Friday, December 10, 2010

Democrats are no Better

Democrats frequently portray themselves as a progress party. True, they are marginally better than the Republicans, but not much. In spite of the rhetorical differences between the two, there exist only minor policy distinctions. Walter Mondale's campaign manager, Bob Beckel illustrated the point well on Fox News recently. Speaking about Julian Assange, Beckel declared "this guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." Obviously, Beckel does not know what he is talking about. An Australian cannot be guilty of treason or being a traitor against the United States and that the Justice Department has so far failed in it extensive search to find a single American law Assange has broken. However, the more remarkable issue is that a prominent member of America's "progressive" party is openly calling for the murder of his political opponents.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Prisoner of Conscience


As a progressive Scandinavian country with liberal attitudes towards sexuality, Sweden is keen to promote condom use. The issue is taken so seriously, in fact, that if rumors of lack of use or of broken condoms reach Swedish prosecutors, you may be investigated for rape. And if you are, don't think of leaving the country! The prosecutors will want to interview, and offers of voluntary cooperation won't do. Only Interpol's list of most wanted international fugitives will do for someone suspected of such a grave crime. Once Interpol issues a red notice for you, you will most likely be arrested and denied bail. If you are sucesfully extradited, you will be held incommunicado in solitary confinement. Travelers beware!

The case of Julian Assange is tragically comic. As an effective dissident he has to be taken down. His lack of criminal behavior, however, proved problematic. Condoleezz Rice emphatically declared that Julian Assange has committed a crime. "It's up to the Justice Department to figure out exactly what crime it is," the former Secretary of State declared. The Europeans, at least for now, saved the Justice Department the humiliation of conducting a transparently political trial.

In the democratic west, Julian Assange is a political prisoner. WikiLeaks is under sustained attack. Its sites are under attack. Its accounts are being closed. Prominent American politicians are demanding it be declared a foreign terrorist organization. Julian Assange is the subject of death threats. The conflict over his fate is a conflict over the limits of democracy. If effective dissent becomes intolerable, free speech becomes meaningless. The war of the powerful on WikiLeaks must be resisted by everyone who values democracy and transparency.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Threat of Wikileaks

The thousands of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in recent days make interesting reading. The leak's most damning revelation, and one that is being systematically neglected, however, does not concern American foreign policy. This revelation is not even published on the group's website. No, the most damning revelation, the visceral and universal hatred of political elites for democracy, finds its airing in "respectable" news outlets.

Incoming House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King, himself a prominent supporter of genuine terrorists in Irealand, issued a call to the Secretary of State to designate Wikileaks a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Accusing the Australian national behind Wikileaks of treason against the United States, Sarah Palin called for him to be treated like al-Quadea. Not a surprising comment from an individual who thought Africa was a single country, isn't sure which Korea the U.S is allied with, and couldn't name the signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The former Republican Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee demmanded the execution of the leak's source. Others were even blunter in their blood lust. Tim Flanagan, an adviser to the Canadian government, said he would be pleased if Julian Assange disappeared, and called on President Obama to arrange his murder. Support for the murder of Assange is now a mainstream political opinion in the United States. Perhaps we should review the definition of terrorism.

The harsh reaction is hardly the exclusive province of the political right. The Obama Administration opened a criminal investigation into the group for actions which the Supreme Courts has previously ruled protected by the First Amendment. Australia, which has already confiscated Assange's passport, joined the search for a way to charge Assange. A legally flawed arrest warrant already exists stemming from dubious allegations from Sweden. Understandably, Assange is in hiding. Contrast the international support for arresting Assange with the widespread indignation at attempts to apprehend genuine criminals such as Tzipi Livni or Mahinda Rajapaksa. The priorities of power become clear.

The reaction seems less absurd after considering Wikileaks' impact. As Noam Chomsky has noted, "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." Wikileaks dramatically offers the public an insight into the operations of power. The former American Bar Association President, Dean of Harvard Law School, and U.S Solicitor General under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, Erwin Griswold, wrote that "it quickly becomes apparent to any person who has considerable experience with classified material. . .that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment." An informed public endangers power and privilege. Wikileaks is a threat that must be eliminated.

As new details about the U.S establishment's hatred of democracy, its affinity for oppressive regimes, and its complete subordination of human rights to cynical real power objectives, is published for the American public to see, often for the first time, Wikileaks is condemned for endangering lives. There is no tone of irony as an array of officials dutifully issue somber condemnations of Wikileaks for having "blood on its hands." For such a serious threat, it seems odd that the U.S refused to assist the group in scrubbing sensitive details from leaked documents, or that no individuals have been harmed as a result of previous releases.

If the leaks mobilize public opposition to the government's foreign policy or the fear of future embarrassing revelations constrain its capacity to disregard human rights, then Wikileaks will save lives and promote democracy. In 2007, Assange wrote that he "cannot escape the sound of suffering. Perhaps as an old man I will take great comfort in pottering around in a lab and gently talking to students in the summer evening and will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them." So far, the actions of Wikileaks have conformed to those sentiments.