Monday, December 06, 2010

One Of The Best Things I've Seen Written On Wikileaks

And it comes from the pen of Christopher Hitchens, who considers Julian Assange 'an unscrupulous megalomaniac with a political agenda' and calls for him to turn himself in:

The moral "other half" of civil disobedience, as its historic heroes show, is that you stoically accept the consequences that come with it. Then there is diplomacy itself. One of civilization's oldest and best ideas is that all countries establish tiny sovereign enclaves in each other's capitals and invest these precious enclaves of peaceful resolution with special sorts of immunity. That this necessarily includes a high degree of privacy goes without saying. Even a single violation of this ancient tradition may have undesirable unintended consequences, and we rightly regard a serious breach of it with horror. We found out everything we would ever need to know about Ayatollah Khomeini and his ideology when he took diplomats as hostages.

The cunning of Julian Assange's strategy is that he has made everyone complicit in his own private decision to try to sabotage U.S. foreign policy. Unless you consider yourself bound by the hysterically stupid decision of the Obama administration to forbid all federal employees from downloading or viewing the WikiLeaks papers, you will at the very least have indulged in a certain amount of guilty pleasure. In a couple of major instances, the disclosures are of great value to the regime-change die-hards among us. More Arab regimes want Washington to take on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more urgently than anyone had guessed; I would very much rather know this now than 20 years later. Iran was able to acquire some missile capacity from North Korea; so would Saddam Hussein have been if we had left him in his so-called "box." We already know that his envoys were meeting North Korean missile dealers in Damascus before the threat of the coalition's intervention caused the vendors to return hastily to Pyongyang. The latest leaks complete an important part of an important case. {...}

And that, of course, prosecution or no prosecution, is what he really ought to do. If I had decided to shame the British authorities on Iraq in 1976, [ ed. note - Hitchens is referring to his actions during his own 'Wikileaks' moment, when he came across a classified British diplomatic memo approving of Saddam Hussein coup in Iraq] I would have accepted the challenge to see them in court or otherwise face the consequences. I couldn't have expected to help myself to secret documents, make myself a private arbiter of foreign policy, and disappear or retire on the proceeds. All you need to know about Assange is contained in the profile of him by the great John F. Burns and in his shockingly thuggish response to it. The man is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda. As I wrote before, when he says that his aim is "to end two wars," one knows at once what he means by the "ending." In his fantasies he is probably some kind of guerrilla warrior, but in the real world he is a middle man and peddler who resents the civilization that nurtured him.


Spot on, Mr. Hitchens. That's exactly what he is - a sordid peddler with an agenda and an exaggerated sense of his own worth and importance.

However the walls may be closing in on Mr. Assange and his playmates. His Swiss bank account has been closed, and Scotland Yard now has full arrest papers to apprehend him in the South of England, where he's reportedly hiding out.

Assange, like most thugs and blackmailers has reacted with threats - he's promised a document dump of everything he's stolen thus far if he's arrested.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

16 comments:

xraydid said...

I am not clear, as to what he has done that was so wrong. Who is he blackmailing? How is he making money from the information? Who has been hurt? I see information similar to the information that leaked out of Viet Nam in-spite of the war departments best efforts. War is bad. Is that a secret? I hear the Clintons acting like they thought there might be some thing else in the leaks.What do they know? Seems like the Corrupt Politicians are worried. Is there some thing I am missing? When I read the site, I see no advertising. How does one make money posting information that requires no subscription.

Freedom Fighter said...

Not clear, are we? If someone steals your car and sells it to me and I buy it knowing it's stolen property, am I guilty of a crime? Of course I am. Check your local statutes.

Not only that, but do you somehow not understand that revealing secret US intel assets and hamstringing our diplomats from dealing confidentially with the confidence of those world leaders they're dealing with is wrong and hurts the US?

As for the money question..Assange and his friends are obviously getting donations from America-haters ( hence the Swiss bank account), and there's a better than even chance George Soros is involved.

I've heard from at least one other source that Wikileaks received substantial money from Code Pink, a Soros front group.I'm sure a number of the usual suspects are involved.

Regards,
Rob

xraydid said...

Stole what? Sold What? I didn't read any of that any where. You say George Soros is involved with financing? ? So your saying Obama is involved?
http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/soros/

Now that might explain some things.

xraydid said...

Revealing secrets? Are you sure its not the same kind of news the NY times is publishing all the time? I see nothing wrong with revealing that a World leader is corrupt. Isn't that what happened to Nixon?
What, on the Wiki site do you find so offensive. The video of un armed civilians being killed on their own streets by American Soldiers? Or is there some other information you think we should not see?

Freedom Fighter said...

Xraydid...are you really unfamiliar with terms like 'stolen property' and 'receiving stolen goods' ? Really?

Do you think that Pvt. Bradley Manning had permission to download those documents ( which were not his property) and pass them on to someone else? Of course he didn't. And Assange had no legal right to utilize them.

As for the Guardian, the NYT and other complicit media outlets, they had no right to publish these materials either legally or morally. CNN realized this and passed on receiving the leaked documents.

FTR, this is exactly the sort of breach Pravda-on-the-Hudson does all the time, not least with the Pentagon Papers you're referring to. I consider that and PFC Manning's conduct to be treasonable, which one facet of my argument against wars undeclared by Congress.

We could also have a discussion about Richard Nixon, but I'm going to avoid that as a side issue.

xraydid said...

here is a quot from some one who deals in logic and Facts,Ron Paul ; In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often "official" government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.

Freedom Fighter said...

OMSG, Ron Paul....that explains a lot.

First off truth can very easily become treason, if it consists of truth about America's secrets revealed to our enemies. Benedict Arnold certainly told the Brits the truth about our defenses at West Point.

Xraydid, I don't disagree with Dr. Paul on everything, but his central premises are highly flawed, which is exactly why he attracts a lot of the questionable supporters he does.A lot of the Stormfront boys are absolutely wild about him.

Someone like me who believes in small government and thatCongress should declare all wars
( as opposed to one-off preemptive strikes like the one Reagan did on Libya) still recognizes that it isn't 1789 any more, that we no longer have the luxury of two oceans separating us from the rest of the world and that the US,like it or not, is the defender of the free world. We forget that at our peril.

In fact, the more we attempt to abrogate those responsibilities, the worst it comes back to bite us in the ass eventually. A brief look at the period between 1993 and 2002, the last time we took a vacation from history ( the Clinton years and the first nine months of Bush's term) ought to prove that to you if nothing else does.

There are plenty of sites where people still cling to isolationist notions that should have been discredited 75 or more years ago, and you might find more people who share your views there. However, you're more than welcome to comment here as long as you keep things respectful, as you have so far.

Regards,
Rob

B.Poster said...

xraydid quotes Ron Paul. One of the problems with Ron Paul and many of his supporters is that they fail to consider the context of American actions. The interventionist and meddling policies did not occur in a vacum. While they are not necessarily technically incorrect, they would have more credibility in this area if the context were properly considered.

FF alludes to the fact that revealing US secrets and hamstringing our ability to deal confidentially with foreign diplomats harms our interests. Actually it is MUCH worse than this. First off, the US intellegence community is at best monumentally incompetent and at worst down right evil. In order to get reliable information on either Islamic terrorists, the Russians, the Chinese, or any other national security threat or potential threat the US needs to rely on the intellegence of others such as the British or the Israelis. Also, as the US is the most universially despised country on earth, it needed to rebuild its image. Now even the option of cooperation with others for much needed intellegence and the prospects of improving its image in the world are now shot to hel#!! The state of US intellegence is now in even worse shape than it was before and its diplomatic standing is further eroded as well. Essentially the US will be blind and deaf before its enemies!! The numbers of American lives that this places in danger is incalcuable. Also, America's prospects for mid range survival were already precarious. Now they are even more precarious!!

FF, I agree with you about having Congress declare war. The one off strikes such as in Libya that you allude to very likely only make matters worse. This may be what Dr. Paul is referring to but again he and his followers fail to consider the context of American actions. They do not happen in a vacum.

You allude to whether we like it or not America is the defender of the free world. At this time, America is incapable of being the defender of the free world. Its military is worn down from continuing operations. It is technologically behind the Russians and the Chinese. Furthermore with the wikileaks fiasco its abilty to acquire much needed intellegence on threats and potential threats is imperiled. As such, defense of America itself its problematic. This is to say nothing of trying to defend the free world. To be blunt, its impossible right now for the US to do.

I think one of our founding fathers said something to the effect that while America should support liberty around the world it can only guarantee its own.

A better bet for our national security would be: 1.)Withdraw all military and intellegence personnel from the Middle East and elsewhere. Redeploy these forces to our borders where they at least have a fighting chance to defend our country. 2.)Develop all of our own oil and gas reserves and build more refineries. Doing this will give us more leverage when trying to negotiate with OPEC and other oil suppliers.

B.Poster said...

xraydid quotes Ron Paul. One of the problems with Ron Paul and many of his supporters is that they fail to consider the context of American actions. The interventionist and meddling policies did not occur in a vacum. While they are not necessarily technically incorrect, they would have more credibility in this area if the context were properly considered.

FF alludes to the fact that revealing US secrets and hamstringing our ability to deal confidentially with foreign diplomats harms our interests. Actually it is MUCH worse than this. First off, the US intellegence community is at best monumentally incompetent and at worst down right evil. In order to get reliable information on either Islamic terrorists, the Russians, the Chinese, or any other national security threat or potential threat the US needs to rely on the intellegence of others such as the British or the Israelis. Also, as the US is the most universially despised country on earth, it needed to rebuild its image. Now even the option of cooperation with others for much needed intellegence and the prospects of improving its image in the world are now shot to hel#!! The state of US intellegence is now in even worse shape than it was before and its diplomatic standing is further eroded as well. Essentially the US will be blind and deaf before its enemies!! The numbers of American lives that this places in danger is incalcuable. Also, America's prospects for mid range survival were already precarious. Now they are even more precarious!!

FF, I agree with you about having Congress declare war. The one off strikes such as in Libya that you allude to very likely only make matters worse. This may be what Dr. Paul is referring to but again he and his followers fail to consider the context of American actions. They do not happen in a vacum.

You allude to whether we like it or not America is the defender of the free world. At this time, America is incapable of being the defender of the free world. Its military is worn down from continuing operations. It is technologically behind the Russians and the Chinese. Furthermore with the wikileaks fiasco its abilty to acquire much needed intellegence on threats and potential threats is imperiled. As such, defense of America itself its problematic. This is to say nothing of trying to defend the free world. To be blunt, its impossible right now for the US to do.

I think one of our founding fathers said something to the effect that while America should support liberty around the world it can only guarantee its own.

A better bet for our national security would be: 1.)Withdraw all military and intellegence personnel from the Middle East and elsewhere. Redeploy these forces to our borders where they at least have a fighting chance to defend our country. 2.)Develop all of our own oil and gas reserves and build more refineries. Doing this will give us more leverage when trying to negotiate with OPEC and other oil suppliers.

xraydid said...

I agree with every thing Bposter has said, after his first paragraph, and I believe he is restating what Ron Paul has states. Does that make him an isolationist as well? Post the entry I made previous to my Ron Paul post and answer the question in it and I will continue this. I will not participate in edited versions. Thank you.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Xraydid,
As B. Poster knows, he and I have some long standing disagreements on a number of things and I have pointed them out on numerous occasions.

The idea of Fortress America is downright silly. Or to quote Gen. Douglas MacArthur's one word reply when he was asked the definition of defensive war, "Defeat".

Nor is the idea of the US depending on the espionage capabilities of other countries very credible. B. Poster perhaps needs to research Kim Philby and Burgess /Maclean.

But I'm not surprised you agree with some of what he has to say.

Also I have absolutely no clue what you mean by a 'previous entry'.Any comments you submitted were published.

Please feel free to participate or not as you wish.

Regards,
Rob

Rosey said...

By now I'm sure you know Assange was arrested.

I agree a lot with Dr. Paul, and I wish the isolationist idea were viable. If we pull out of Japan and South Korea, it is not out of the realm of possibility that North Korea invades the South, or China invades Taiwan or even Japan. Even if they don't Japan is almost defenseless without us, as is South Korea.

We could pull out of Germany, but almost no one in Europe has much of an army, and there is the Evil Empire to deal with. Of course when some poor kid gets his legs blown off, they fly him to Germany to get sewed up, so I guess we need to stay there.

Surely we could pull out of Vietnam, er I mean Afganistan. Surely we're done there.

We could pull out of Iraq, and let the chips fall, but we really need a base there launch an attack on Iran, as our next president will likely do.

So I guess we're stuck being being the global police until further notice.

The Libertarian, Isolationist theme just feels so good to spout out, but I guess it doesn't work on this planet for now...

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Rosey,
What you're feeling is the typical American attitude towards getting involved with those stinkin' furriners.

As you point out, unfortunately we have to.

Iraq,BTW is not going to be a base for us. Bush empowering a Shi'ite Islamic republic over there in the name of 'Arab Democracy' saw to that, and Obama's kow towing to Iran has made it a certainty.

For that, we sold out our real allies there, the Kurds.

Maliki has essentially made a deal with the Mahdi Army's Moqtada al-Sadr to stay in power, and Maliki will have his hands full keeping Iraq from becoming another Iranian colony like Lebanon, assuming he even has a problem with that.Remember where Maliki spent the Saddam years..in Iran.

Fortunately, a country with a navy, air power and amphibious capabilities doesn't necessarily need a land base.

xraydid said...

Going back to what I originally asked. What did Wiki leaks do wrong. The answer you are looking for is, Nothing. Yes Rosey, he has been arrested, but not for Wikileaks. Sex charges. I am submitting a link to some reasonable debate. FF/ Josh, you never did answer my question. You have tap danced around it and now have totally changed the subject. It appears you get all your information from MSNBC. I suspect you are a fan of David Matthews. You seem to use the same type of logic. When I asked my original questions, you came back with questions as answers. To answer your questions with my original first post questions, No, I do not see Assante as having stolen any thing, He is not a citizen so your reference to Benedict Arnold is not relevant. Apparently no else has seen any thing illegal either since there are no charges against wikileaks. This is not the issue the press is making it our to be and I am reasonably sure you have not read any of the wikileak or seen any of there videos. It all just shows how incompetent our current Government is. The idea the location of our bases are not obvious is ludicrous. Some one has an opinion on which are the most important, and you think that is treason, That too is ludicrous. All those bases should be shut down. As BPoster said, we can't afford them. We do have two ocens on each side. look at a map, it hasn't changed. We have even better recon now also, to see what is coming across those oceans. We don;t have security on the north and south. Use the closed base personnel to secure our N and S borders.

Freedom Fighter said...

Xraydid, I'm afraid like many Paulistas you exist in your own world.

If you don't understand what theft is and you don't understand the national security questions involved, there's really no point in my wasting more of my valuable time discussing it with you.

As for your references to 'treason', I never once suggested that Assange is guilty of that and the idea is ludicrous, since he's an Australian citizen. I mentioned Benedict Arnold as a reply and example to your frankly silly Ron Paul quote about "a society where truth becomes treason, we're in big trouble."

Remarks like that are exactly the reason I don't take Dr. Paul and most of his adherents seriously, and I'm afraid that applies to you.

Buh Bye!

xraydid said...

Here it is, the only thing he was arrested for and it is bogus. As I stated in my first post, he did not do any thing wrong. The people he exposed are out to get him. Plan and simple. You do not seem have teh critical thinking to that a man is innocent until proven guilty and you instead think a man is guilty first ,maybe innocent later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B669H20101207