“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“If the above is unfamiliar, do not feel bad. It can be readily researched on the web. It seems unfamiliar to a few potential presidential candidates, judging by one's suggestion we run a Predator attack against WikiLeaks in Sweden. The question seems then, is he really that ignorant, or just think we are.
Another presidential wanna-be and some members of Congress want Julian Assange classified as a terrorist. Why? So we can kidnap and spirit him off to some black prison or Guantanamo?
The above law is the reason that the New York Times and Washington Post have not been charged under the espionage acts of 1917 or 1970. It would be successfully fought and result in a further weakening of the remaining power held under the auspice of these acts.
The New York Times and other papers lead with articles each day, drawn from WikiLeaks, and they are not hassled, harassed, threatened or intimidated by any of these characters or the law. That was firmly decided by government action to suppress publication of the Pentagon Papers when the US Supreme Court found in favor of the NY Times. So the question is: Is WikiLeaks and Assange journalism, or not?
The furor results more from embarrassment rather than the content of the leaks. The medical and ethical problems of the Afghan leadership is known to everyone, and classifying it Secret is not going to keep it from the only party still possibly ignorant, the American public. These are the people who have a problem with investing more lives and treasure to prop up a regime of such dubious potential. The only actual surprise was the Afghan Commissioner of Agriculture, who does not give or take bribes and appears competent.
Another non-surprise was the communicated instruction from Hillary for diplomats to gather information on their counterpart diplomats that could only be used to blackmail them into compliance with US wishes. Hillary undertook a similar action while in the White House in hopes of controlling Bill's former sexual partners and his Republican enemies. This all is nothing new in international diplomatic tactics.
Anyway, a foreign diplomat or leader who, say, has bad breath and throws like a girl probably knows it and knows that everyone else does, too. As one foreign diplomat told Hillary, “Don't worry about it. You should hear what we say about you.”
If known, those replies are sufficiently embarrassing to be classified above the Secret level of this latest Wiki release. Secret is a couple clicks above toilet paper. Toilet paper is unclassified, but the number of rolls used is probably Confidential, who uses how many Secret, and if they pay more than, say, ten dollars per roll, the price is probably Top Secret. In spite of the ominous sound of Secret classification, the insignificance of the level is perhaps best illustrated by 3 million people having on-line access to these State Department communications. With that width of access, the three major reasons everyone down to and including Girl Scouts of America have not penetrated sufficiently to read them was 1) the volume would require man-years, 2) assuming one could stay awake reading them, and 3) most everyone would use the resources for better return (reading the New York Times gives one the significant items, for example).
If anyone named in these releases is truly endangered as claimed, marking that item Secret is a criminally incompetent under-classification, but probably leads one to ask whether the politician making this assertion is that ignorant or believes his audience is. Either way, he becomes a person unworthy of ever being listened to, again.
One stunning example of under-classifying is the request and responses for sensitive targets that could hurt civilization.
Perhaps most embarrassing, thus most infuriating, is the source of the leaks, a PFC, who was depressing because his boyfriend dumped him. One thinks of a “military analyst” as being at least a precocious Lieutenant Colonel, or a Ph.D. working for some think tank, but not a PFC making coffee, sweeping floors, and cleaning latrines. Being the one person that can be charged, the target is hardly worth the retribution for the embarrassment.
Thus comes the target of greater desperation, the founder of WikiLinks, Julian Assange. Assange shows an understand of international relations, hiding in Britain. Sweden was pressured to attempt to imprison him, but on sex charges and even then only after Assange threatened Bank of America with exposure. Then, Interpol moved Assange to the ten-most-wanted list.
The potential charges are so obviously contrived as to stretch belief. Seems in Sweden, a female can change her mind about being a consenting adult afterwards, in this case when she finds there is another woman. Perhaps that is why the Swedes just want Assange for questioning, but bad enough to put him the ten-most- wanted list? Smells a bit ripe, does it not?
The entire affair becomes a disappointment and embarrassment, but not a surprise, that:
1.The government, in their own words, are inane, inept, incompetent, and unethical in its dealings with others and relations with the public. Assange is merely reporting this, not causing it.
2.The government was obviously inane, inept and incompetent in protecting its own material. Assange merely demonstrates this in reporting it.
3.Assange is merely the target of those would-be politicians that readily shred the Constitution to obtain a 15-second sound byte in the news. Those who do, should be removed from consideration as a presidential candidate in future elections.
The attempt to refocus and inflame ire against Assange is a transparent attempt to cover their own shortcomings, and a further embarrassment to the citizens that would wish and expect better of their government.
An amusing observation is that Iran seems as angry about these releases as the United States. With a distribution of 3 million, Iran probably already knew the contents, and perhaps they are mad that we now know they know.
---------------------------------------------------
A Personal Observation: When the Pentagon Papers were originally to be released, I was angry at Ellsberg and the NY Times for even contemplating such a treasonous act, but after reading them, I realized they had done the right thing. The feeling at my country's leadership carelessly and cluelessly sending tens of thousands to their death was a revulsion like turning on the kitchen light and watching cockroaches scurrying for cover.
WikiLinks releases gives rise to similar revulsion for similar reason.
