Monday, November 29, 2010

Boiling the Tea kettle

"The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

-US Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas-

Anyone in the US with more political awareness than a telephone pole knows that there's a whole lot of loosely related and sometimes contradictory stuff hidden under the camouflage blanket of "we're for smaller, less intrusive government," including the somewhat contrary and certainly not Libertarian opinion that that government may, at its own discretion, hide its actions, its statements and defend its deceptions and coverups, making the exercise of protected rights a crime. That so many who feel concern about paternalistic government can none the less defend it passionately and thus sanctify subterfuge is puzzling. That members of that government can ask that we treat the media and its sources as traitors and terrorists with all the extra-legal powers it possesses, is hardly puzzling at all. That the need to cover its ass supersedes any respect for the Constitution it pretends to worship: that government can be in terror of being exposed, hardly makes the case, in my opinion, for Terrorism. Perhaps the test of being a true and loyal Republican is not to think of Richard Nixon at this point.

So how do we feel about Wikileaks release of leaked State Department documents yesterday? Well at least one Republican congressman recommends that we move that organization under another one of those capacious and convenient camo blankets: the one we call terrorism, or 'terrism' in the dialect spoken by a great number of self-styled conservatives. So, by the gerrymandering of ill-defined symbols, we manage to expose -- or at least the horrifically hyperbolic Rep. Peter King (R-NY) hopes to expose Wikileaks and perhaps anyone revealing that which slithers through the wires to and from Washington, to the dire and drastic treatment we afford "foreign terrorist organizations." To expose embarrassing diplomatic cables showing many world leaders at their scurrilous antics, is "worse than a military attack" he said last night.

King, says CBS News, New York, has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder asking that Julian Assange of Wikileaks be prosecuted as a spy for publishing 'sensitive' information given him by a whistleblowing soldier, even though that's what the mainstream media does, is supposed to do and the Court has affirmed their constitutional right to do.

It will be interesting to see the Tea Party reaction to this -- if there is one. They'll be torn between maintaining support for the First Amendment and the role of a free press and the treasured myth of its untrustworthy liberal bias. I'd like to think that it might increase pressure to actually define what they mean by a smaller, less intrusive and more limited government, but as they say - a watched teapot never boils.

8 comments:

  1. I have to admit, I'm a bit torn over this constant outpouring of government secrets and classified information. On one hand, I firmly believe in open records, and don't think 1% of what is currently classified deserves to be so. On the other hand, I can certainly see how exposing such information that was never meant to be seen by our allies, much less our enemies, can't always be a good thing for our national interests.
    If we've got proof of malfeasance in our government, or a cover-up of international criminal behavior on our part, by all means, let's see it. But to publish every confidential memo or cable between our embassy staffs and Washington on matters as unproven as suspicion, or on worrisome habits of our allies to the likelihood of regime change for our enemies seems borderline treason to me.
    It's a thin line we're crossing with these releases of info, and I'm not sure we can write it all off as "freedom of information" and not a threat to our security. Trust me, I firmly believe most of what has been released deserves to be seen by the American public, but there are potentially lives at stake for some of the info being exposed. Should career diplomats be held to task for giving honest assessments of our allies at their posts? I'm not sure I would want everything I've ever said or written about my friends posted for them to read, and I'm not even dealing with national security issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the claim that American lives are at stake is disingenuous at best. Most of these leaks are embarrassing in nature and not revealing national security information. I understand they don't like it. Tough Shit, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do agree that there are top secrets that need to be kept, but as you say, they classify everything and George the Runt actually re-classified things that had long been public knowledge. Any privilege so thoroughly misused needs to be taken away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the parties in question did some due diligence over the leaks -- I'm pretty dubious about the sky-is-falling claims coming from the gub'mint on this one. The leak sure highlights the need for better security regarding certain kinds of information.

    On the whole, the affair reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode in which some Soviet diplomat unwittingly buys a car whose owners are condemned always to tell the truth.... Most embarrassing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. We are screwed...royally. I bet we get Palin as president in 2012 too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tea party? I just saw a whole segment on Lawrence O'Donnell's show about whether Hillary should be fired.

    Why doesn't Obama just fire the only person left in his administration that seems to have the guts to stand up for what she believes, and replace her with, oh, I don't know, Henry Hyde, or maybe Sharon Angle?

    Man, have people lost their minds. The Republicans are carrying out a national insurrection, and this is what people have to talk about?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope Palin does run in 2012. She'd give the Democrats their best shot, but I have no faith at all in the sanity of the public who grow more ignorant and crazier every day.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And as I've been predicting Palin will run (and prolly win given the idiots voting) since she resigned as Alaska half-Gov, we'll have the only prayer to stop this goddamn 'thug steamroller before it's too late.

    As if.

    S

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.