Thursday, December 09, 2010

War on Free Press, H Clinton the real villain, Free Assange

Image of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, photo-shopped when she was running for US President in 2008, stolen [from here]

* * * *

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted 2.3 Trillion Dollars is unaccounted for by the Pentagon. Would George W. Bush, former US President George H. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard "Dick" Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and others have been prosecuted if the World Trade Centers weren't conveniently blown up by CIA "Terrorists" on 9-11?

Donald Rumsfeld's 9-10-01 plea in case the plot the next day went awry?

* * * *

To get the text of the below piece not to go into side panel, click:

Big News

Is Hillary Clinton the Villain of the WikiLeaks Thriller?

Will the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lead to the first War of the Internet?

It is Enemy of the State meets The Matrix meets Disclosure. It is War Games meets The Bourne Identity meets The Social Network. The story of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks – and maybe the story of the first War of the Internet – is, if nothing else, going to make a great movie.

Let’s sketch out the plot. I am going to do it from memory and exaggerate because we are in Hollywood and it’s all about the story, people.

You have a poor boy from a corrupt provincial area of distant Australia. He is a loner, an outsider. He gets involved in a 10-year-long child custody case. He loses all trust in the system but refuses to give up out of love for his boy. He goes a little mad, something which gives him semi-magical hacker skills. The case over, he drops out. Disappears from recorded society.

Years later he reemerges mysteriously as the head of WikiLeaks. How? What happened? Where did he get the money? Where did he get his act together? A secret monastery in Tibet? A low level corporate job in the Silicon Valley? Or did some tycoon rehab him, train him up in an underground camp? Warren Buffet? Steve Jobs?

WikiLeaks goes global. Huge document dumps shake the U.S. military, exposing the futility and brutality of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, just as Assange plans his greatest act of rebellion, he gets charged with sexual assault in Sweden, of all places (and where I live).

Now, here, it gets murky. Maybe Assange did it. He is crazy and under a lot of pressure and perhaps, beyond that, he’s a rapist, a bad guy. But we don’t know. Maybe he’s not. And whether or not he did it, now the system has their hooks in him, ready to reel him in if need be.

But Assange dumps millions of secret U.S. diplomatic cables into the internet anyway. This is cool – exposing the hypocrisy of international diplomacy (even if U.S. diplomats turn out to be good at it) and showing the U.S. empire in decline, unbecoming horse trading and pleading left and right.

But the system as a whole is not weak, certainly strong enough to crush little WikiLeaks. Interpol puts Assange on its most wanted list, even though he is only wanted for questioning. Companies left and right – PayPal, Visa, Mastercard – drop WikiLeaks. The site is hacked, domain names are revoked. Assange is arrested.

Then the war starts. A group of hackers in an action called Operation Payback take down Mastercard’s website, among others, and vow to retaliate digitally for the alleged persecution of Assange:

“We cannot let this happen. This is why our intention is to find out who is responsible for this failed attempt at censorship.

“This is why we intend to utilise our resources to raise awareness, attack those against and support those who are helping lead our world to freedom and democracy.”

Is this the start of the First War of the Internet? Of the battle between the corrupt corporate state and the defenders of the openness of the internet? From the Independent:

You’ll have been following the Wikileaks saga, of course, because it is novel and interesting. Maybe you like it because it looks like a live action retelling of Enemy Of The State, or because history seems to be in the making. It feels big, doesn’t it? It is, but it’s bigger than that, too: what we’re witnessing right now is the opening of hostilities in the first big infowar. The war for the Internet is very big indeed.

If you’re not a digital native, or if you’re some kind of hearty outdoors type, this may not seem important, but you’re dead wrong. We could be spectators for the start of the cyber Great War – and they’ve just knocked over Franz Ferdinand.

Cool movie. Producers leave your contact info in the comments section. I can start writing tomorrow.

But the real question is this: who plays the villain? There are so many – bad Aussie judges, U.S. military guys, corporate hacks. Who gets to be the face of the political establishment? I think there is a clear choice – Hillary Clinton.

You notice that after WikiLeaks exposed huge problems – including murder! – in the U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing happened. But embarrass the diplomatic elite, the workers of the State Department? Death to WikiLeaks.

Clinton is perfect – the old hand, the mover of levers sitting in her office barking orders to corporate CEOs and Swedish judges, calmly moving to crush WikiLeaks, a capacity for vengeance honed by the Clinton wars of the 1990s, by all those election campaigns. She knows how power works. And usually she uses this knowledge for seemingly good causes (for instance, it turns out she would have likely been a far more effective president than Obama – do you think she would be preaching conciliation with the Republicans now? Hah.).

But when the power elite is threatened, watch out for Hillary.

At least in my screenplay …

The above was re-posted [from here]

* * * *
* * * *

If Julian Assange of WikiLeaks really wants to stir the pot, hopefully he leaks real intelligence on September 11, 2001, and what the US Government was up to in the planning and blowing up of three World Trade Center buildings.


[click here] for:

Julian Assange on Rap News, a Rap Video

* * * *

The Irony of Lieberman's Devotion to Prosecuting WikiLeaks

By Kevin Gosztola (about the author)

Senator Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) Official Federal Portrait by U.S. Government

I previously wrote about Senator Joseph Lieberman's (I-CT) appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, December 7th, where he suggested that New York Times should be subjected to an inquiry by the Justice Department on whether they committed a crime or not by publishing or reporting on the contents of the diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks. I intentionally ignored one aspect of Sen. Lieberman's remarks on Fox News because I felt that aspect deserved its own article.

Just after addressing whether the press reporting on WikiLeaks should face a Justice Department investigation or not, Sen. Lieberman added:

"And, again, why do you prosecute crimes? Because if you don't--Well, first you do because that's what our system of justice requires. Second, if you don't prosecute people who commit crimes, others are going to do it soon and again.

As someone familiar with what Bush Administration officials did when they were in power and how there are officials who should be dragged into court to face a trial for war crimes, I instantly noted the inconsistency. This remark was laughable. But, I am conscious of the fact that it also revealed those in charge of deciding who is guilty of crimes and not guilty of crimes do not think certain violations of the law are crimes.

They think waterboarding, which has traditionally been defined as torture, an act considered to be a war crime, is permissible in some situations. They think warrantless wiretapping is acceptable if there is information to be gained that could be of use (and don't believe they should be required to prove in the aftermath that what they gained was useful). They find little problem with a CIA, which kidnaps terror suspects and uses extraordinary rendition to send them off to countries that are known to torture suspects, like Egypt. And, they are willing to have terror suspects imprisoned indefinitely in secret prisons or, in the case of detainees at Guantanamo, they are willing to prevent terror suspects from being granted due process.

On April 23, 2009, Sen. Lieberman appeared on "Fox & Friends" on Fox News. Here is a full transcript of the interview he did with host Brian Kilmeade, who expressed his gratitude for Lieberman's lack of interest in prosecuting former Bush Administration officials:

MR. KILMEADE: Senator Joe Lieberman urging the president not to prosecute. He's live at the Russell Rotunda. You're a Democrat telling a Democratic president not to prosecute a Republican -- that's not a popular move. Why shouldn't he go forward?

SEN. LIEBERMAN : I suppose that's what it means, Brian, to be an independent Democrat. Look, in the best of all worlds, interpreting what the president said in the clip you just ran, he was deferring to Attorney General Holder to make this decision. But the three of us -- Senator McCain, Senator Graham and I -- think it's a real mistake to start breaching the possibility that you criminalize a legal opinion. I mean, you could disagree with the opinions these lawyers wrote during the Bush administration about these enhanced interrogation tactics.

I disagree with some of them. I think they are reasoned opinions. It looks to me like they and the CIA people were really trying to find out exactly what would not be torture under the law of the United States. But you know, if you're going to start -- look, we had an election last year. We got a new administration. This president has prohibited these tactics from being used against suspects in the war against terrorism. So let's move on. If we start to go back, it raises the possibility we're going to -- we're basically going to find lawyers who wrote an opinion, that I presume they believed in, guilty of a crime --

MR. KILMEADE: Exactly.

SEN. LIEBERMAN : We're opening a door that's going to make it hard for any administration in the future to get the kind of legal advice that it wants, let alone deal with people who are suspects that may have information in the war on terrorism.

MR. KILMEADE: As we hear, you know, there's going to be a time when this party is not in power and this president is not in the White House. Do you want to go back and investigate that administration? Is it ever going to end and is it going to help anyone except for people get political points? Sena what about those ranking Democrats that knew about these enhanced interrogation tactics on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee? Should they be hauled in front of Congress and investigated?

SEN. LIEBERMAN : Well, I mean, there's no end to this if you go on. That's the point. Look, the American public, I think, wants us to do two things: One is to focus on the economy today and get going again -- protect and create jobs; and two, defend America from the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and are still looking for every opportunity to do it today. If we get into basically a political war here in Washington over what happened during the last eight years, it's going to take our eyes and our attention and our effort off of what we really ought to be doing for the American people. There is simply nothing to be gained from it and it is going to have a bad effect on every administration of any party that follows in the generations ahead.

MR. KILMEADE: As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I'm sure he's got to take your calls, Senator Lieberman . Make that call to the Oval Office and spare us a long, drawn out investigation. Thanks so much for expanding on the letter your put out there with Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as John McCain. Always great to see you, Senator. [emphasis added]


Sen. Lieberman's arguments against prosecuting Bush Administration officials for crimes could be used to argue against prosecuting WikiLeaks. Lieberman and others upset by WikiLeaks could choose to disagree but protect the actions of WikiLeaks just like leaders like Sen. Lieberman suggest we all should respect the actions and opinions of lawyers that created legal justification for torture. This could open a door that in the future makes it harder for the press to report on government and fulfill their role as a watchdog of government (it actually could mean more WikiLeaks-type organizations spring up because press do not find it safe to report on classified information anymore).

There could potentially be no end to this if Sen. Lieberman's and others' crusade against WikiLeaks gains further traction. What starts with WikiLeaks would have to move on to publications like the New York Times. And then, on to members of other press organizations that reported on the leaks. Perhaps, it would be used to specifically criminalize independent media like Democracy Now!. And then, would there be interest in extraditing individuals who work for The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, or Le Monde to the United States since they have been cooperating and working with WikiLeaks?

What is to be gained from this? There is no evidence to suggest that any real damage has occurred. No deaths have been reported as a result of WikiLeaks' release of leaked documents. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that reactions over the harm that WikiLeaks' release of documents would do to America were "significantly overwrought." The gains from going after WikiLeaks will be further repression of press freedom, increased support for censorship and security that destroys the openness and democratic nature of the Internet, and criminalization of those who dissent against America.

Of course, this comparison requires one note be made: WikiLeaks has not committed any crimes. It has not been convicted of anything. On the other hand, former Bush Administration officials committed crimes (crimes the leaked diplomatic cables show U.S. government has been trying to cover up or blackmail people into not investigating).

The persecution of WikiLeaks is entirely political. Julian Assange may be guilty of a sex crime and, if that is the case, he will be prosecuted and face a fine or time in prison. But, Assange and WikiLeaks are not being hunted and strangled because their leader may have committed a sex crime. They are "Public Enemy No. 1" because they have challenged America.

WikiLeaks has brought out into the open the contradiction that is the United States. Its leaders do little to challenge those who might use the scientific journalism of Wikileaks to repress press freedom and, at the same time, celebrate the fact that U.S. will be the host of World Press Freedom Day in 2011. Its leaders jabber about justice and making sure people are prosecuted so others do not commit the same crimes in the future and simultaneously ignore their history of complicity toward lawlessness and misconduct by U.S. government. And, they purport to be leaders of a free nation as they engage in acts of censorship, coercion and intimidation against American citizens who might take interest and express a desire to support WikiLeaks.

I suppose citizens of the world should expect nothing less from these American leaders. People that argue WikiLeaks is endangering lives and then change their argument to the leaks reveal nothing new clearly are doomed to an existence of contradiction.

The above re-posted from:

This blogger, Steven G. Erickson's, comment posted on to the above:

Two of the most dangerous US Senators, ever, in modern times are out of Connecticut, Dodd and Lieberman. Dodd took bribes from banksters and writes legislation on the Senate Banking Committee. Lieberman's loyalties aren't to the US Constitution and even to his own Constituents. Lieberman is such an ego maniac he thinks he should be able to censor the internet at his own whim.

Connecticut is possibly the most corrupt state in the union. Some of the richest and most powerful drive into NYC from Connecticut. Politicians test America for how much police and the courts can abuse citizens. Write critical of a politician, and a google alert will put you on the Connecticut State Police "Arrest on Sight" list.

We the people need to remove politicians like Lieberman, who want to dismantle the US Constitution. Let's show Lieberman how we feel. Silence signifies acceptance.

by Steven G. Erickson (3 fans, 8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 190 diaries, 886 comments [645 recommended]) on Thursday, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:44:37 AM

[click here] for a post on Connecticut US Senator Chris Dodd:

"Hanging: it concentrates the mind wonderfully"

Note: I'm not advocating that Chris Dodd be hung from the nearest tree. Lynching is illegal. Even though, Connecticut and US Courts are rigged, that isn't the answer. Although, if Dodd were hung from the nearest tree, I would not lose any sleep.


stevengerickson AT Yahoo Dot Com



Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats