Here's a fine article from Portside that explains why we need WikiLeaks. Basically 1) citizens should not fear their government, governments should fear their citizens; and 2) WikiLeaks is taking the role that newspapers and other media have largely abdicated, blowing the whistle on obnoxious coverups. Of course that's messy. That's free press.
Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange
(A statement from Michael Moore)Tuesday, December 14th, 2010
Friends,
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London,
the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented
to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up
$20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my
website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can
do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its
work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and
carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands
are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war
crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They
might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they
thought they could get away with it was because they had a
guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been
ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate
in secret again.
So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important
public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have
outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth.
The assault on them has been over the top:**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the
Espionage Act."**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-
secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with
blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same
urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign
manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak
stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the
son of a bitch."**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a
sociopath ... He's a terrorist."**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist
organization."And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and
warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others.
Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have
been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched
... by us!WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on
all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have
dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released
little that's new!") or have painted them as simple
anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any
editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the
mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility.
The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it
impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no
time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply
put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like
their secrets kept ... as secrets.I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if
WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this
photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document
on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined
To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had
discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country
consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush
decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four
weeks.But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have
reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there
not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done
something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending
attack using hijacked planes?But back then only a few people had access to that document.
Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in
San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no
interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read
about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called
the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen
Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief
that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been
prevented.)Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret"
memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him
the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for
war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there
were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think
that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't
there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the
citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the
corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the
Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by
the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been
a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing
was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million
Vietnamese) might be alive today.Instead, secrets killed them.
For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian
Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being
held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the
government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please
-- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless
of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of
the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail
posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers
Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting
up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this
and grant his release today.Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic
negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps.
But that's the price you pay when you and your government
take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for
misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in
the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply
can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is
now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No
one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big
Lie if they know that they might be exposed.And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done.
WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of
their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them
are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I
ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to
guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have
wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to
continue unchallenged.Yours, Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.comP.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London
court here.P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM
today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.________________________________________
___
December 15 2010, 06:00:31 UTC 10 years ago
I do however, find the comments by Michael Moore to be extremely shallow and to evidence a very very poor grasp of the world situation either now or in 2001. I find his commentary to contain far more partisan rancor than fact. As a for-instance, there is no evidence that *anything* he said about Cheney has even the most tangential relationship with any fact.
Furthermore, his complaints about Bush before 9-11 are groundless, thousands of memos weekly cross the desk of the president that contain information of similar quality and seriousness as the warning of the threat of bin laden prior to 9-11. My uncle was a bird Colonel tasked with analysis of the intelligence on that particular threat. The problem was that there was very little human intelligence on AQ, due to some laws that passed during the Clinton administration (with reasons), and there was no Electronic chatter that would have let anyone know any of the specifics of the situation. Imagine if there were *hourly* releases of CIA memos talking nebulously about hijacking or bombing threats, do you see that going well? What burdens would that place on the agents in the field?
I recommend reading "cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson, he's a sci-fi writer, so it's a good read, but he's also a cypher-punk, so it contains a great deal of useful background information about crypto-security. A good laymans comprehension of the considerations is always nice.
As far as Assange himself is concerned... I do have some certain few issues, first is that he is a foreigner who focuses on the transgressions of the US, That is a rather interesting position to be in. Imagine an American concentrating exclusively on classified information in Canada. Traditionally, watchdogs are *internal* functions, and it is important that they be so because it can be presumed that most people are not working against the best interests of their own nation. The same cannot be said about citizens of any other nation.
That said, the thing that stands out from this last batch of leaks is "what was that doing being classified to begin with?!?" The very act of classifying most of that information was criminal! Classification of documents to avoid personal embarrassment violates the law.
Other batches of releases have been different, and have probably gotten good people killed. I am okay with that on balance if you are.
I am also finding it interesting how many of the released documents support the foreign policy of George Bush. I find it quite surprising that Saudi arabia was pushing us to attack Iran.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/29/arab-leaders-pushing-for-us-to-attack-iran/
The leaks detail Iran's use of the red crescent (the Islamic red cross) to run guns into Lebanon.
http://www.israelwhat.com/2010/12/02/wikileaks-red-crescent-ran-guns-for-iran/
The leaks indicate that Hussein in fact *was* pursuing nuclear weapons and other WMD labs.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/larry-elder-wikileaks-vindicates-president-george-w-bush
The leaks indicated *praise* for Bush policy on Cuba by the Spanish PM
http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2121:wikileaks-2208-memo-aznar-praised-bush-policy-toward-cuba&catid=39:our-world&Itemid=57
This list goes on virtually indefinitely. It seems that Bush was right in that history will probably judge him less harshly than his contemporaries.
I have also long been somewhat baffled by the opposition to the Iraq war by the liberals in the US, given exactly how great a monster Hussein was. I mean.. The man *gassed one of his own cities*. His son had entire apartment houses full of sex slaves. His death toll was estimated at *2 MILLION*. Even though he was not directly linked to 9-11, he was *famous* for his support of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Nor does the "we did nothing about monster X carry any weight, a monster is a monster, there is no moral basis for letting one rabid dog live just because you failed to shoot another.
December 15 2010, 09:02:50 UTC 10 years ago
This is not to make an argument either way, at least not directly; rather, if we were capable of correctly understanding the full implications of that act, of conquering Russia and imprisoning Lenin to stand trial for these crimes, what would it be like so many years later.
This presupposes that Lenin doesn't die before the new war begins, of course.
Well...
December 15 2010, 09:06:23 UTC 10 years ago
Re: Well...
December 15 2010, 14:37:55 UTC 10 years ago
That said, it's harder to pull off humanitarian intervention than it sounds, looking at the times in history when we have tried to stop such things, the results have rarely been pretty, Srebrenica, Darfur, the massacres in Haiti (not to mention the fact that the cholera outbreak was brought there by the UN forces), the utter failure of the intervention in Somalia...
Going down the list of UN peacekeeping interventions, It reads like a catalog of failures. Even the more successful operations have since flared back into open war, although most of them simply failed immediately and catastrophically.
I guess part of the problem is that basically, humanitarian intervention is new enough that we don't really know how to do it. One of the things that seems pretty clear to me is that whenever you send anyone into an active war zone, they need to have pretty good authority to open fire, or they will be left standing around watching their charges be killed. That also means that you do few favors by sending in small unsupported units. "Safe zone massacres" are the height of tragedy.
Thoughts
10 years ago
Re: Thoughts
10 years ago
Re: Thoughts
10 years ago
December 15 2010, 13:49:25 UTC 10 years ago
What prevented the prosecution of those actions was not a lack of the moral desire to oppose him, but a lack of the ability and desire to fight a bloody war for that purpose.
Then, the world was quite a different place at that time, "war crimes" was not a concept that had gotten much play yet, and it was generally held that a nations internal strife was their own to work out.
December 16 2010, 16:29:18 UTC 10 years ago
Heh. I was going to leave a comment to exactly that effect.
Wikileaks does seem to be suggesting that way too much worthless information is classified and stays that way for quite a long time, for no good reason beyond "examining information to tell if it should be declassified is time-consuming". But managing information is hard. :/
I am not okay with Wikileaks publishing the names of informants who help US troops in Afghanistan. Or anywhere else. :(
Well...
December 16 2010, 18:06:17 UTC 10 years ago
I'm not keen on that either, but gosh, we don't need WL for that: the government does the cover-blowing. And then refuses to prosecute.
Re: Well...
December 16 2010, 18:11:18 UTC 10 years ago
Re: Well...
December 17 2010, 07:14:48 UTC 10 years ago
This is one of the points that I always have trouble with. A did X, so we must be okay with B doing Y.
Can you expound on the rationale here?
I see this one an awful lot, on a wide variety of subjects, so I'd like to try to understand it better.
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
December 15 2010, 16:48:01 UTC 10 years ago
However, I am less than thrilled with having Assange as the poster boy of that movement. Assange does not equal openness or transparent government, he is not a cause I unequivocally support. In fact, he associates with some pretty worrying characters. Hopefully, OpenLeaks will be a less personality cult centered operation.
Well...
December 15 2010, 20:15:06 UTC 10 years ago
Re: Well...
December 15 2010, 20:18:59 UTC 10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
December 18 2010, 12:23:29 UTC 10 years ago
Yes...
December 18 2010, 20:03:17 UTC 10 years ago
http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind1012b&L=PORTSIDE&O=A&F=&S=&P=25964
This is the Portside front page:
http://www.portside.org/
Re: Yes...
December 19 2010, 04:19:02 UTC 10 years ago