A tale of two men

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the other day that he would support safe passage out of Syria for embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad if it would end the bloodshed in that country.

But Mr. Cameron won't allow Wikileaks founder Julian Assange safe passage to Ecuador following Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Ms. Assange.

Mr. Assad is a murderer. He has turned his military on the people of Syria in the name of holding on to power until the bitter end. He has ordered planes and helicopters to fly over and bomb urban areas in an attempt to end the rebellion in the country.

Mr. Assange is a journalist who published secret (and not-so-secret) documents as part of a campaign for transparency. Wikileaks was provided information by Bradley Manning that revealed human rights abuses at the hands of the US government and its agents abroad.

Mr. Assad, much like his daddy, is a brutal dictator who cares less about the people of Syria than accumulating wealth and power. In response to the Syrian people who demanded more say in the running of their government, he cracked down on dissent and turned a political movement into a civil war.

Mr. Assange, through Wikileaks, exposed (and embarrassed) the US government by releasing State Department cables detailing the ways in which the US and its proxies operated under cloak of darkness and secrecy. He exposed the US backing of repressive dictatorships around the world and US-backed attempts to limit dissent.

Mr. Assad has committed crimes against humanity. He should be in the dock at the International Criminal Court answering charges for murder, torture and gross human rights abuses. Despite his actions, Mr. Assad is being promised safe passage out of the country in order to facilitate an end to the civil war.

Mr. Assange faces a complaint in Sweden that he sexually assaulted two women. Not charged, mind you. He has offered to answer any questions Swedish authorities have for him - provided that either the interview take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or that Sweden provide assurances that they won't extradite him to the United States to face a possible indictment alleging he committed treason.

Mr. Cameron is very much continuing the legacy of former Prime Minister Tony Blair who willingly allowed himself to be prostituted by the United States. Whatever Washington wanted from him, Mr. Blair was only too happy to do. The Obama administration has decided that it is time for Mr. Assad to step aside (while leaving brutal dictators in charge in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).

The US Government has also decided that the documents published by Wikileaks have so hindered the government's ability to pull the strings around the world, that Mr. Assange must be punished. Let us not forget that this has nothing to do with revealing state secrets - the White House has done that routinely over the years when it serves the President's purposes - it has to do with pulling the curtain back and exposing the Wizard.

In the meantime Mr. Cameron is okay with granting safe passage to a dictator, but not to a journalist. What's wrong with this picture?

Torturing the language

Lord Phillips said five of the seven Supreme Court justices had agreed the warrant was lawful because the prosecutor could be considered a proper "judicial authority" even if this was not specifically mentioned in legislation or international agreements.

Julian Assange has lost his challenge to the Swedish request for extradition to face sex-related charges. He lost because the British Supreme Court decided that a prosecutor had "judicial authority" to request the warrant - even though the Extradition Act doesn't address that issue.

Now let's think about this for a second. In a criminal proceeding there is a judge, a prosecutor and a defendant (and his attorney). The role of the judge is to be an impartial arbiter in the case, to rule on questions of law and to issue a verdict if requested. The role of the prosecutor is to put forward the government's case. It is the judge's role to determine whether he has done so adequately.

The warrant in question was not signed by a judge. It was not issued by a judge. It was, instead, issued by the prosecutor. (Okay, I know that here in Harris County many of the ones sitting on the bench wearing the black polyester dresses think they are working in the judicial division of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.)

The British Supremes claimed they looked to the French translation of the act to determine just what "judicial authority" meant and made the leap of faith that it meant that a prosecutor could exercise judicial authority and issue a valid warrant.

Really?

What the court did was try to justify sending Mr. Assange back to Sweden so that the United States government could get its grubby little paws on him and put him on trial for publishing state secrets. Nevermind the fact that what he did was shine a light on the machinations of a government that says one thing in public and does the opposite when the doors are closed. What he did was lift the curtain on the blatant violations of international law the US committed by torturing "enemy combatants" and sanctioning the use of torture by other regimes.

What Mr. Assange did was to embarrass the United States by revealing to the world the hypocrisy in Washington. He revealed human rights abuses. He revealed arms sales to despotic regimes. And for that the United States wants to put a needle in his arm. And the only way that happens is if he's extradited to a country that won't refuse to hand him over to Uncle Sam if he faces the death penalty.

As long as he was in England he couldn't be extradited to the United States if the death penalty were on the table. But he has no such protection in Sweden. Therefore the court had to torture the very notion of the Rule of Law in order to allow the Law of Rule to operate.

Julian Assange shouldn't be condemned. He should be praised for what he did.

And the British Supreme Court should be ashamed of what they did.

Reasonable minds can differ

I've gotten some interesting feedback on my posts regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Many of the commenters disagree with my position on what Mr. Assange has done. And that's fine with me. I want this blog to be a forum - and you can't have meaningful discussion unless someone disagrees with you.

I have long believed that it's entirely possible for two reasonable-minded folks to be polar opposites on a given issue. I also believe that it's entirely possible for those folks to have a well-reasoned debate on the issue. I would hope that the debates are never resolved for it's much more interesting when people don't agree on every issue every day.

Mr. Gregory Boop is an attorney who disagrees with my position on Mr. Assange and Wikileaks and he puts forth a well-reasoned response.

Hey brother, I am in agreement with most of everything you post. And, I deal daily with the complete destruction of 4, 5, 6th, Amendment rights as posited in your blog. But, I wholly disagree on your position on Assange. Imagine your conversations with prosecutors becoming public. Please. Think about: "can we get him/her on intensive probation with AA meetings?" Meanwhile... Client tells you no problem. You are working both sides...in confidence...for your client. With a guarantee of confidentiality. Assange is a hacker/criminal who finds that basic tenant of common/international law to be subject to attack. And his sex crimes were easily answered if he went back and answered... As an aside, when/if our kids need to defend Australia... I hope we all remember where Fox and Assange come from.

I may not agree with his premise and I might think that his analogy is wrong -- but I respect his argument. Mr. Mark Altman is another person who disagrees with me on Mr. Assange (and on other issues) but, he, too, makes a reasonable argument that I can respect.

You guys are missing the damage he has done to diplomacy the world over. Without the ability to communicate behind the scenes without the world finding out about it, diplomacy is ineffective. When you live in a representative democracy it means you don't get to know everything even if you are REALLY curious. You elect people who hire and appoint people, who act on your behalf. 

Given the fact me, my brothers (both biological and in arms), and now my sons, are the ones who have served now since 1985 and will fight the war he pushed us closer to, I hope both those knuckleheads (especially Manning) rot in jail.

I understand where Mr. Altman is coming from. I also respect, but disagree, with his argument about governmental secrecy. Do our elected officials and the people they appoint really act in our best interest? Is it really in our best interest to be sending our young people to die in a war that has no real purpose? What's the end game? How do we even know when it's over?

But then there are people like this who appear to have no capacity for reasoned debate:

So I guess you have no problem with people's lives being placed in danger by some arrogant little prick with some nameless grudge against your own country? Are you so naive as to think that all governments should operate transparently all the time? I guess those Afghans and Iraqis that helped coalition forces are just SOL for trying to make their countries better places by helping get rid of terrorists? The Taliban has already announced they are going to kill anyone whose name they find, but I guess since they are just Afghans, oh well? As for all the companies that are refusing to do business with Wikileaks, that's their decision. Perhaps they feel more a sense of loyalty to this country than people like you do. Of course, remember that your nice life of being educated and well off and having the right to spew your crap was fought for and earned by the generations before you that did the dirty work and made the hard decisions and paved your way. Your liberal rantings and whining make me want to puke. I hope to hell that the next terrorist attack gets you or someone you love. Maybe that will get your attention.

Which is worse?

Some of y'all no doubt think what Julian Assange and his crew at Wikileaks are doing is a crime, or, is at least detrimental to the interests of this country. On that issue we may have to agree to disagree.

Let's just keep in mind that Mr. Assange published documents provided to him from a third party about events that have already happened.

As Gregg Easterbrook, author of The Progress Paradox and Sonic Boom (two books I highly recommend), a fellow at the Brookings Institute and the man behind Tuesday Morning Quarterback, writes in his most recent TMQ:

Is the WikiLeaks disclosure of Pentagon and State Department internal documents dangerous, by reducing U.S. military and diplomatic effectiveness? Or good, by pulling down the veil of secrecy around government? Obviously there are arguments on both sides. Here's what struck me. Last week this New York Times page-one story reported the Obama administration "plans to further step up attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents in the tribal areas of Pakistan."

Maybe that's a good idea; maybe it's not. But as an item of information, the Times story is far more explosive than anything in WikiLeaks disclosures so far, most of which contain trivia and statements of the obvious. The Times story tells al-Qaeda and Taliban factions in tribal Pakistan that raids and air strikes will increase. The story is a warning of something about to happen, rather than a retrospective on prior events. And the story is sourced to unnamed "administration officials." That is -- the information was leaked by the White House or Pentagon.

Perhaps the purpose of the leak was to make the president sound tough at a time when his poll numbers are fluttering. Perhaps the purpose was to make the U.S. military sound powerful at a time when a $725 billion Pentagon budget request was awaiting approval in Congress. The purpose cannot have been to help American soldiers and air crew in the field. Their chances would be best if U.S. forces struck al-Qaeda and Taliban targets without warning, with nothing said by the White House or Pentagon until after the operation was over.

I don't question the Times' decision to run the story. What I question is White House and Defense Department officials denouncing Julian Assange when he publishes leaks that embarrass the powerful -- then merrily using leaks themselves when they think the powerful will benefit. If revealing government information is, on its face, an offense, White House and Pentagon officials who leak to reporters should be chased across the world and prosecuted just as vigorously as Assange.

Maybe the WikiLeaks idea is indeed wrong. But compared to White House and Pentagon officials who leak to the press when it suits them, isn't Assange -- who uses his name rather than hide behind anonymity -- the honest one?

Here is a link to the New York Times story referenced by Mr. Easterbrook.

Mr. Easterbrook makes a very powerful argument that while Mr. Assange's releases might embarrass the United States government, the people who leaked information about upcoming battle plans in the Middle East are placing the lives of American men and women in danger.

C'mon, Mr. Holder, if you're trying to find a way to charge Mr. Assange for a criminal offense for publishing the cables, you also need to pursue the source of the leaks regarding military strategy in the Middle East. Or is it okay to risk the lives of our servicemen for political gain?

And why am I even asking that question? We all know the answer.

Taking a sledgehammer to the First Amendment

jour·nal·ist

 noun \-nə-list\

1

a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news mediumb : a writer who aims at a mass audience

Now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is out on bail in England, the US government is looking for ways to charge Mr. Assange with conspiracy for passing along classified information. The Justice Department is investigating the way in which Army Pfc. Bradley Manning passed the leaked cables to Wikileaks.

Prosecutors are looking at a transcript of an online chat log in which Mr. Manning claims to have communicated with Mr. Assange. Mr. Manning also alleges that Mr. Assange provided him with access to a dedicated server for the uploading of the secret documents.

So, in order to deflect attention from the contents of the cables, los federales are willing to take a sledgehammer to the First Amendment and go after a journalist who provided a forum for an individual who had documents he wanted to see the light of day. There is no conspiracy. At least no more of one than exists anytime a reporter accepts information from a source with the promise not to reveal the source's name. Pentagon Papers, anyone?

Mr. Assange may have provided Mr. Manning with access to a server. That is no different from a reporter agreeing to meet a source in a parking garage, in a park or in the back room of a pool hall. Bit and bytes are the coin of the realm today - not reams and reams of paper.

If Mr. Manning did indeed release the secret cables then he is guilty of passing along classified information. But Mr. Assange broke no law by posting the information online.

This little witch hunt being conducted from Washington is nothing more than an attempt to silence the critics of the government and the journalists who provide them a forum to do so.

Assange granted bail

Julian Assange has been granted bail.

Here is the update from The Guardian. However, since the Swedish government has decided to appeal the ruling, Mr. Assange will be kept in custody for the next 48 hours, 46 of those which will be in solitary confinement.

Shifting the focus

Yesterday, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) took to the floor of the House and spoke out against the persecution of Wikileaks head Julian Assange. While I am certainly no big fan of Mr. Paul, on this issue we are in agreement.

So, in celebration of International Human Rights Day, here's Mr. Paul's speech:



This is the transcript of Mr. Paul's speech entitled "Lying is Not Patriotic"

WikiLeaks' release of classified information has generated a lot of attention world-wide in the past few weeks. 

The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news.

Despite what is claimed, information so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government.  Losing a grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principle supporter and financier of al-Qaeda and this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government.

This emphasizes even more the fact that no al-Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did.

It has been charged, by self-proclaimed experts, that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime deserving prosecution for treason and execution or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information, that he did not steal?

And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn’t the Washington Post, New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers.  Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents.

The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional Record by Senator Mike Gravel with no charges being made of breaking any National Security laws.

Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam War and argued for its prolongation were outraged.  But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies.  We were never threatened by Weapons of Mass Destruction or al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information.

Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and supporters of these unnecessary wars.  Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism.  Revealing the real nature and goal for our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

1.  Do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?

2.  Could a larger question be: how can an Army Private gain access to so much secret material?

3.  Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government’s failure to protect classified information?

4.  Are we getting our money’s worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on our intelligence agencies?

5.  Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war, or WikiLeaks’ revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

6.  If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information, that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the internet?

7.  Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

8.  Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in the time of a declared war — which is treason — and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption?

9.  Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised:  "Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed."

Mr. Assange is merely the messenger. He's not the one who lied to the American public and our allies. He's not the one who is waging a never-ending war in the Middle East, putting the lives of thousands of America's young people at risk.

Theater of the absurd, London-style

An arrest warrant and an international manhunt all for someone who may very well not have broken a law. Add another country's judge's decision to deny bail and you have all the ingredients for a production in the theater of the absurd.

The judge said he had concerns that Mr. Assange might flee the jurisdiction and fail to appear in court. Well, Your Honor, Mr. Assange made the arrangements to turn himself in -- that doesn't exactly sound like the workings of a man intending to flee.

Wikileak head Julian Assange is being held without bail in London for having sex in Sweden either with a condom that broke or with no condom at all -- which apparently isn't a criminal offense in Sweden. Or maybe he's being held on suspicion of "sex by surprise" (which carries a $715 dollar fine). Or maybe it's rape. No one appears to know. We do know that the complaining witnesses went to the police only after Mr. Assange refused to go to the hospital to be tested for a sexually transmitted disease. The two ladies claim they never wanted Mr. Assange arrested -- they just wanted him tested.

The whole scenario sounds vaguely similar to the way men accused of domestic assault are treated in Harris County. The police are called to the scene and arrest the man. He's taken downtown and booked into the jail with either no bail or an excessively high bail so that he can't bond out before a magistrate reads the charge against him and issued an emergency protective order. And, just as with Mr. Assange's case, the complaining witness will sometimes (often?) turn around and say she never wanted her man arrested, she only wanted the police to tell him to leave.

Whatever the case may be, holding a man in one country for an alleged offense that may or may not have occurred in another country that only carries a fine and denying bail does seem a bit much.

Wikileaks and the assault on openness

Oh what is one to make of this sordid scandal involving Wikileaks chief Julian Assange? As I write this, Mr. Assange is sitting in a London jail without bail on a Swedish warrant for sexual assault. I'm not here to go into the details of the alleged charges. Having unprotected sex and (allegedly) passing on a sexually transmitted disease is really not very cool. On the other hand, having world leaders calling for his head for espionage is even more unseemly.

Since the release of secret US documents last month, Wikileaks has been under assault. First Amazon (and later other firms) refused to host the Wikileaks website. Then PayPal and other firms halted the processing of electronic payments to Wikileaks. Then the Swiss bank that held the Wikileaks account froze it. Of course, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

All of this because Mr. Assange and his confidential sources released documents that might embarrass those in power.

Our elected officials, and their appointed minions, are accountable to the citizens of the United States. They work for us. The State Department has the task of managing the foreign affairs of the country. Their duty is to act in the best interest of the United States -- that is, the citizenry.

Destabilizing foreign governments, erecting puppet regimes and greasing the skids for American-based transnational corporations under clouds of secrecy is not in this country's best interest. I'm sure there are some very embarrassing things to be found in the leaked documents; I'm also certain that sometimes it's best to say one thing in public and something very different in private (we all do it from time to time). But let's face it, when it comes to foreign affairs, the United States doesn't have the best record of supporting human rights and civil liberties.

We would freak out in this country if it turned out that bucket loads of foreign money was being funneled to candidates for the House, Senate or White House. Yet, our government has no qualms about pumping US dollars into elections in other countries in order to elect politicians friendly to US demands.

I don't know what Mr. Assange's motives are and I don't really care. By releasing these documents, Wikileaks is imposing accountability on those who made decisions in the State Department. Accountability is supposed to be a good thing. Judges and prosecutors are forever telling defendants they need to be accountable for their actions. If it's good for Johnny Two-times on the street,  I think it's good for the President and his men, too.

Secrecy is the greatest enemy of democracy.

See also:

"Bailing Assange," Simple Justice, December 8, 2010.
"The false indignant outrage over Julian Assange," Felonious Munk, December 7, 2010.
"Julian Assange: Neocon tool?" New York Times, December 7, 2010.