"Abandon Julian Assange and you abandon the bedrock of our republic: the public’s right to know"

[Better Believe It]

From Jefferson to Assange
By Robert Scheer
December 7, 2010

All you need to know about Julian Assange’s value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world’s other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases. All you need to know about the collapse of traditional support for the constitutional protection of a free press is that Dianne Feinstein, the centrist Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for Assange “to be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”

Feinstein represents precisely the government that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said, in defense of unfettered freedom of the press, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

It is precisely that agitation that so alarms Feinstein, for the inconvenient truths she has concealed in her Senate role would have indeed shocked many of those who voted for her. She knew in real time that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet she voted to send young Americans to kill and be killed based on what she knew to be lies. It is her duplicity, along with the leaders of both political parties, that now stands exposed by the WikiLeaks documents.

That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security. Claims mocked by released cables that show that our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan are deeply corrupt and anti-democratic, and that al-Qaida continues to find its base of support not in those countries but rather in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the very nations we arm and protect. The notion that the official tissue of lies enhances our security is rejected by the growing strength of radical Islam in the region, as evidenced by the success of Iran, the main benefactor of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.

It is outrageous for any journalist, or respecter of what every American president has claimed is our inalienable, God-given right to a free press, not to join in Assange’s defense on this issue, as distinct from what increasingly appear to be trumped-up charges that led to his voluntary arrest on Tuesday in London in a case involving his personal behavior. Abandon Assange and you abandon the bedrock of our republic: the public’s right to know.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101207/

[EFerrari]

1. K&R

[ItNerd4life]

2. There is a difference between journalism and espionage

It's like saying that someone yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is free speech. It's not. What Assange did is not journalism.

[librechik]

3. Assange did exactly as the NYT does everyday. And that is journalism.

[HereSince1628]

4. I've heard that covering the crime is worse than the crime

I've never heard that uncovering the crimes is worse than the crimes.

Is this another one of those "Everything changed with 9/11?" things that I can't seem to keep up with?

[librechik]

5. exactly--that is the position you must take if you are against Wikileaks.

also, kill the messenger. And I have been surprised by how many here are of the opinion that uncovering the crimes is worse than the crimes themselves.

[pipi_k]

44. Actually something along those lines goes back to WWII

When the Japanese discovered the Jet Stream and had the bright idea to launch balloons filled with incendiary devices into it, hoping that the Jet Stream would bring those balloons to the US, where they would land and kill many Americans.

Some of those balloons did land. One of those balloons did kill Americans.

But because the press did not report on them, the Japanese concluded that the incendiary balloon venture was a failure, and they ended it.

Had they known how many did reach the US, they probably would have continued...perhaps not killing a great many people, but inciting panic among the citizens.

It's not just a matter of releasing information to the people...sometimes it's a matter of trying to save lives by NOT releasing information.

[ChumbawambaFan]

56. From 4 people killed by ONE balloon in OR? (If memory serves.)

And anyways.... the crime in that case would be worse than the coverage of it.

The Streisand Effect (and maybe 'common sense') would seem to hold that
covering up a crime, esp. by our gov'r, would be far worse.

Just my opinion.

I'm new here so...feel free to rip me.

[ChumbawambaFan]

89. Or...

...ignore my post and then say the same thing. tomato / tomato.:)

[HereSince1628]

59. Apples and oranges, denying intelligence to an enemy you're at war with

and hiding duplicity used against your own population are very different...

unless your population is the enemy with which you are at war.

[daleanime]

85. Oops....

.:yoiks:

[daleanime]

86. Bingo!

:hide:

[happyslug]

67. The Japanese plan was NOT to kill people but to start huge forest fires

Thus incendiary bombs were used more then explosive bombs, one incendiary device hitting the right target could start a huge fire.

This became such a threat that the US kept the African American Paratroop Regiment in the States so if a huge fire started they could paratroop near the fire and help control that fire. To my knowledge the Regiment was never used, but the US felt in had to keep it back for that purpose.

Racism also came into play, thus it was an Independent Regimental Combat Team (RCT) not tied in with any division. RCT were the first US attempt to work out how to form the expanded Regiments of WWI into a "Triangular" Division (i.e. a Division made up of three Regiments instead of the WWI concept of a Square Division of Four Regiments per Division). The 101st and 82nd Divisions did NOT want the Black Paratroopers in their Division so it stayed an Independent Paratroop Regiment. Through by the Spring of 1945 things were so tight for units that such racism was falling to combat realities but then the Germans surrendered in May 1945.

[molly77]

66. From the Guardian

WikiLeaks: Afghan vice-president 'landed in Dubai with $52m in cash'

This is important. At a time when our Congress begrudges the American people anything.Millionaires are excluded. Money laundering in Dubai from Afghanistan's govt. That is our tax dollars . ok for it to be hoarded by drug lords. ..but no help for those losing their homes as a result of deregulation of our banking system. Deregulation = no laws for the rich.

The Guardian has the best coverage of WikiLeaks.One comment..Julian Assange should be knighted.

[madmax]

72. In 2000 that's where I went to find out wtf was going on here

with the election.

UK Gaurdian - They have Jouralists not a bunch of secretary's taking dictation.

Free Julian Assange

[closeupready]

9. If information fell into his lap, and he published it, that's espionage?

The wiktionary - which as far as I know is not related to wikileaks - defines espionage as:

>>The act or process of learning secret information through clandestine means.<<

Nothing I've seen about Assange's means is clandestine.

[ChumbawambaFan]

57. A decent article on the American Espionage Act...

From the Guardian newspaper:
"The US Espionage Act is a little-used law dating from 1911 – the same year as the UK's Official Secrets Act, with which it has much in common.

The current law can be used to prosecute those who leak and publish classified information that creates a national security risk. But experts say the purpose of the act is primarily to tackle espionage, and that it has never been invoked successfully against a media organisation.

Although insiders who have leaked sensitive information have been prosecuted under the law – including two former officials of the American-Israel public affairs committee accused of leaking information in 2007 – cases have rarely resulted in convictions.

Media organisations are unlikely to be prosecuted under the act, under the constitutional protections for free speech upheld by the supreme court in a number of cases that have limited the application of the Espionage Act.<snip>"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-us-espionage-law

I think the Guardian has a special agreement with J. Assange and Wikileaks to release leaks.
So, they have an inside track to the whole shbang it seems. Even American Law? haha.

Anyhoots, I ♥ their interactive page on Cablegate.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. I heart the Guardian generally. Thanks for your link. nt

[Iterate]

10. If not this, then what is journalism?

[Better Believe It]

11. "Espionage" is whatever rulers claim "espionage" is. Do you also think he's engaged in subversion,

Un-Americanism, terriorism and whatever other outrageous claims are made by politicians and corporate media opponents of our democratic rights?

The "fire" in a theater analogy is old and complete nonsense.

It has absolutely no application or relevance to what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are doing.

He was not in a theater yelling fire.

Did you not know that?

So what's your point outside of a rather weak defense of Senator Weinstein's attack on a free press and our Constitution?

[defendandprotect]

52. Thank you!!! Labels are used to demonize people... and they have to be challenged!!!

[14thColony]

19. Quite convenient

...that the powers that be, who want everything to remain secret, also get to define what the difference between journalism and espionage is. So if I have the power to call anything under the sun 'secret,' and then prosecute anyone who violates my definition of 'secret' as a spy, you'd have to admit that's a pretty sweet deal, huh? If that's the case I bet I can put a stop to all journalism I don't like, and pretty quick too.

And bear in mind this is the same government that tried to go after journalists for revealing 'classified information' that was only classified ex post facto. As I said, sweet deal.

[bomberman]

20. Then why is the MSM reporting it?

Assange is doing what the actual media is SUPPOSED to be doing. They just don't have the balls to do it themselves. I, for one, would love to know why Obama working with the Republicans to stop the prosecution of George W. Bush is classified as a "secret".

[Frisbee]

27. Just because Julian's information did not...

come from traditional sources, and was not published in a traditional way, does not make it any less journalistic. To the contrary, the fact that they no longer seem to be interested in doing what was traditionally their job, he may be showing us the future of journalism. I say give that man a Pulitzer!

[Lord Magus]

42. Did the NY Times commit espionage by publishing the Pentagon Papers?

If you think Assange is committing espionage by publishing these leaked documents, then there's no legitimate argument that the NYT did not.

[defendandprotect]

51. There's a difference between a people's government and fascism....

in the first, the people have a right to know --

in the second, they are denied the right of information ---

[sabrina 1]

61. Then you agree with Joe-the-moron- Lieberman that we must

prosecute the NYT, The Guardian and Der Spiegel and every other news organization around the globe that does exactly as Julian Assange does every day? Goodbye 1st Amendment. I hope you are not in a position, as he is, to get your opinion taken seriously by those in power.

[tavalon]

65. You get to decide that?

Why?

[paparush]

71. What Assange did is called PUBLICATION, not Espionage. Wikileaks did not steal anything.

[Raschel]

77. I read that the state department was offered the opportunit­y to redact and vet

the documents, but they refused and that wikiLeaks redacted names of agents and informants­.

[liberation]

88. LOL. That is exactly what they said when the Washington Post ran their article on Watergate.

Sweet zombie Jesus on a pogo stick, some people don't even bother to update their talking points.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. K&R

[DevonRex]

7. If he's found guilty of rape I'll abandon him in a flat second.

Rape isn't "personal behavior" like whether or not he brushes his teeth in the morning.

[defendandprotect]

53. You mean you won't support Assange personally in the court case ....?

Or do you mean you would no longer support WikiLeaks release of the info?

Two different things --

[Life Long Dem]

54. Agree but...

You can defend the first amendment but find him guilty of an unrelated crime.

But it does look like a bogus charge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697

One of the women involved in the sexual abuse allegations told Aftonbladet that she had voluntary relations with him and had never wanted him to be charged with rape, the Guardian said.

"He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him," she said — anonymously — according to the paper.

[sirthomas66]

70. It is totally bogus.

[Raschel]

81. It's been kind of quiet on that front. The online buzz showing most people not believing the charge

They must be going crazy trying to figure out their next move. Short of shutting down the internets, I don't see what that next move could be.

I think they'll really have problems if somebody tries to kill him.

[Lucinda]

8. Thank you...KnR

[treestar]

12. Craziest thread title of the week

Your prize is a week at the Swedish Embassy.

[Octafish]

21. Did you read the article? Robert Scheer lost his LAT job to the Reichwinger Jonah Goldberg.

LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer.

He is definitely worth reading and his website, www.TruthDig.com is definitely worth supporting.

BTW: What he's talking about in the crazy title is the First Amendment, that which makes it possible for us to converse about, say, politics and stuff.

[coalition_unwilling]

82. When the LA Times fired Scheer, I fired the LA Times (cancelled

my subscription). I've never looked back nor regretted my decision once, as the days of Otis Chandler are long gone for the corporate whores at the Tribune Corp and LA Times.

The LA Times now has the ignominious honor of serving the 2nd largest media market in the country with a paid daily subscriber base of far fewer than 1 million. Tribune Corporation (parent of LA Times) was bout out by a private investor who then declared bankruptcy. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of suits, imho.

[PBS Poll-435]

13. Is this guy still in the news?

It is Wednesday, right?

[girl gone mad]

16. Better get used to it.

The reaction on the part of our government will ensure he stays front and center for quite some time.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. What did our Gov't do besides laugh it off?

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

24. Have you been in a coma?

Google Eric Holder + Assange or Lieberman + Wikileaks

[PBS Poll-435]

26. ROFL

Thanks.

:rofl:

[DearAbby]

14. K&R

Standing up for Freedom of Speech

[Octafish]

15. Thank you.

Some people just don't get it.

Then, again, that's the point.

[snot]

17. K&R'd

[snot]

18. Makes me want to stand on a street corner and read this loudly to passers-by.

[strawberryfield]

23. Too bad Assange and the internet didn't exist in George Washington's time

Assange could have published about how bad Washington's army was hurting at Valley Forge, and the names of loyal revolutionaries in British held areas.


After all, the public had the right to know such things.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. LOL. Conservative snitches would have beat him to it by a mile.

[coalition_unwilling]

83. Back in those days, they were 'Tory snitches' - he, he - n/t

[JDPriestly]

40. Assange is not an American.

I don't like people who betray secrets, but that is not what Assange is doing. He is publishing information that someone else gave him. At least that is the story as far as we know the facts.

Somewhere there may be someone who violated secrecy laws, but Assange is no more guilty of that than Judy Miller was. When Judy Miller published the information about Plame, she knew that she had been given secret information from someone who worked in the government in a high position. It probably wasn't the first time she published something that, as far as she knew, were secrets.

Our press should have been printing the negative information they had in the build-up to the Iraq War.

The Wikileaks would not be so interesting to anyone if the US government were less extreme in keeping information from us.

[plantwomyn]

75. What caught my attention

was that it was reported that they want to change the Espionage Act to make sure that it will cover this kind of disclosure. What changes were made after the Plame outing? NONE!

[gateley]

80. Wonder if that's true, Time to get Yoo back on the payroll!

:grr:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. LOL. I love it when you people get your panties in a snit over Assange.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. The public does *not* automatically have a right to know the contents of confidential communications

The way to mount a sane defence of Assange is "he has not broken any laws", not "the contents of all confidential diplomatic communications should be open to the public".

[Better Believe It]

35. We need to award the Medal of Freedom to those that got the material to Assange

[JDPriestly]

43. OK, so Assange is not an American citizen. He is not subject to our laws.

What laws did he break that he is subject to? How could the US get him extradited. Sweden may be able to extradite him because there are allegations that he violated Swedish law on Swedish soil. He probably did not commit any crimes in this country. There is only a remote chance that he did. He seems to be too clever for that.

He is not some employee of the American government who sold American information to another government.

Somebody gave him this information. Somebody leaked the information to him.

This information could have come from anywhere, anyone.

It's perfectly possible that some foreign country gave this info to Assange -- although doubtful because it would seem that if a foreign government was getting this information, it probably would not provide this to anyone.

[Major Hogwash]

50. The FBI still has a secret file on John Lennon and he has been dead for 30 years!!

Seriously, these memos are not top secret communiques.
For the most part, they are boring, ordinary bullshit memos written by low-level federal government halfwits that work overseas. Most of which are incompetent boobs, such as those portrayed by Jerry Lewis in the movie "The Orderly".

But, I would appreciate seeing for myself just how "voluptous" Khaddafi's Ukranian nurse actually is.
I mean, weren't you shocked to "learn" that, as if it meant anything at all to anyone anywhere!
He has a "voluptuous nurse".
Wow.

And here I thought the Western World had cornered the market on "voluptuous nurses."
I'm fucking bummed.
I thought that by now with all of the silicon boob jobs, and plastic surgeons, and great looking women in America, we'd have won that battle for sure.

I'll bet you $100 that the guy that wrote that memo was leering at her the whole time, too.

[tomp]

60. sorry but there are very few secrets that need to be kept by an honest govt.

if i had to choose between the kind of secrecy now claimed by our govt and zero secrets i would without question choose the latter.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[davidthegnome]

31. I agree with you

Perhaps prior to the Bush Presidency I would have taken issue with Assange's methods. Back when I still believed that the MSM had some credibility. Now I see him as one of the few who is willing to expose the truth, even at great cost to himself. He is doing more than revealing truth - he is putting his own life at risk to do so.

Those of you against him - what is he revealing that threatens the lives of American citizens? That poses a threat that we did not already face? If the truth of the actions of our own government is so damning that we must fear the truth, then we should all be ashamed.

No, I'm with Assange, I want the truth and I'm sick of waiting for the MSM to deliver. If this is the only way to get it then so be it. I don't put any credibility at all into the charges against Assange - and if you read the known details regarding them, I doubt you'd want to be the prosecuting attorney.

[madmax]

55. Seems something good came out of the Bush Residency

That too is when I lost all faith in our government, fair elections and the USSC, the rule of law, all the bullshit. Gone forever.

FREE ASSANGE

[Catherina]

34. Recommended. Robert Scheer, you rock. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

36. abandon the - spokesperson?

Again, Assange is inserted as the entirety of Wikileaks.

[Better Believe It]

39. That's who the opponents of a free press are mainly targeting in case you haven't noticed.

[TorchTheWitch]

41. no shit - the question is why

And why is it being perpetuated even here?

[pmorlan1]

37. K & R

It boggles the mind that so many so called journalists are on the wrong side of this issue. They reveal themselves for what we knew them to be all along.

[JDPriestly]

38. Somebody may have violated American law. That is true.

But I don't think that law applies to Assange.

Our government needs to figure out how Assange got his information. Because until they do, they have no one to blame but themselves. And if someone from overseas hacked our computer communications methods whatever they may be, that is our own fault also.

The folks like Lieberman and Feinstein who are supposed to be watching our security are angry because they know that sooner or later people will start blaming them and others in the government beginning, apparently, in the Bush era.

Assange did not do anything that other journalists wouldn't do -- at least as far as we know at this point. He has no obligation to keep our secrets. He is not an American citizen, much less someone entrusted with the diplomatic communications.

These communications were apparently disseminated too widely. There are bound to be a few disgruntled employees in there somewhere. And the scope of information that our government classifies is just mind-boggling. A little discernment, a little discretion would go a long way.

[Raksha]

45. K&R

:kick:

[Wednesdays]

46. K&R

:kick:

[highplainsdem]

47. K&R

[laughingliberal]

48. K & R nt

[Major Hogwash]

49. Espionage? Oh, for Christ's sake, it's no different than the Patriot Act in reverse!

Instead of the fucking government bugging my phone to listen to my fucking conversations, it's somone else listening in on the government's fucking conversations.

Feinstein is just embarrassed that our government sucks.
And she's one of the suckees that is a part of it.

[coalition_unwilling]

84. Feinstein has the blood of 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians dripping from her

hands and fangs. She's a war pig just like Jane Harman.

Edited for typo.

[Roughneck]

58. Abandon Assange and you abandon the bedrock of our republic: the public’s right to know

For all those who purport to defend the 1st amendment, that statement is really not up for debate. If you want to silence Wikileaks and the press reporting about Wikileaks' material, then you are an enemy of the Constitution, plain and simple. Jefferson would roll in his grave if he knew what modern-day politicians were doing to his America.

[marew]

62. K & R!

[sabrina 1]

64. I love Robert Scheer, he is one of the best. And he too was censored

by the L.A. Times for his reporting on the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. Too much truth is bad for the warmongers.

He is right, where are the journalists of America on this? Did they hear Joe Lieberman's call for an investigation of the press for publishing the news?

Now is the time for them to stand up or remain at their dusty desks, reading the memos handed to them by this oppressive government for the rest of their miserable lives. Assange should be an inspiration to them, someone willing to risk everything to bring the truth to the people of the world. But I doubt they will, they are like trained monkeys now. We would not recognize a free press if we saw it, and neither would they.

[sirthomas66]

68. Breathtakingly accurate.

[Eddie Haskell]

69. And this

"Each of the wikileaks revelations has been carefully weighed to ensure there is a public interest in disclosing it. Of the more than 250,000 documents they hold, they have released fewer than 1000 – and each of those has had the names of informants, or any information that could place anyone at risk, removed. The information they have released covers areas where our governments are defying the will of their own citizens, and hiding the proof from them."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-case-must-not-obscure-what-wikileaks-has-told-us-2154109.html

[okieinpain]

73. we have a right to know, but not a right to expose secrets. n/t.

[Voice for Peace]

74. Big K&R. This is way bigger than Assange as most of you know. It is shining a bright light

on cheat and deceit in governments & corporations all over the world. The existence of Wikileaks and anything like Wikileaks (and I have no doubt there will be more) could very well cause a major shift in world politics.

When lies can no longer be hidden -- the MSM will not be able to brainwash the entire human race.

When the sun comes up, the dark things of the night must either slink away under their rocks or they get baked on the sidewalk.

[RufusTFirefly]

76. This sort of repression has been happening for more than 200 years

President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798. One of the primary targets of the legislation was journalists who disagreed with him.

Accounts vary about the number of arrests and indictments that occurred as a result of the passage of the Sedition Act of 1798. Most scholars cite 25 arrests and at least 17 verifiable indictments – 14 under the Sedition Act and three under common law. Ten indictments went to trial, all resulting in convictions. Because these laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party, most of the victims of the sedition prosecutions were Democratic-Republican journalists who openly criticized Adams’ presidency and the Federalists. All but one of the indicted individuals – James Callender, from Thomas Jefferson’s home state of Virginia – were from the Federalist-dominated New England and Middle Atlantic states. Symbolically enough, Callender’s sentence ended on March 3, 1801, the day the Sedition Act expired.

From here

[cottonseed]

78. Wasn't this same thing said about Bev?

[LittleBlue]

79. K&R

[SemperEadem]

87. these same journalists

are the very ones who had a hissy fit when Obama said Fux Noose was not a legitimate news organization and would be treated with as such--they all jumped onto fux's side when they should have been saying "damn right".

Now today, is leaked the very memo which shows without a shadow of a doubt that fux noose is NOT a legitimate news organization when their upper news management is treated news and what should be serious journalism like fucking "American idol".