[Reader-list] On Wikileaks

[Anita Cherian]

Assange has just been arrested, The Guardian is carrying live updates:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Cheers
Anita

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:

> Follow the growing aggression of lawmakers in US against wikileaks. (cross
> posted from nettime)
>
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/06/wikileaks/index.html
>
>
> The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks
> Monday, Dec 6, 2010 12:07 ET
>
> Just look at what the U.S. Government and its friends are willing to do and
> capable of doing to someone who challenges or defies them -- all without
> any charges being filed or a shred of legal authority.  They've blocked
> access to their assets, tried to remove them from the Internet, bullied
> most everyone out of doing any business with them, froze the funds marked
> for Assange's legal defense at exactly the time that they prepare a strange
> international arrest warrant to be executed, repeatedly threatened him with
> murder, had their Australian vassals openly threaten to revoke his
> passport, and declared them "Terrorists" even though -- unlike the
> authorities who are doing all of these things -- neither Assange nor
> WikiLeaks ever engaged in violence, advocated violence, or caused the
> slaughter of civilians.
>
> This is all grounded in the toxic mindset expressed yesterday on Meet the
> Press (without challenge, naturally) by GOP Sen. Minority Leader Mitch
> McConnell, who said of Assange:  "I think the man is a high-tech terrorist.
> He’s done an enormous damage to our country, and I think he needs to be
> prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And if that becomes a problem,
> we need to change the law."  As usual, when wielded by American
> authorities, the term "terrorist" means nothing more than: "those who
> impede or defy the will of the U.S. Government with any degree of
> efficacy."  Anyone who does that is, by definition, a Terrorist.  And note
> McConnell's typical, highly representative view that if someone he wants to
> punish isn't a criminal under the law, then you just "change the law" to
> make him one.
>
> But that sort of legal scheming isn't even necessary.  The U.S. and its
> "friends" in the Western and business worlds are more than able and happy
> to severely punish anyone they want without the slightest basis in "law."
> That's what the lawless, Wild Western World is:  political leaders
> punishing whomever they want without any limits, certainly without regard
> to bothersome concepts of "law."  Anyone who doubts that should just look
> at what has been done to Wikileaks and Assange over the last week.  In this
> series of events, there are indeed genuine and pernicious threats to basic
> freedom and security; they most assuredly aren't coming from WikiLeaks or
> Julian Assange.
>
> People often have a hard time believing that the terms "authoritarian" and
> "tyranny" apply to their own government, but that's because those who
> meekly stay in line and remain unthreatening are never targeted by such
> forces.  The face of authoritarianism and tyranny reveals itself with how
> it responds to those who meaningfully dissent from and effectively
> challenge its authority:  do they act within the law or solely through the
> use of unconstrained force?
>
> * * * * *
>
> Yahoo News!' Michael Calderone has a very good article documenting how
> major American media outlets -- as always -- snapped into line with the
> authorities they serve by ceasing to use the term "whistle-blower" to
> describe WikiLeaks.
>
> One encouraging development is the emergence of hundreds of "mirror-
> WikiLeaks" sites around the world which make abolishing WikiLeaks
> pointless; that's a good model for how to subvert Internet censorship
> efforts.  Those interested in doing that can find instructions here.
>
> And here is a well-done site which asks:  "Why is WikiLeaks a Good Thing?"
>
> UPDATE:  Just to underscore the climate of lawless initmidation that has
> been created:  before WikiLeaks was on many people's radars (i.e., before
> the Apache video release), I wrote about the war being waged on them by the
> Pentagon, interviewed Assange, and urged people to donate money to them.
> In response, numerous people asked -- both in comments and via email --
> whether they would be in danger, could incur legal liability for providing
> material support to Terrorism or some other crime, if they donated to
> WikiLeaks.  Those were American citizens expressing that fear over an
> organization which had never been remotely charged with any wrongdoing.
>
> Similarly, I met several weeks ago with an individual who once worked
> closely with WikiLeaks, but since stopped because he feared that his
> country -- which has a very broad extradition treaty with the U.S. -- would
> arrest him and turn him over to the Americans upon request.  He knew he had
> violated no laws, but given that he's a foreigner, he feared -- justifiably
> -- that he could easily be held by the United States without charges,denied
> all sorts of basic rights under the Patriot Act, and otherwise be
> subject to a system of "justice" which recognizes few limits or liberties,
> especially when dealing with foreigners accused of aiding Terrorists.
>
> All the oppressive, lawless policies of the last decade -- lawless
> detention, Guantanamo, disappearing people to CIA black sites, rendition,
> the torture regime, denial of habeas corpus, drones, assassinations,
> private mercenary forces, etc. -- were designed, first and foremost, to
> instill exactly this fear, to deter any challenge.   Many of these policies
> continue, and that climate of fear thus endures (see this comment from
> today as but one of many examples).  As the treatment just thus far of
> WikiLeaks and Assange demonstrates, that reaction -- though paralyzing and
> counter-productive -- is not irrational.  And one thing is for sure:  there
> is nothing the U.S. Government could do -- no matter how lawless or heinous
> -- which (with rare exception) would provoke the objections of the
> Americanestablishment media.
>
> UPDATE II:  Those wishing to donate to WikiLeaks can still do so here, via
> Options 2 (online credit card) or 3 (wire to bank in Iceland).
>
> UPDATE III:  One more, from CNET, roughly 30 minutes ago:
>
> As the article says, this is "a move that will dry up another source of
> funds for the embattled document-sharing Web site."  Remember:  this is all
> being done not only without any charges or convictions, but also any real
> prospect of charging them with a crime, because they did nothing illegal.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>