Some neoconservative American pundits―the same
ones whose rhetoric fueled the deceptions
surrounding the American occupations of Iraq and
Afghanistan―have compounded the criminality of
US foreign policy by even calling for the
assassination of Julian Assange and for treating
as terrorists anyone who has even
donated
to WikiLeaks. Incitement to murder a peaceful
civilian―without even a semblance of due
process―is usually considered a crime, and
those who have made such incitements should be
tried as criminals. US government officials have
not themselves openly advocated blatantly
illegal actions like assassination, though they
have come close by urging that Assange be
treated as a terrorist or an enemy combatant.
Yet, even their more subdued efforts to
extradite Assange to the United States, despite
admittedly
having a hard time charging him with
violations of any law, are frightening, as they
turn to pulp anything that remains of the US
Constitution. Numerous prominent American
political figures have suggested that, if
Assange cannot be found guilty under any
existing law, then the Congress should simply
pass a new law under which he and WikiLeaks
would be
defined
as guilty. The so-called
“SHIELD” bill introduced by Rep. Peter King,
the forthcoming Chairman of the Homeland
Security Committee in the House of
Representatives, is a
bill of attainder―a law specifically
targeting a person or group of people with the
intent of declaring them guilty of crimes. Bills
of attainder are expressly outlawed in the
Constitution under Article I, Section 9.
Valid arguments have been made that WikiLeaks
has not itself leaked confidential information
from the US government. Rather, WikiLeaks has
merely published information that was
leaked to it
by informants within the US government. Moreover,
WikiLeaks has been publishing this information
in tandem with major established newspapers,
such as The New York Times, The Guardian, El País,
Le Monde, and Der Spiegel. If WikiLeaks is
guilty of anything at all, let alone terrorism,
then so are these newspapers. Indeed, the
enemies of WikiLeaks have begun to recognize
this and, consistently with their totalitarian
predilections, have begun calling for the
persecution of these newspapers as well. Joseph
Lieberman's public suggestion to
“investigate” The New York Times is a
prominent case in point. Lieberman, if he got
his wish, will have sounded the death knell of
freedom of the press and freedom of speech in
the United States. Thenceforth, Americans will
only be able to safely say and publish that
which does not embarrass the US government or
stand in the way of its policy objectives.
That
is a freedom that few tyrannies in human history
have seen it necessary to deny their subjects.
The reaction of American elites to the WikiLeaks
releases has confirmed and reinforced the
malfeasance that the releases exposed. It is not
WikiLeaks that has “blood on its hands”―as
certain Pentagon officials would have us believe―but rather the American global hegemony, with
its military, political, and pundit wings each
being culpable in the broad spectrum of
atrocities which were committed under the
assumption that they would be concealed from the
sunlight of transparency.
Of course, the reaction to the leaks also showed
us where true integrity might be found in
American politics. The defenders of freedom turn
out to be a diverse assortment―from Ron Paul
to Dennis Kucinich and Noam Chomsky.
Libertarians, but not of the “Tea Party”
variety, have generally been supportive of
WikiLeaks, as could be expected. But I also do
not hesitate to praise the so-called far Left―as opposed to the despicable establishment Left―for its generally admirable response. For
instance, left-liberal feminists such as Naomi
Klein and Naomi Wolf showed remarkable courage
in publicly criticizing the trumped-up “rape”
allegations with which Swedish authorities have
(non)charged Assange and for which they desire
his extradition from the United Kingdom. With
regard to the prominent figures of the
non-libertarian American Right, I am―quite
unexpectedly―most impressed with the conduct
of Glenn Beck, who, despite his stated personal
dislike of Assange, devoted segments of his show
to exposing the laughable nature of the Swedish
extradition fiasco. Beck has even pointed out
the important lessons of the recent releases:
that the US government is and has been lying to
its own citizens, and that a major information
revolution is underway that promises to bring
great benefits for liberty if it is not
suppressed by power-hungry politicians. The
WikiLeaks releases have been remarkably
effective in showing us the true colors of some
of America's most famous political and media
figures. Those who have resisted the rabid calls
to hunt down Julian Assange have earned much
respect in my mind, and a serious hearing for
their ideas, in areas where they could reinforce
the causes of individual rights, free markets,
peace, and human progress.
Internationally, the reaction to the WikiLeaks
releases is gradually turning in favor of
transparency and freedom of the press. In a
stunning reversal of Cold War ideological
alignments, Russian leaders have called for
Assange to
receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and a
plaque in his honor has been unveiled in
Mexico. Alvaro Garcia Linera, the Vice-President
of Bolivia, has
published the WikiLeaks cables on
his website, and Brazilian President Lula da
Silva has
publicly spoken out in support of WikiLeaks
and Assange. US foreign policy is losing in the
eyes of history, to the extent that
even US government officials are openly
admitting that US global power has been
declining. This is for the best: nothing has
been quite so un-American as the violent and
perverse abuses committed in the name of America
abroad and the devastating toll on liberty and
prosperity inflicted by accompanying policies at
home.
|