thus Amazon, at Sen. Lieberman’s bidding, deprived Wikileaks of the opportunity of reaching its intended audience.
Sen. Lieberman then invited any and all American private corporations to cease having any relationship with Wikileak—
—which prompted Paypal, the online payment exchange system, to terminate Wikileaks’ account.
Paypal—which is a division of eBay—claimed it was shutting down its account because Wikileaks had violated its terms of service by engaging in illegal activities—
—but again, Wikileaks hasn’t even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. (It is unclear whether Paypal kept the money they had so far collected on Wikileaks’ behalf. If they have kept the money, then I guess Paypal has stolen money that belongs either to Wikileaks, or to Wikileaks’ donors.)
—but again, Wikileaks hasn’t even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. (It is unclear whether Paypal kept the money they had so far collected on Wikileaks’ behalf. If they have kept the money, then I guess Paypal has stolen money that belongs either to Wikileaks, or to Wikileaks’ donors.)
Thus Paypal, at Sen. Lieberman’s bidding, deprived Wikileaks of funding by donors, which is how the organization has covered its costs.
Neither Assange nor Wikileaks has any possibility of redress, for these actions on the part of Amazon and Paypal. In a strictly legal sense, there are the civil courts and lawsuits and all the rest of it—an extraordinarily expensive and endless process, with an uncertain result. So in a practical sense, there is no redress for Amazon’s and Paypal’s denials of service.
Neither Assange nor Wikileaks has any possibility of redress, for these actions on the part of Amazon and Paypal. In a strictly legal sense, there are the civil courts and lawsuits and all the rest of it—an extraordinarily expensive and endless process, with an uncertain result. So in a practical sense, there is no redress for Amazon’s and Paypal’s denials of service.
It should be no surprise that large corporations like Amazon and eBay instantly bowed to Sen. Lieberman’s pressure: Millions of dollars of these corporations’ revenues are dependent on their having cordial—not to say chummy—not to say crony-corrupt—relations with the Federal government at all levels—and with its most important members like Sen. Lieberman in particular. (For a detailed example of this sort of relationship, here’s my piece on formerHomeland Security Agency head Michael Chertoff, and his crony-corrupt relationship with one of the manufacturers of the full body scans now being installed in airports.)
Amazon and eBay know which team they want to be on: After all, Sen. Lieberman is the sponsor of the so-called “internet kill-switch” legislation, as part of the so-called “Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset” Act (S.3480). He has proposed and is supporting a law to have the U.S. Federal government interdict the internet, and control who has access to it, by executive decree.
All of this, of course, is done in the name of “protecting America”—hey, it says so, right on the bill: “Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset” Act. As Sen. Lieberman himself has said, he wants the Federal government to have the ability to shut down the internet because “right now China—the government—can disconnect its internet, we need to have that here too.” See? Protect the internet, by having the ability to shut it down. (“Burn the village, in order to save it”?) I’m not making this up—I wish I were: The video source is here.
All of this, of course, is done in the name of “protecting America”—hey, it says so, right on the bill: “Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset” Act. As Sen. Lieberman himself has said, he wants the Federal government to have the ability to shut down the internet because “right now China—the government—can disconnect its internet, we need to have that here too.” See? Protect the internet, by having the ability to shut it down. (“Burn the village, in order to save it”?) I’m not making this up—I wish I were: The video source is here.
So from the point of view of Amazon and Paypal/eBay, it’s wise to cut off Wikileaks and stay on Sen. Lieberman’s good side: Because if and when the U.S. Federal government decides to shut down “subversives” on the internet (including Your Humble Blogger—apparently, I already have a Homeland Security Agent assigned to me, which is very flattering), at least everyone in America will still have access to the knick-knacks and doo-dads being sold by Amazon. And conveniently, they’ll be able to pay for these trinkets with Paypal.
Apparently, MasterCard and Visa thought that staying on the right side of Sen. “Tailgunner Joe” Lieberman was a smart thing, too: Following Paypal’s lead, the credit-card oligopolies cut off Assange’s and Wikileaks’ accounts.
Again, there is no possibility of redress, no way for Assange and Wikileaks to appeal these arbitrary decisions.
And because Paypal, MasterCard and Visa form an online payment oligopoly, there’s really no way around their actions: These three companies cut off Assange/Wikileaks ability not only to solicit fudns from the public, but to function in the modern world.
The press has really liked that—cutting off their money.
There’ve been a number of editorials and snide comments from media figures about how effective these denials of service by Paypal, MasterCard and Visa have been at crippling Assange and Wikileaks—too many to mention, except for one in particular, which sort of leapt out at me:
Again, there is no possibility of redress, no way for Assange and Wikileaks to appeal these arbitrary decisions.
And because Paypal, MasterCard and Visa form an online payment oligopoly, there’s really no way around their actions: These three companies cut off Assange/Wikileaks ability not only to solicit fudns from the public, but to function in the modern world.
The press has really liked that—cutting off their money.
There’ve been a number of editorials and snide comments from media figures about how effective these denials of service by Paypal, MasterCard and Visa have been at crippling Assange and Wikileaks—too many to mention, except for one in particular, which sort of leapt out at me:
In The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper I ordinarily enjoy, their technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos wrote a column about Assange and Wikileaks which ended with the following lines:
“It will take a truly Herculean—and harmonious—effort by government and business to keep these dangerous extremists in check. But at least now we know how to go about it. Follow the money.”
Notice the term: “Dangerous extremists”. As if that were justification enough, to target Assange and Wikileaks.
Another word that leapt out at me was “harmonious”: As if the good and true and natural state of affairs between governments and large businesses is as smooth as well-greased gears.
Don’t think Yiannopoulos is some old fogey—from his picture, I’d guess he was about fourteen, though realistically he’s probably in his mid-twenties. But you can practically feel the glee when he envisions that harmonious union between governments and business—practically orgasmic.
Like the schoolyard weakling, who has the chance to be best friends with the two biggest, meannest bullies on the block—so he eagerly sings their praises while he skips along beside them, chattering all the while with the docile eagerness of an abused dog.
Another word that leapt out at me was “harmonious”: As if the good and true and natural state of affairs between governments and large businesses is as smooth as well-greased gears.
Don’t think Yiannopoulos is some old fogey—from his picture, I’d guess he was about fourteen, though realistically he’s probably in his mid-twenties. But you can practically feel the glee when he envisions that harmonious union between governments and business—practically orgasmic.
Like the schoolyard weakling, who has the chance to be best friends with the two biggest, meannest bullies on the block—so he eagerly sings their praises while he skips along beside them, chattering all the while with the docile eagerness of an abused dog.
That’s been the fairly typical outlook of a lot of journalists covering this story, especially younger, more ambitious journalists; Yiannopoulos’ corporatist mentality is not a rare or odd thing.
Indeed, those who really aren’t on the inside of the corporatist loop (as journalists are not, by definition), but who very badly want to be on that inside track (as so many young and ambitious journalists want to be), are self-consciously trying to distance themselves from Wikileaks as fast as their pitter-patter feet can carry them—even as they try milking every teat of this story.
For instance, Henry Blodget’s Business Insider has run countless stories on Assange/Wikileaks, even though it’s really not a business story—including a story this past Monday called “Remember When Julian Assange and Wikileaks Were Cool?”
Indeed, those who really aren’t on the inside of the corporatist loop (as journalists are not, by definition), but who very badly want to be on that inside track (as so many young and ambitious journalists want to be), are self-consciously trying to distance themselves from Wikileaks as fast as their pitter-patter feet can carry them—even as they try milking every teat of this story.
For instance, Henry Blodget’s Business Insider has run countless stories on Assange/Wikileaks, even though it’s really not a business story—including a story this past Monday called “Remember When Julian Assange and Wikileaks Were Cool?”
Blodget’s pseudo-hip business site (a typical story “10 Things You Need to Know This Morning” is accompanied by the gratuitous close-up of a super-model) said that Assange had committed the sin of venting “tired and predictable political attacks”, and that he had become “boring”.
Mm-hmm.
In the financial blogosphere, it’s well-known that Blodget’s outfit is a bright and shiny lemon—a serious money-loser Blodget is trying to cash out of by selling it to some poor unsuspecting dumb money. So under that lens, it becomes clear why he’s editorially positioning Business Insider at a distance from Assange, even as he’s running stories about Wikileaks for the sake of his traffic numbers: Blodget doesn’t want to piss off the money-men or their goverenment allies, when it comes time unload his boondoggle.
Like the Telegraph’s Yiannopoulos, like Blodget’s Business Insider, there are plenty of news organizations trying to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks, even as they milk the story for all they are worth—trying to at once boost their numbers with the story, while at the same time lick the boot of their corporate masters.
The godsend to most of these media outlets—a godsend that at once allows them to titillate their audience and thereby draw it in, yet moralize and look down on Assange/Wikileaks, while at the same time providing them with an escape hatch so that they can distance themselves completely, if the Assange/Wikileaks story blows up—has been the sex crime allegations against him.
After all, sex sells.
(I swear to God, between the State Department leaks, the computer hacking, and the sex crime allegations, this whole mess is like a Mexican telenovela—growing more and more absurd each passing day, yet riveting for the very fact of its absurdity!)
Since last August, Assange has been having a confused, confusing legal wrestling match with Swedish prosecutors, who are trying to have him extradited for a sex crime against two women.
Last August—on the heels of the “Collateral Murder” video release—these prosecutors leaked to the media that they were seeking an arrest warrant of Assange on these allegations. But then, within a day of the announcement, they quickly backtracked, and the whole thing went away.
But then it re-emerged, like a jack-in-the-box: Just as the State Department cable leak broke around the world, Swedish prosecutors revived the rape allegations—and this time, they issued an international arrest warrant, backed up by Interpol.
What is the sex crime Assange is alleged to have committed?
Everyone, of course, assumes it’s rape—at least! An international arrest warrant? Of a figure as publicly well-known as Assange? In the middle of a controversy like this? It better be the rape of a couple of 80+ year-old virgin nuns—one of them wheel-chair bound—complete with video footage from multiple camera angles, Dolby 5.1. Digital Surround-Sound, and Assange—on camera—screaming at the top of his lungs, “I am Julian Assange! And I am raping these nuns!”, while he holds aloft his open passport, with his photo clearly showing—at least!
But what are the actual allegations of this sex crime?
According to Swedish prosecutors, Assange had consensual sex with two different Swedish adult women in early August of this year on two separate occasions. (Hey, good for him.) But while having sex with the first woman, the condom broke, though they completed the sex act. While with the second woman, Assange had consensual sex with her while using a condom, but then the next morning had consensual sex with her without a condom.
After both assignations, all was copacetic between Assange and each of these two NGO groupies—until they found out about each other.
That’s when they decided that they felt “victimized” by Assange. That’s when they decided to file charges against Assange.
The sordid specifics can be found here in this piece by the UK’s Daily Mail. They are doing the best reporting on the specifics of the sex charges against Assange—but lest you get the wrong idea, they’re by no means fans of Assange/Wikileaks: On the contrary, The Daily Mail is editorially conservative, and highly critical of what it perceives as the leftward tilt of the BBC. Yet The Daily Mail thinks that the whole set of charges against Assange is bullshit.
Apparently, it’s not bullshit in Sweden: The Swedes want Assange to stand trial for rape, and a possible two-year prison term—even though none of the ordinary conditions required for rape apply to this case. There was no violence or threat of violence, there was no use of employment or other power dynamic to coerce either woman, and both were consenting adults of sound mind and body. As I said, even the prosecutors acknowledge that the sex was consensual.
Indeed, the closer you look at the charges, the bigger the pile of bullshit seems to be.
But these nuances—the basic ridiculousness of these “sex crime” charges—are not being highlighted in a lot of the mainstream media’s coverage. Quite the opposite, in most of the media covereage, the sex crime allegations are the first thing mentioned when discussing Assange. Or as in this fairly disgusting NYTimes piece, the charges are aired so as to drum up readership, then something completely random is discussed that has no bearing on the Assange case, in order to fill up column-inches.
The Swedes demanded that the UK extradite Assange, who surrendered of his own volition to British authorities once the extradition request went through.
Which highlights another subtle lie of the mainstream media, which has acted as if helicopters and men with guns were hunting Assange down night and day, high and low, throughout the English countryside—just as if he were a terrorist on the run.
But he’s not a terrorist. He’s not on the run: Assange has been in hiding in southern England—but the British police knew exactly where he was, because he was in hiding from the press, not from the authorities. Once the Swedish extradition request went through, he promptly surrendered to the British authorities, of his own volition.
To hear the press accounts—again, so numerous it doesn’t need mentioning—you’d think commandoes had finally caught him after months in some rocky wasteland—
—you know: Like the terrorists.
Once in custody, Assange was denied bail. That he was denied bail was reasonable: It doesn’t mean he’s any guiltier of these bullshit charges. It just means that, since Assange has no ties to England, the magistrate determined he was a flight risk, so denied him the privilege of bail. Perfectly reasonable, but most mainstream news media reported the information as if it somehow made him guiltier still.
As the case now stands, Assange is waiting extradition to Sweden. According to The Independent, once he is in Swedish custody, the United States plans to demand his extradition—even though he hasn’t committed any crime in the U.S.—for the purposes of prosecuting him under a vaguely worded espionage law written in 1917, and which has actually never been applied—
—what is McCarthyism?
It’s a simple question.
I started this survey of reactions to Julian Assange and Wikileaks with a couple of other simple questions, questions about the definitions of words we use every day: Terrorist. Criminal.
So as a bonus, here’s another one—a final one:
What is McCarthyism.
McCarthyism is the arbitrary labelling of an individual as belonging to a widely and justly abhorred group, a labelling carried out by a powerful official but without any evidence and without due process, resulting in the systematic intimidation, isolation, and even ruin of that individual.
In other words, it’s a witchhunt.
The government and the media have systematically labelled Julian Assange a terrorist, and labelled Wikileaks as a foreign terrorist organization.
There is no evidence that he is a terrorist. On the contrary, the circumstances of the situation go to show that Assange is not involved in what is generally agreed to be terrorism: He has engaged in neither violence nor intimidation, in order to achieve his political goals.
The Swedish government and the media have further labelled Assange a sex criminal—even though there is ample proof that he is not.
Yet this has not prevented the mainstream media from labelling him as such—it is the first thing mentioned about Assange, whenever a story related to the State Department cable leak is discussed.
Terrorist.
Sex criminal.
(Rapist.)
This kind of smearing, isolation, and persecution, is the very definition of McCarthyism.
Just like in Salem, just like in the 1950’s—rather than call them “witch” or “Communist”, we call them “terrorist” or “sex criminal”.
From this starting point, the New McCarthyism isolates the target, with no possibility of redress—
—then strips the target of their ability to earn a living—of their very ability to function in the world—
—and then strips them of their freedom.
All in order to keep America safe: Safe from the “terrorists”—like Assange.
Evidence? None. Due process? None. The New McCarthyites need no such niceties—the label of “terrorist” is enough, to start the process. And there are plenty of people in the corporations and in the media who jump on this bandwagon, and ride it against the intended target—trampling that target into the ground, with never the possibility of redress, or justice.
Haven’t they indulged in a little bit of terrorism of their own?
They have so far refrained from using violence against either Julian Assange or Wikileaks. (I put no stock in that bullshit talk about “virtual violence” or some such: Violence is violence, and so far, none has been applied to Assange or Wikileaks. So far.)
However, governments, the media, and the global financial corporations have without question used blatant intimidation to achieve their political goal—which is to silence Assange and Wikileaks, and to serve as a stark warning to anyone else thinking of taking up his mantle.
The American government—by way of “Tailgunner Joe” Lieberman—has used intimidation, to force corporations to financially damage and isolate Assange and Wikileaks.
The American government—by way of the State Department missive—has used the threat of loss of work and even imprisonment to keep Federal workers, officers and soldiers and sailors of the military, and prospective State Department officials, from so much as reading or discussing information which is already—spectacularly—in the public realm.
The American government—by way of Rep. King’s call to have Wikileaks declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization—is moving into the position whereby it could extra-judicially murder Julian Assange: Murder a foreign national, who has broken no law in America, and who according to the Pentagon has caused no harm to any American, except to the dignity and self-regard of some D.C. blowhards.
The Swedish government—by pursuing what are clearly bogus sex crime allegations—has simultaneously smeared Assange, and served him up on a platter, for further persecution by the American government. One cannot call it “prosecution”, when he has clearly not broken any law in the United States—it is persecution, plain and simple.
Global financial oligopolies have ruined Assange’s and Wikileaks’ ability not merely to raise money, but to carry out most basic financial transactions—capriciously and without justification: If it were legal and justified, they would have done the same to the New York Times, which after all published the material before Wikileaks did.
These are the New McCarthyists. This is how they operate: Call the enemy “Terrorist!”, and begin the hunt. And as far a I can see, there is no way to fight these New McCarthyists—there is not even the possibility of appeal, or redress, or justice.
I am not necessarily sympathetic to Assange and Wikileaks. I don’t agree with their basic mission of a world without secrets.
Governments should have the ability to keep certain information secret. To give a couple of obviously indisputable examples: The name of a sexually violated child in a criminal proceeding, or the exact blueprints for a nuclear weapon. These are bits of information which should not be released, likely under any circumstances: Information which serves no useful purpose insofar as keeping governments honest and accountable, but which causes tremendous harm to individuals, or to the collective nation.
I object to the fact that Assange/Wikileaks does not recognize this, prima facie, as I tried to show earlier. As I have also tried to explain—though of course cannot prove—I suspect much of Assange’s and Wikileaks’ actions are motivated more by the urge for provocation, rather than for the social good.
But motives don’t matter—actions do.
It is clear to me—in fact it should be clear to anyone who is honest—that Assange and Wikileaks are not the terrorists: The real terrorists are governments, crony-corporate interests, and the servile media.
And these real terrorists are on the attack—as we have seen.
The reaction of the Wikileaks sympathizers in the hacking community—which is where Assange comes from—has been predictable: The hackers have begun their counter-attack.
In ordinary circumstances and previous generations, people protesting injustices perpetrated by the government would march on the street, riot, write editorials, and so on.
But with the attacks on Assange/Wikileaks, the push-back of the people has been by way of computer hacking attacks.
Already, MasterCard, Visa and Paypal’s sites have all suffered attacks, as have other sites. In all likelihood, as they do not achieve their goals of having Assange freed and Wikileaks allowed to continue undisturbed, these cyber attacks will increase in ferocity—
—and inevitably, the government, the corporations and the mainstream media will interpret this as “terrorism”.
It’s so predictable, the New McCarthyism: You already know what they are going to say and do.
The New McCarthyites will call the pro-Wikileaks hackers “terrorists!”—ignoring the fact that the hackers are reacting to the terrorism perpetrated by the governments, the corporations, and the media. (And yes: The parallels to the ongoing mess that is the Middle East and America’s involvement there—where America’s “fight against terrorism” is the very cause that creates the terrorism that needs to be stamped out—are eerie.)
And as the hacking counter-attacks by Assange/Wikileaks’ hacker-allies continues and increases, the New McCarthyites will insist and insist andinsist that “We have to defend America!”—
—the end is predictable: In this particular battle in the ongoing war between corporate interests and individual rights, the net effect will be that “Tailgunner Joe” Lieberman will get his way: The “Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset” Act will pass into law, complete with the internet kill-switch “Tailgunner Joe” so badly wants.
After all, the Chinese have it too.
Here is the first part of this post, “The Case of Wikileaks, Part I—The Hacker’s Treehouse”
Please also read other pieces I’ve written on these issues:
• “Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?”
• “Corporate Entitites As Modern Day Street Gangs”
And to my Homeland Security agent, J.F.P. (I don’t want to blow his cover), who I gather is surveilling my every move: Hi there!
No comments:
Post a Comment