Even before I took my little Christmas vacation from blogging about politics, I avoided saying anything about Wikileaks. I thought it might be prudent to wait and see if any of the revelations might actually be as damaging as some people (even, for example, Bill Clinton) were claiming.
But since even the US government has admitted that nobody is going to die because of any of the information Wikileaks has released, I think it's reasonably safe to point out one fact that the international media has, for the most part, been glossing over.
There was a time when this was exactly what reporters did. From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate, reporters used to live for this kind of thing. (On the other hand, perhaps our boys and girls in the media are just jealous that they've been taking dictation from whichever politician wanted to spread their message, and not bothering even with basic fact checking on any of these overblown claims, for fear of losing their all-important "access" to the Halls of Power.
Most of what Wikileaks has thrown out into the public view has been the type of "secrets" that everybody already knew. Diplomats make fun of each other and insult heads of state? No shit. And to be honest, the fact that the Secretary of State ordered diplomats to gather information on other countries? What's new there? That's pretty much how it's been done since Ramses II made peace with the Hittites.
And most of us already knew the fact that the Obama administration has been preventing attempts to investigate the Bush administration for war crimes and the torture of prisoners.
So what else did Julian Assange tell us? The Pope didn't let the Vatican cooperate in investigations into rapist priests? Wow, there's a revelation - how many different ways can you say "no shit"?
Afghanistan is already a quagmire? That wasn't anything we haven't known for centuries - wasn't it Alexander the Great that first broke that piece of news?
China hacked Google? Yeah, knew that.
So, why is it that right-wing idiots keep claiming that Assange should be killed?
Because the US government has been embarrassed?
After documentary evidence of what people already knew has come to light, maybe some people deserve to be embarrassed.
Well, NC, let's see -- among the WL revelations I didn't know about are the following:
ReplyDelete--Helicopter gunning down 12 civilians in Iraq,
--100,000 more Iraqi dead than officially counted,
--secret orders that allow the US to ignore abuse (Iraq),
--US forces killing two Reuters reporters,
--Clinton ordered American diplomats to spy on ally UN officials (I had no idea, even though it may be old news for some),
--Obama worked with GOP to quash Bush terror probe (news, and important news, to me).
--American embassy threatened Spanish prosecutors investigating American torture,
--US pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA involved in torture,
--Yemeni lied about US strikes,
--India tortured Kashmir prisoners,
--UK is training Bangldesh death squads,
--US special forces are working in Pakistan (yup, news to me -- I know, I'm naive),
--US enabled the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia,
--Pfizer experimented with drugs on African children.
There is more here.
Embarrassing? You betcha. But also immoral and criminal in many instances. I prefer to know this.
It's all secret so that we can maintain the fiction that we're the world's savior, the keeper of the peace, the benevolent big brother and that we're all about "freedom" which, as has been demonstrated, is a lie.
ReplyDeleteI've become as cynical and angry as anyone on the right, but in contrast, I'm not dreaming of anarchy producing some peaceable kingdom, but in the courage to stand against the lust for power and world dominion. If someone has to break the law to serve justice, if he has the courage and is willing to pay the price, then he's a hero and the last thing the bastards want is a real hero.
To be honest, I'm still waiting to see the cables about the "strategic" reasons (i.e. control of Middle East oil) the US is at war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to former intelligence operative Wayne Madsen, Assange's sources (CIA?) redacted the cables before they fed them to Wikileaks. I'm inclined to believe this.
ReplyDeleteI find it really troublesome that they contain no mention whatsoever of Pentagon and CIA support for the Baloch separatist movement - or the secession of oil and mineral rich Balochistan from Pakistan to become a US client state - just like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the other former Soviet republics. And nothing about the CIA training young Baloch separatists in bomb making and other terrorist activities to disrupt operations at the Chinese-built Gwadar Port (part of the energy transit route for Iranian oil and natural gas headed for China).
I blog about this at http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2010/12/30/the-us-as-a-semi-failed-state/. I've put up a great map originally posted by the Free Balochistan movement - depicting a new state somewhat larger than the rest of Pakistan.
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteI put your thought-provoking thesis to the test and performed a Google search on this topic, Afghan civilian casualties total. The search produced 4,770,000 articles. Most noteworthy:
Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan from 2001 to the present, a matrix of year by year and incident by incident accounts, all of which pre-date WikiLeaks.
Here is another, Catholic sex abuse cases. This Google search turned up 791,000 articles including this website, Bishop Accountability dot Org, which provides a timeline of abuse cases, survivor accounts, and secret files documenting cover-ups from the 1940s to the present … all of which pre-date Wikileaks.
You are right. For the most part, WikiLeaks has produced very few new revelations, and there are tons of in-depth articles in Cyberspace for anyone who wants to take the time to look for them. If WikiLeaks accomplished anything, it is merely the rubbing of new salt in old wounds and a reminder that past atrocities still haunt us.
The story behind Julian Assange, however, is a another matter. According to my friend Lindsay, Assange is a sexist pig and a rapist.
Dear Octo, first, happy new year to you and all my delightful fellow Zoners. I've been AWOL lately more than usual -- but then what else is new.
ReplyDeleteI must respectfully disagree with your friend Lindsay, however.
In my opinion, the sex by surprise charges against Assange are a politically motivated stunt, designed to divert our attention from the man's work and its purpose.
What's more, they are a slap in the face of all victims of rape and sexual abuse, so I tend to take it rather personally. And I stand by Assange in this case.
This tactic, of using sexual entrapment as a means of achieving political goals and character assassination, is as old as politics itself and works unsurprisingly well. Nothing is as good as an attention-grabber-diverter (ugh) as sex. Especially when combined with real or suggested impropriety, and better yet, with aggression. It mesmerizes the masses -- and that's exactly what's desired in this case.
The more attention and energy spent on discussing Assange's "broken condom," the less left for perusing the WL disclosures -- and the less credibility given to them.
"In my opinion, the sex by surprise charges against Assange are a politically motivated stunt, designed to divert our attention from the man's work and its purpose."
ReplyDeletePerhaps I can come out of the closet and confess agreement now that you've opened the door.
The value of that charge is that it can absolutely not be corroborated and believers are free to believe. And don't they love to believe!
Remember they also tried to imply rape in the Monica Lewinsky case too despite her predatory confessions and it seems they actually paid Paula Jones to go after him for merely suggesting oral sex. If he really did, that is. The woman wore braces, for god's sake. A six figure payoff, a new Mercedes, plastic surgery paid for by the Clintonhate corporation - and nobody said anything. Talk about suborning perjury.
Besides, according to one prominent Republican philosopher lately in the news, Condoms are a hoax anyway, so why should it make a difference?
The fact that they're calling for his execution tells the whole story as far as I'm concerned and if they don't succeed, it'll be justice by surprise.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteAs your devoted cephalopod always says: Life comes before blogging, and I certainly understand your reasons for being away from the blogosphere. Nevertheless, please know that your wit and wisdom and passion are always missed around here, and I am happy to hear from you. Please accept my Best Wishes for the New Year!
I reread Lindsay’s article and offer this correction. It seems Lindsay was taking the New York Times to task for commentary that was too easily dismissive of feminist concerns: One: Why are certain types of rape allegations always taken less than seriously? Two: Why does one-time permission confer some special or unlimited privilege in the attitudes of some people? Lindsay’s point: Important feminist concerns fell into the black hole of the WikiLeaks story.
With respect to WikiLeaks being revelatory, I tend to agree with Nameless Cynic that there is not much new here. In fact, an argument can be made that the leaks represent merely a tiny subset of what has already been reported in various news media. For instance, WL reports 12 civilian deaths in ONE Helicopter gunning incident. In contrast, consider the total number of civilian deaths attributed to US-lead military operations from 2001 through 2010: 5,791 - 9,060 (estimates compiled from numerous sources).
The only revelations released by WikiLeaks are the private thoughts and commentaries of persons within the diplomatic establishment. Annoying to be sure (i.e. having your private conversations revealed), but nothing new or earth shattering … and certainly not worth a prosecution, persecution, or purge.
My only disappointment is that Assange has not yet disclosed any REAL DIRT … like smoking evidence on Bank of America and other Wall Street thugs that would expose their deceits and frauds. In addition, we lost something in this minuscule bargain: Thugs and scoundrels are more likely to go deeper underground … making it harder for whistleblowers of the future to bring important revelations into the sunshine.
"Why are certain types of rape allegations always taken less than seriously?"
ReplyDeleteDo we know that this is true or is that just a political truism? Even the Koran recognizes that there are things that can't be ascertained in the absence of witnesses and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted.
How seriously do we take claims that a woman gave some man an STD or got pregnant after claiming she was on the pill? Just asking.
Why are certain people ready to believe anything that suggests all men are beasts and rapists and exploiters? Substitute any group for 'men' and we'd be denouncing it and rightly so because it isn't true.
There are many facts that seem to suggest it's a concocted story and if we can't be content with a presumption of innocence we shouldn't pretend to be discussing justice at all.
I insist that Feminism after all, is and should be a subset of the search for universal Justice and not collective retribution for some presumed male intent or innate original sin. It's not just prejudiced antipathy toward men, or at least it shouldn't be if one is to sympathetic to that cause.
If it's not political, why are we so concerned with enforcing a law that we don't support at home or seek extradition for something that gets treated in Sweden with the same gravity as a speeding ticket. And at least the speeding ticket is based on an eyewitness report.
How long did this alleged sex continue? ten minutes, ten seconds, ten microseconds, ten Planck units? Law or no law, it makes a difference and we don't know the answer beyond considerable doubt. Did she continue to sleep with him after deciding he was a 'criminal' for his lack of self control or is it revenge for his moving on? How can we know?