David Seaton's picture

    Why isn't Julian Assange in Guantanamo? Where are the drones?

    By David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 6:07am |
    Peter King, a member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, said the latest release "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".  BBC News
    Let us assume for a moment that the United State of America is a democracy and it's officials represent the American people and that its institutions genuinely represent, define and defend the interests of the American people.

     

    Let us also assume, merely for argument's sake, that as Congressman and member of the Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives, Peter King, says, the  release of the latest batch from Wikileaks proves Julian Assange's, "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan". 

     

    Taking these two assumptions as true: that one, America's government has the democratic legitimacy to define and defend the interests of the American people, and two, Julian Assange is aiding the enemies of the United State in time of war, then the following question arises.

     

    Why isn't Julian Assange either dead or imprisoned in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp?

     

    If this question seems overly provocative,  a mere boutade, let me remind readers that at this very moment remote control, drone aircraft are probably flying the skies of Pakistan and Yemen, armed with rockets, looking to fire them at men, women and even children who the US government believes to have "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan". And of course, Guantanamo Bay prison is chock full of people held without trial or habeas corpus, who the US government believes to have "purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".

     

    What makes Assange any different from all of them?

     

    You might think it is because Julian Assange, although not a citizen of the United States, is an Australian and Australia is an American ally... But, there have been  quite a few Australians in Guantanamo and Brits and citizens of other allied countries and American drones over Pakistan have killed citizens of countries allied to the USA and even American citizens. 

     

    What makes Assange any different from all of them? 

     

    Frankly the only difference I can see is that Mr. Assange is not a Muslim.


    It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the United States of America has finally gathered to itself, under one flag, all the venal, violent defects of a militaristic empire and combined them with all the potential feebleness of a democracy and the results of this mixture are being splashed all over the world's newspapers and the only reaction up till now is that Sweden is accusing Julian Assange of date-rape.

    Cross posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    Okay.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you speculating at one time that Assange is working with Mossad?  Can't remember for sure, but if you were the author of that, I didn't follow your logic. 

    I was googling to find sources reporting Gates' comment that the Gummit 'hadn't ruled out targeting Assange', whatever that nebulous term is.  What I found early on is this wild piece by Ronald West who seems to have some history that caused him to be hunted (didn't google; have at it) and believes that just as with the Pentagon Papers, Assange's leaks are contrived and one giant psyops operation.  He makes a case that few readers ask which documents are omitted, and that so many known events aren't leaked, that it indicates there is a concerted and targeted agenda in place, and by extension, I think he thinks, we are dupes.

    West points out some absurdities like Assange telling folks that our emails are all read (impossible) and that folks with documents should 'send them to his PO Box', which is admittedly, even easier for the CIA of MI-5 to discover and identify. 

    Anyway.  He mentions the Bilderberg Group, haven't read much about them, but they remind me of Colrado columnist Ed Quinlen's alter-ego Anaiis Ziegler from 'the committee who really runs America (in this case The World).  I have to ask myself how far down roads like that I want to go.  Hell, the history of The Federal Reserve is almost too nefarious a plot for me to explore very far some days....   ;o)

    http://blogs.alternet.org/penucquem/2010/10/11/julian-assange-cia-agent-provocateur/

    He links to:

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/  by L. Fletcher Prouty, ret. Air Force Colonel, whose paper: 'The Secret Team: the CIA and its Allies in Control of the US and the World'.  Now I admot that I worry over JSOC and the CIA, their alliance with Blackwater, DynCorps, etc. and et.al., and frequently burn to know to whom they answer.

    Arrrrggghhhh!


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 8:44am

    I am very suspicious of Assange and what is happening now makes me more suspicious. People are getting killed these days for sending a couple of emails or appearing in an Islamic chat room. Why is this guy getting away with what he is getting away with?

    I could add that if he is not being manipulated by a foreign secret service or rogue elements in ours, I can only think that he is insanely narcissistic or a nihilist in the mold of a 19th century anarchist. This sort of massive breech of confidence and revelation of sources can make world diplomacy impossible and diplomacy is the only substitute for brute force discovered so far.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:33am

    Your analogy makes no sense, it's flawed, illogical.

    For a start, it should ask whether the editors of the New York Times should be in Gitmo too.

    Assange is s publisher of leaks, not the leaker.

    Bradley Manning, on the other hand, has been arrested and is being held by the military justice:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Arrest_and_criminal_charges

    and guess what? He's not a Muslim!

    If you want to talk about something that makes sense regarding Assange, you might bring up the UK's Defence Advisory Notice procedure:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/wikileaks-documents-downing-...

    and how hopeless an attempt it might be in the era of the internet.

    Even bringing up forcing Judith Miller et. al. to reveal her sources would make more sense.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:32am

    For a start, it should ask whether the editors of the New York Times should be in Gitmo too.

    Good point... the question is (for me) are we really at war or not. Certainly if the war is real the NYT would not publish all of this... and if it isn't why are we killing so many people and imprisoning others without trial?


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:36am

    ? A nation doesn't have to be at war to prosecute someone with access to secret materials for revealing those state secrets. Again, to me you seem to be on the totally wrong track. You could argue instead that so much shouldn't be secret in this day and age, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan did.

    BTW, your references to targeted assasinations lack sufficient nuance (I don't understand your linkage to that with the other things that you are talking about here, but nevermind) to be taken seriously. On that issue, you should at least be bringing up the al-Awlaki court case. keeping in mind that indicted, or even unindicted, criminals are sometimes killed by police if they violently resist arrest, and that's not considered assassination. Osama bin Laden has been indicted and convicted by our courts, Awlaki has not. That's where "are we at war or not?" distinction could best be put up for discussion.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:05am

    You mnetioned 'the leaker', AA.  I think we need to quit assuming that all these leaks came from Manning; I'm pretty sure he admitted to some, not others.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:44am

    Of course. It's just that David was talking like no one has been arrested lately but Muslims. Tongue out I really do expect more rational thinking from him. Assange is truly a freedom of the press vs. security issue. The leakers are the ones who can be prosecuted, unless the involved press could somehow be seen as part of a conspiracy to encourage them to leak something, I guess.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:01am

    Yes; I just wanted to clear up the point, as much as a matter of record as anything.  Manning takes the hits too often, since there aren't any other names to hit.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:22am

    Hey, there, you with, er, stardust in your eyes. OT--but can we talk about specific cables? Well this one might justify the entire cable dump. Please bring this to readers. http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/08/06MOSCOW9533.html. The cable is entitled A CAUCASUS WEDDING. Is this perhaps background on why America should never presume to bring democracy or anything else to 15th Century Muslim societies? And shouldn't "Burns", a consumate observer and writer, be replacing some of our national pundits?


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 11:05am

    You just brought the cable to readers' attention, Oxy.  Wink  Good-o.  I swear to you, this is the first cable I've laid eyes on; I've been busy with other things, and I'm way behind on these wilkileaks.  But, yes, I think the last paragraph Burns wrote makes a good case for the relative impossiblility of cramming democracy down the throats of people not ready for it, or whose nations were never even nations before Western Powers drew them on some punk maps after some major wars.

    But I'd also say that democracy per se isn't the end goal.  The endless times the US and other willing and/or relucatant allies bring government at the end of a stick, often with a few billion or more carrots, it's more about our control, and assumed alliances against other neighboring nations...more like that. 

    It's so reminiscent of how the federal government dealt with native american tribes.  We'd make some treaties, break them, make some more, starve them (woopsie!), they'd fight back (or not), then we'd march them off to reservations and if resources (like GOLD in the Black Hills) was discovered, we'd (woops!) steal the land back again...   then we'd install a faux-republican BIA-sponsored government within tribes; people who would sorta love our corporate rape of their resources.  Never mind that tribes rarely had central governments, but were ruled by spiritual clans or leaders chosen by other leaders in blood succession; well, however many variations there were. 

    And the goofy part is that these traditional v. BIA schisms still exist on reservations, and make governance hard, and resource protection almost impossible, and often the governments are corrupt, as taught tribes for years by corrupt BIA officials ruling over them.

    But we go into 'nations' like Iraq and Afghanistan with only the most rudimentary understanding of tribal affiliations, clans, history, or grasp of the factions' long-standing feuds or allegiances, either economic or religious, and think we can WIN something, and if we can claim we installed democracy, and hey, a duly elected government chose to let us control their oil, natural gas, mineral extraction, far out!

    And, I hate to say it again, but the chinese, for instance, let us tie ourselves annd our economies in knots with wars, make hordes of enemies, then, as in Iraq, quietly buy up oil/gas production.  We're...uh...idiots. 

    Do we know who Burns is?  I admit to scanning, and here i ranted on long enough now to have read the whole piece!  Sorry...  ;o)  Ack!  No time to re-read this lunker; gotta scoot.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 11:45am

    I'd like to know who "Burns"is. Aside from the geo-political questions I really enjoyed the writing and the vignettes. About the Gypsies from St. Petersburg, a houseguest noted--"Some Gypsies! The bandleader looks Jewish and the dancers are blonde" And the grand entrance of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov dressed in jeans and a t-shirt..and with a somewhat cockeyed expression on his face, and who then sat with his retinue of 20 mujahedin eating and listening to Benya, the Accordian King.

    Apologies, David, it's OT, just trying to inject local color which included the throwing of hundred dollar bills everywhere--what a super currency we have and what a super power we are. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:18pm

    Could be Nicholas Burns, who was unsecretary of state for Dubya, then special counsel for Russia and a couple other countries for Clinton under Albright (ewww).

    He was at the embassy in '06. anyway...  Beats me; sounds smarter than I thought Burns was.  Cool

    http://moscow.usembassy.gov/pr04142006.html


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:44pm

    Sounds like he's the author. In anycase I just think it's interesting that in the waning days of the Bush Administration he put that last paragraph in the cable--especially the power of horizontal versus the power of vertical. As well as the reference to Hayek.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:25pm

    Do we know who Burns is?

    William J. Burns is our current Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, since May 2008:

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/105574.htm

    At the time of the above cable, he was ambassador to Russia.

    Here is a Feb. 2010 cable from him reporting on his meeting with the president of Azerbaijan (accompanied by EUR Deputy Assistant Secretary Amb. Tina Kaidanow, NSC Director Bridget Brink, and Charge) where the president of Azerbajan basically says he is on board with getting tough on Iran and also gives an opinion about Medeyev and Putin, the latter for which he is now in a soup himself:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/250649

    If you're interested, here's a couple of other cables (not directly related) I found interesting by browsing The Guardian site's world map linked to the docs they have put up:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/235183

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/240364

    I'll probably be posting others as comments on my Wikileaks thread. as I come across them. Others are welcome to do the same.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:02pm

    Thanks, AA.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:09pm

    Thanks Artsy. Not only is Burns accomplished, but he has a developed sense of irony. Perhaps a career diplomat like Burns is the best weapon we have in our arsenal. I will be looking forward to his novel when he retires.   


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:23pm

    As usual, Seaton provocatively overstates the case. But what I found interesting about the article was the juxtaposition between American military bravado when dealing with Afghan militants and impotence when dealing with a European leaker who is arguably more of a security threat.

    And whether or not the US government would do anything differently if Assange were Muslim, I guarantee that elements of the American media and public would certainly respond differently.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:27pm

    A much simpler conclusion (even given all of those assumptions) is that Assange has an ace up his sleeve: he has even worse documents that he (or agents acting on his behalf) could publish if the US government arrested him, etc.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:44am

    If that is true, he is a dead man walking for sure... There is nothing in the guy's background to suggest that he is prepared for the kind of game he seems to be playing


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:05am

    We are very near to a war with Iran of unpredictable consequences. I think that these leaks should be seen in that context. I don't see that these leaks, which destroy the confidence in diplomatic communication is helpful in preventing a war right now, quite the contrary. I see it paralyzing diplomatic channels at a moment when they need to be most fluid. Who is behind this? Qui bono?


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:14am

    You realize you are sounding like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger?

    Actually, after reading what I have so far, I am even less convinced than I was before of any impending war with Iran, involving the US at least. For the most part, it seems like the U.S. is the grownup responsibly trying to keep the lid on things in that regard. The apologies came because there's straight shooting in the cables and reports about how chidish the other actors are sometimes and how they even have to be convinced sometimes of what really are their own best interests rather than rely on petty hatreds or national ego.

    The only bad side of it is that Iran's leaders will now know for sure that they few real friends. Which will make them want nukes all the more.

    What you should be fearing, for the next generation, not immediately, is a Mideast nuke race, a Mideast with lot less oil and money, but lots of nukes, and continued conflict of some Sunni seething under Shia rule, and some Shia seething under Sunni rule.

    Should Israel do something, they'll just bomb, not invoade, and I doubt it will have a permanent effect without "regime change" following, the desire for nukes will still be there.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:51pm

    He's safe because he's public.  Putting his face on his product was the smartest thing he could have done in terms of his own safety and freedom.  Remember also that a lot of people, including a lot of Americans and definitely including me, think the guy's a hero.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:44am

    Are you losing your grasp on reality David? If this diplomatic gossip is so potentially damaging and ultra-secret why do 3 million gov't personnel have access to it?:

    More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes.

    Guardian

    There is nothing in these leaks that could not be deduced by anyone with even a slight familiarity with the events and personalities described in them.  

    Nothing in the leaks is minutely as damaging as the 935 false statements the Bush administration said, in public to the American people and the world, to lie the country into starting their 're-making of the Middle East'-Iraq war, with it's end result-handing Iraq over to Sadr death squads and Iranian agents.

    GOP leaders routinely endanger the security of our nation to a greater extent than Wikileaks by attacking our President's legitimacy, birth place, religion and motives, blocking crucial federal appointments, scaring the public about 'victory mosques', holding up START, approving the sale of arms to volatile areas with weak governments like Pakistan, and attacking Islam with statements like 'our God is stronger than their God', or saying Islam is inherently violent, denying human causes of climate change and calling it all a conspiracy...


    by NCD on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 11:00am

    Of the pieces I have read so far, none of it surprises me in the least. In fact I would go as far to say that most (if not all) are studies in for gone conclusions.

    yawn....tell me something I did not know or at least suspected.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 11:47am

    Burlesconi is a party animal? Tiny Sunni Gulf Emirates want us to turn big bad Iran into a parking lot, while they allow local fat cats to fund al Qaeda in Pakistan? Qadaffi hates upper floors-bet you didn't know that one-


    by NCD on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 1:16pm

    Well I did not know about Qaddafi's climakaphobia at any rate. But I knew that Sunii Muslims hated Shia Muslims with a passion. So for a Sunii state to want Shia Iran turned into a radio active dung heap is no surprise.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 3:44pm

    David:

    I'm not sure whether this is provocative or not to some folks.  To me, it's just fiction, or at most deflection.  My sense is that there are many folks who were probably hoping that the United States would look worse than it does (so far) after the latest leaks, and perhaps some of these folks, now disappointed with some of the results--such as the fairly strong evidence demonstrating that it  ain't just those crazy jooz pushing for war with Iran (which of course might irritate someone like you who stakes his worldview on a some jooz but not all jooz are out to make trouble), seek solace in the realistic fiction genre.  That's cool; indeed that's entertainment.

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 12:53pm

    Good point Bruce-- so far the U.S. doesn't look so bad with this batch, does it? I kinda feel like because I love reading this stuff, I'm the bad one.Wink With the cavaet of course of more to come.

    I remember reading a piece, don't remember where. on the day-to-day grind of Secretary of State. (Think it might have been during Colin Powell's tenure.) What was really memorable about the article is that you were struck by how the entire world think's the US is their daddy who is going to help them with their troubles. It detailed a single day. State gets calls about every frigging crisis everywhere in the world, little countries, big countries and everything inbetween, along the lines of "what do you think? what can you do? can you help us?" and every one wants to talk directly to the Secretary. It was striking along the lines of us being hated for being the last superpower UNTIL they need a daddy to help them. Lots of stuff that most news outlets don't even bother to report on, they have to handle every day, and it's always an emergency. (I.E., while we're all focused on the Iraq war or Lebanon, State is working frantically on some situation in the Caucusus or Niger.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:23pm

    While I agree with much of what you've been saying in respect to the Leaks, ArtA, I think it's important to remember that what we're getting here is the US's view of things, the US commentary, the US reportage, etc. 

    Now, if we were getting the leaks from inside the Iranian, Israeli, Russian, British, Italian and Canuck diplomatic services, the "read" on things would be somewhat different I suspect... and the sense of who's needing help, or who's placing demands, or who's being a bully might well shift a bit. I mean, this whole extended period of War in Iraq and Afghanistan can be reasonably read as the US demanding and needing things from other countries - troops, bases, fly over rights, etc.


    by quinn esq on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 3:59pm

    The real problem with the leaks is not the threat America's reputation. Revealing the truth about the our government is up to is actually be a benefit, whether it makes us look good or bad.

    The problem is the way the leaks impact specific people and operations. For example, diplomats depend on the good will of their contacts, who may be displeased by what those diplomats have been writing home. The NYT article also suggests that diplomats rely on anonymous sources who won't be willing to provide information if they aren't confident that their identity will be protected. These are the corollaries to the Afghan informants who were exposed in the last batch of leaks.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:20pm

    Don't get me wrong Genghis, because I would throw this fellow in prison and swallow the key, along with everyone who assisted him along the way.  I do understand and appreciate the importance of government secrecy under appropriate circumstances.  I don't consider the guy a hero, and if he causes the death of anyone because of the leak I think he should be held accountable.  Of course, if Mr. Assange believes that what he is doing is morally correct, then he should be prepared to accept the legal consequences.

    That said, now that it's out, however, I don't think there are many people who are going to ignore what's been disclosed.   Like AA, I'm drawn to the leaks like a moth to a light bulb.  And with respect to David's post, while I think that anti-muslim bigotry is rampant in this country, I don't believe it explains why Julian Assange is not behind bars; I frankly think that it has more to do with the fact that he's protected by the laws of Sweden and has nothing at all to do with the fact that he's not a muslim.

    I also believe that certain folks are not at all pleased with the fact that, thus far, the leaks have not caused an increase in pre-existing negative image of the U.S. in so much of the international community.  And I believe that Iran is a big story, and that the spin about Iran in many circles and from many sources, David Seaton included, has been that it Israel and its supporters are once again pulling the strings and dragging the rest of the world into war--this time with Iran. The fact that the truth debunking this knee-jerk and ugly presumption is now more readily apparent as a result of the leak more than warrants a word or two.

    Cheers,

    Bruce


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 8:57pm

    As a non-US citizen not governed by US laws, has he actually broken any laws? I'm not defending (or attacking) the morality of his actions, but just asking: has he broken any laws, and if so, which ones? (I think it's possible he has, but it's not obvious to me either way.)


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:10pm

    Actually, you raise a very good point with your question Atheist.  It's not clear what law Mr. Assange could be charged with in the United States. See the link below, which I found on google in an effort answer your question.  

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870458480457564449028541105...


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:25pm

    Interesting. It doesn't cite any specific laws he is breaking (although it cites the possibility of it being the 1917 Espionage Act), it does suggest the contrasting (and very chilling) viewpoint: since he's not a US citizen, he's not protected from actions taken by our country if he's deemed an "enemy combatant".

    I can only hope that Obama uses this new found power for good. E.g., for going after a certain Canadian who disparages MegaShark. (The other one, of course, is protected by MegaShark's divine graces.)


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:36pm

    Assange certainly might not be in prison if he were Muslim for many reasons, not the least of which is that he may not have broken any laws--as Atheist wondered. I think that Seaton's strong thesis is silly. But I believe he's right that there would be a difference if Assange were Muslim. For one, the publish outcry would be much shriller, so the political pressure on the government to act more aggressively would consequently be much stronger.

    As to America's reputation, my point was simply that the country's reputation is not what's at issue. Whether or not some people hoped that the leaks would embarass the government, we are not harmed when truth makes us look bad. The leaked video of the helicopter massacre, for instance, made the military look terrible, but it did not harm the country. Quite the opposite, in my opinion. But the subsequent leaks have undermined the effectiveness of the military and the foreign service, and that does harm us.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 12:41am

    I agree with you on every point.   


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:26am

    Genghis, Here in Spain, several important judges and other officials have already been badly burned by their American connections being revealed. From the point of day to day diplomacy, it is as if they discovered bottles of poisoned Coca Cola at different supermarkets around the world... Very bad for Coca Cola's business.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:36am

    David, if this guy were a Muslim ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE. Anybody who had ever sat down and had dinner with him would now be in a military prison.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:31pm

    Dead Right Dick.

    I have been living for many years in a capital city that is more intimate than Washington, filled with embassies. At different times I have had quite a lot of exposure to the American embassy and for about three years I lived with a Dutch girl who worked at their embassy, etc, etc. I've been to hundreds of diplomatic parties and dinners.

    The whole diplomatic runs on gossip and acquaintance... Being off the record, being able to let your hair down with people you trust makes the world go round. If you don't know this atmosphere it is difficult to appreciate how much damage these leaks are causing. Nothing like this has ever happened before. It really is a disaster.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 3:02pm

    I suspect you are being factious, but I'll bite. First, this entire premise is built upon the idea that Peter King is the definitive voice for assessing specific risk factors from individuals in terms of national security and that he makes such determinations for our nation through pompous statements to the press - a pretty slippery slope of idiocy right off the bat, no? I mean, what does Michele Bachmann think? If we acted out *her* pronouncements, I suspect half of us would be in socialist-deprogramming reeducation camps!

    That aside, Wikileaks has been leaking for quite some time on a whole range of subjects. Attacking the US government can hardly be seen as the purpose of their organization when taken as a whole. A similar issue would arise if this stuff was coming through Al Jazera (although the PR would be easier to manage stateside) ... provided they weren't trying to broadcast leaks from an active hot zone where we could ... ooops. We can't just disappear a member of the European media establishment without experiencing more political fallout than Wikileaks itself is causing - it's not like they are disclosing stuff everyone hasn't known about forever, they are just taking away the American government's ability to play this knowledge as a gray area and obscure details and extent (which is only really necessary to promote the Obama "move forward" policy of ignoring abuses).

    There is no credible evidence Assange is plotting attacks against America, involved with plotting attacks against America, supports those who attack America through funding or any other means or has been in contact with those plotting attacks against America. While arguable in implication, the real-world impacts from Wiki-leaking thus far appear to only have been a lot of hyperventilating in the political class and the elimination of a huge beard of "plausible deniablity" that our diplomacy has been operating under. Assange's is a journalistic activity not a military one. The guys you seem worried about in Yemin OTOH are alleged to be involved with activities and groups that are specifically militant in nature with a goal to physically carry out attacks against Western interests. That is a critical distinction.

    In short, and not surprisingly, King is 100% full of shit. Not sure why you would want to help muddy the waters even more than they already are regarding what constitutes someone's "intent to damage" and what "undermines safety". The difference between actively plotting to blow Americans to bits and giving our diplomats a sad creates two entirely different universes of "intent" and "damage". IMO, thinking humans would do well to keep reminding each other of this fact. Cheap shots for an easy America bash aren't worth it if the trade off is giving a shred of credence to a dangerous and flat-out-wrong formulation of national security interest ... and this bash was even sort of a lazy with more intellectual holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.

    (Oh, yeah ... there's also that 1.5 GB encrypted "insurance" file Wikileaks torrented a few months back. While they squawk, I suspect the Feds really ARE happy for the opportunity of harm-minimization - Cryptome sure wouldn't give it to 'em. Hackers will hesitate all of 30 seconds before releasing the 256-bit key ... dumping the whole load un-redacted ... if anyone seriously moved on Assange or the Wikileaks master servers. Assange is the face, not the brains of Wikileaks. But I think that's likely a secondary consideration in terms of physical corrective action to the Wikileaks sitch. The DoD already did an analysis for countering them as a threat which comes to the conclusion the best response is to discredit Wikileaks/Assange as a messenger paired with a proactive strategy preparing to decimate the lives of any "whistleblowers" caught as leakers ... ironically, the assessment was leaked to Wikileaks. Truth is, we're seeing the DoD strategy implemented to a "T" ... Assange and by extension Wikileaks is being villified as an anti-American rapist endangering the troops while Obama has prosecuted more Whistleblowers than previous administrations combined using the new anti-leak legal infrastructure/policy. At the same time the media machine cranking preferred DoD messaging certainly has gained more than a little traction in the general punditariat. *cough* *cough*)


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 3:15pm

    Really, I think you have to have seen a bit of diplomacy up close to see what kind of long term damage this is going to do and how much damage throwing a spanner in the diplomatic works can do in the event of an international crisis.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:44pm

    Here is a good piece on the ramifications of  this affair:

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/special-report-could-wikileaks-caus...

     


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 3:34pm

    A "good piece," eh?  Let's see here..

    • Lameass peering over his super-sweet sunglasses?  Check.
    • Framing the document dump as a prelude to all-out Armageddon (though I rather like the dichotomy set up - "WW3 OR the Fully-Qualified End of the World(TM)")?  Check.
    • Mushroom cloud graphic?  Check.
    • Rambling diatribe, replete with hackneyed analogies about trust and dancing, that completely (and willfully) ignores the facts?  Check.

    Well, I can see how this was right up your alley.


    by DF on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 3:53pm

    But but but...

    "Trust.

    If you think about it, trust can be all that stands between us and terrible circumstance, whether that’s the breakup of a family or total, nuclear Armageddon."

    ARMAGEDDON!!!!!1

    HILTER111!!!

    DOOM!!!!?@#111!!!

     


    by quinn esq on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 5:14pm

    There are several western versions of the story, but the best-known concerns a chick that believes the sky is falling when an acorn falls on her head. She decides to tell the King and on her journey meets other animals who join her in the quest. After this point, there are many endings. In the most familiar, a fox invites them to his lair and there eats them all.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 5:35pm

    Was this the same fox that was left in charge of the hen house ?

    Just asking.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 5:46pm

    Too many assumptions make what?  Oh, that old saying...


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:13pm

    You are a certified dumba$$


    by stirfry (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:22pm

    In a few weeks, perhaps days, it will be plain what is really behind all of this, the "qui bono" of it all. What is obvious is that it is very damaging to the conduct of diplomacy, which is the principal instrument if peacemaking.

    But for now, I come back again to my main point. If the USA is really at war and these leaks are putting American service men and women's lives in jeopardy and damaging vital diplomatic relations, then obviously Assange is going to have to spend the rest of his life in a federal prison and so will everybody else connected with facilitating it. If not, then hundreds of men and women doing life for causing less harm than Assange should be pardoned and released.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:33pm

    What is obvious is that it is very damaging to the conduct of diplomacy, which is the principal instrument if peacemaking.

    How is it obvious?  While this may be news to, say, the average U.S. citizen, much of what is contained in these cables is relatively inconsequential gossip or has been previously reported.  Approximately 3 million people had access to this information already just as a matter of sanctioned protocol.  So, the question to you and your argument is this: How is it obvious that it is very damaging to the conduct of diplomacy?  In what specific ways?

    And to your main point:

    If the USA is really at war and these leaks are putting American service men and women's lives in jeopardy and damaging vital diplomatic relations, then obviously Assange is going to have to spend the rest of his life in a federal prison and so will everybody else connected with facilitating it. If not, then hundreds of men and women doing life for causing less harm than Assange should be pardoned and released.

    [Emphasis mine.]  Again, I would pose the direct question: How are these leaks putting American service men and women in jeopardy and damaging vital diplomatic relations?  Such claims require evidence.  As frequently as I read this claim and similar, the supporting evidence is not forthcoming.

    However, if the point of all this is really the sentence that I bolded, then why aren't you primarily writing about that?  If what you're really trying to say is that the fundamental premise on which the U.S. claims to be fighting a war is faulty and that there are people who unjustly suffer consequences under that regime, then why don't you just write that?  Getting there by way of asking why the U.S. isn't flying unmanned drones up Assange's butt might be your attempt to make your point topical, but it isn't provocative so much as it is sophomoric.


    by DF on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 4:50pm

    I had a long drive today, and heard this story over and over on the radio. They mentioned one fellow who said he wouldn't read what was written about him, and claimed never to have read his Stasi files, either. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feign ignorance as much as possible.

    Hillary laughed off some of the revelations, saying that one diplomat she called to apologize in advance said, "Wait until you read what we said about you!"

    I doubt there will be many surprises for the diplomatic corps, but I think they will be fascinating reading for the rest of us.


    by Donal on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 5:02pm

    Sarah Palin agrees!


    by DF on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 5:42pm

    Okay, okay, you guys.  Dave either didn't read. or didn't buy West's nominally better theory I handed him above.  That's fine.  So I've been googling for the past six hours or so, and I finally foud the answers at www.Assangeinanutshell.com  Here's the dope:

    Assange is actually the brilliant bad-penny Ahmed Chalabi's cousin who used to be known as Curveball in the run-up to the er...second Iraq War.  Now the CIA gave him plastic surgery, Mossad agents taught him to squint like that, Lady Gaga showed him how to dress like a street punk, and Rupert Murdoch coached him in Australian dialect.  He married Judith Miller (formerly of the New York Times) who will break a new story soon which will put us at war with Canada, Iran, and either Pakistan or Costa Rica, it was unclear, as

    Now, if you would all please be willing to go spend a few minutes watching the video I posted at my MERS diary, you can see the evidence of a real and ongoing conspiracy: the extent of the true costs of the bank bailouts.  By a Bloomberg reporter, no less.

    And after watching, think about how much Americans will be forced to sacrifice in the name of of 'deficit reduction'.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 5:48pm

    …which will put us at war with Canada…

    I think I can speak for most of dag†blog when I say, it's about time.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 7:54pm

    Breaking news from Judith MIller via Twitter:  'We will be at war with Canadia and France by Christmas.  Put that in your stocking and smoke it!'


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 8:27pm

    Response issued by France via twitter: "we surrender!"

    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 8:52pm

    Response from Lady Gaga via Twitter: "My stylists dressed him in the style of a pedophile/date-rapist/street thug, as per Dave Seaton's orders."


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:12pm

    Response from Canada:

    "Too late former-Americans, while you were off doing whatever it is you've been doing these past few years, we invaded, conquered and are - as we speak - putting a fully bilingual transition team in place.

    Fear not, we won't touch your (aptly-named) 'junk.'

    In order of priority:

    1. Your 'media' have been relieved of their 'duties;'

    2. Your armed forces have been sent home for intensive training in disaster management; and,

    3. Your civil service and financial sector have been replaced, with existing staff recycled into a high-protein fish food and lawn amendment product. 

    Prepare to be competently governed.

    Don't worry so much - you'll like it.

    Really."


    by quinn esq on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:43pm

    Prepare to be competently governed.

    I think you Canadians might be underestimating the strength of the safeguards we've established to prevent exactly that from happening…


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:46pm

    "Today we are all Canadians!"  ("Excuse me, please; pardon me, please.")

    "Send in the stand-up comics!  We get a Tim Horton's, too?"


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 9:59pm

    Of course, many of us have been pretending to be Canadians for years, at least when we travel abroad. Most do it either because they're ashamed of the United States' behavior or because they're afraid of what others think about us. I do it just to give Canada a bad name.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:11pm

    My mate, my dog and I tried to get into Canada in the mid-70's through a crossing north of Sweetgrass, Montana...  Those border dudes took one look at us, sent us to Immigration, shaking their heads.  "No way," they indicated; guess they thought we would give 'em a bad name, too.   Like 'hippie-harborers', er something.

    We hitchhiked back to Colorado where we were almost appreciated.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 10:21pm

    Yoo hoo we got a cable for yoo too, "Alice," everyone gets gored in their own special way, each according to their own special cultural thingamabobs Kiss:

    OTTAWA - The former head of Canada’s top intelligence agency told American officials that Canadians have an “Alice in Wonderland” worldview and that courts have tied intelligence agents in knots as they fight against Islamist terror plots in Canada and abroad.

    The blunt view from Jim Judd, the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), is contained in a leaked cable from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa to the State department in Washington. The cable details a conversation between Judd and then Counselor of the State Department Eliot Cohen in July 2008.

    The cable also details Judd’s reaction to the court-ordered release of a video showing Omar Khadr being interrogated.

    “He observed that the images would no doubt trigger ‘knee-jerk anti-Americanism’ and ‘paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty,’ as well as lead to a new round of heightened pressure on the government to press for Khadr's return to Canada. He predicted that PM Harper's government would nonetheless continue to resist this pressure,”.....

    Well at least that puts to rest the rumor that Assange is actually Rutabaga Ridgepole, har har har.

     


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:27am

    And there's 2,647 more a coming, including, believe it or not, 4 referencing Danny Williams. Surprised


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:36am

    Awesome. I wish they could publish 10,000 on Canada alone. And I think most Canadians feel the same way. See, what we'd like to know is.... what in the hell our own spooks and diplomats are UP to? What do they think and say and who do they meet and so on.

    And I mean that with a very LOW security focus. I just don't believe 95% of the "security" shit they're feeding us. If people want to remain children and buy into all that "serious" stuff, well, good on 'em. But I want to know the FULL RANGE of what the hell they do.

    I've had some experience with our CSIS spooks, both on the sharp end, as as friends of those on the inside. And basically, as an organization, they're the kind of shits who tap ML King's phones. They do this because they think it's the grown-up way to be a spy. They have completely - as the cable above shows - adopted the view that the CIA and similar idiots have a "serious" view of the world. 

    Personally, I want their thoughts out in the open. If that's how they operate, then fuck 'em, I want them to have to defend it. I want to know who they tap and who they buddy up to and which corporations they're working for - the whole damned shooting match. Canada's mining companies, for instance, are some of the worst thugs in the world, and cosy up to dictators and violent gangs wherever they go. They make inside deals and are right up the ass of both the Canadian and American spy and military services. I don't believe they have that right. I want them sorted the fuck out, and I want the diplomats working with them fired on their asses. "Security" has nothing to do with their world of bribery, corruption, poison,, intimidation and violence. 

    "Security" arguments are primarily bullshit. Like at the airports. People who accept those arguments are basically children. It's that simple. 


    by quinn esq on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:58am

    Stardust. I like your theory: it makes as much sense as anything I've read up till now.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:32am

    Julian Assange is aiding the enemies of the United State in time of war, then the following question arises: Why isn't Julian Assange either dead or imprisoned in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp?

    The United States is not at war. The people in Guantanamo Bay are (or were) citizens of nations we have not declared war upon. States have been dissolved, but the people being held are not being held because they defended a state.

    Think of Guantanamo as extradition by other means. They are all Americans now. We adopted them.


    by moat on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 8:48pm

    The United States is not at war.

    We've always been at war with Eastasia, er, I mean Muslims, no, um, I mean the Middle East, no, wait, the terrorists.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:05am

    And at war against:

    B.O.

    SBD's.

    New Car Smell.

    Drugs.

    Poverty.

    Poor Drugs.

    Indolence.

    Insolence.

    Genghisence.

    Anyone Over 30.

    Self-Centered 19-24 Year Olds.

    Whining Teenagers.

    Irritating Brats.

    Screaming Infants.

    Coloured People.

    Colouring Books.

    And Fish.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:19am

    Ya fergot Parsnips.  And we should be at war with people who say "Eye-rack".


    by we are stardust on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:27am

    Not to mention people who use the letter "u" when spelling color. That's a clear sign of other-ness that should be wiped from the face of the Earth.


    by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:41am

    Eurth.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:51am

    Now I hafta say I like that little old U in 'colour'; but then I like the A in 'acadaemia', too; not to mention 'grey', not 'gray'.  Go figger...


    by we are stardust on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 12:13pm

    Got it now, dudes and dudettes:


    by we are stardust on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 2:28pm

    I get the feeling that many readers and commentators haven't understood what I am saying. For me a key phrase in my post is this one:

    It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the United States of America has finally gathered to itself, under one flag, all the venal, violent defects of a militaristic empire and combined them with all the potential feebleness of a democracy and the results of this mixture are being splashed all over the world's newspapers.

    What I mean is that if we, a democracy were really at war, someone like the private first class that leaked the information would simply be court marshaled and then put up against a wall and shot and his superior's careers would be ruined and no matter if Julian Assange "had not broken any laws", he would never be able to sleep two nights in a row in the same bed for the rest of his very short life.

    Oh, you say, we aren't at war. Then of course the question would be, why are we killing so many people and imprisoning others as prisoners of war without trial?

    All of this reminds me of when after, 9-11 Bush said that Americans should fight terrorism by going shopping... surreal, sinister.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that America is suffering from dementia praecox, senility... national Alzheimer's.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:36pm

    If readers have missed the point of your post, I humbly suggest that it means you've failed to communicate it.

    Perhaps they missed it because of all the lurid explosions popping off in the rest of the article.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 4:47pm

    Dave says: "Taking these two assumptions as true: that one, America's government has the democratic legitimacy to define and defend the interests of the American people, and two, Julian Assange is aiding the enemies of the United State in time of war, then the following question arises."

    We're at war with a conceptual enemy, a convenient, far-encompassing Chimera of an 'enemy'.  What were we going to do to sustain such a huge MICC after even the diplomats and the CIA couldn't pretend the Soviets were still a threat to our national security?

    Maybe if the government weren't so cynically hiding things from us we might consider it really was defending our interests.  That ship has pretty much sailed, Dave, and the voyage may have started post-World War II from those who keep track of history.

    But you want to drone-kill Assange?   But speak of the US imprisoning people without trial?  Incoherent, Dave, IMO.

    p.s. On this part: "I'm coming to the conclusion that America is suffering from dementia praecox, senility... national Alzheimer's." -- I can agree that we are suffering collective cognitive and spiritual disorders, but I don't think you're helping unwind them, Dave.  And I confess I feel a little badly about it, even though snarking is sorta fun.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:57pm

    Oh, you say, we aren't at war. Then of course the question would be, why are we killing so many people and imprisoning others as prisoners of war without trial?

    Since I said that we weren't at war, I feel I should try to make a less cryptic comment than my statement upstream. The question you ask about why so many people are being killed and imprisoned without trial is the right one to ask. I didn't mean to make light of that fact or the reality of putting our military in harm's way. The "extra legal" nature of the operations is not merely the result of combat happening. It was a decision to exclude the development of laws and actions that abridge certain groups' rights based upon a violation of "our" rights. A state of emergency was declared that any such efforts would be an existential threat to the nation.

    The virtual adoption of the Guantanamo detainees comes from separating them from any other process. The "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" modality has brought "them" inside our polity. Not because of a declaration of war but because of the absence of one. Assange should not be considered a similar sort of combatant because he hasn't been separated from all other process of laws.

    So I agree with your assertion that the leaks should not be taken lightly since they undermine what real people are trying to do in real time. But I don't agree that the many laws concerning those sorts of acts should be thrown out the window.


    by moat on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:11pm

    Watch this


    by David Seaton on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 3:01am

    Latest Comments