Turns out that those jokes about Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange being a modern day James Bond villain may have been closer to the truth than any of us making it could have ever guessed...
Newt Gingrich went on Fox News this weekend and said something that made me finally realize where the play is with this whole Wikileaks is going to end up... the Phantom Menace behind the Government's attitude towards Wikileaks (besides the obvious).
While speaking on Fox News, former Republican Speaker of the House/ predicted 2012 Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told Judge Napolitano the "... Wikileaks is a terrorist organization and its founder [Julian Assange] an enemy combatant.
Gingrich also appeared on Fox News with Chris Wallace. “I approach this very seriously,” Gingrich told Wallace. “Information warfare is warfare. Julian Assange is engaged in warfare... Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism. And Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism,” he said.
A war for your mind...
By this point, a slightly audible beating of war drums should be heard within your mind.
On its surface, it appears as though Gingrich's comments are the beginnings of the American rationalization in the "taking out of Assange" under the very wide umbrella of the "War on Terror".
But subtly, there is something far more insidious in there... something that up until just now I had not noticed...
In the past few days, a lot was being made of Wikileaks and of Assange.
But until now I thought it much ado about nothing; another opportunity for a politician to get his/her mug on TV to say something that will make them seem like they are concerned for the future of the United States.
But Gingrich's comments seemed to open my eyes to the undercurrent driving this whole hullabaloo over Wikileaks.
And it is a bit on the spooky side...
See, as distasteful as Assange and his website might be... and believe me, this Assange character certainly is a wormy creep of a man... What he and his website are doing is legal under the American Constitution.
In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled a matter that was strikingly similar to this one; a case brought before it by the Nixon White House- well known for their love of keeping secrets- against the New York Times in an attempt to keep them from running classified documents.
In its ruling on the case- in which the Supreme Court found in favor of the New York Times, then Justice Hug Black had this to say:
"... We are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security." The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to "make" a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.
The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged..."
** To read the entire brief as written by Justice Black, follow the link...
And so it would go for Wikileaks, except for one slight little dilemma... Wikileaks isn't American.
It is a website being run by a European (I realize that he actually hails from Australia but currently he resides in Europe...) making what the "leaker" is doing less the leaking of documents intended to shine truth on the actions of our Government and more a very low level form of international espionage, even though it is more than likely something that has happened before with other members of the foreign press.
Sounds a bit like a double standard, no???
Hold hands singing Kumbaya...
In a perfect world, Wikileaks wouldn't exist...
Not because in that perfect world Julian Assange is any less of douche bag asshole and wouldn't be as compelled by his douche baggery to run such a torrid operation but because there would be no room for it.
In a perfect world, there would be no room for Wikileaks because the job that Wikileaks is currently undertaking would be one that our own media would be doing.
"Shine the light of Truth upon the Powerful..."
Isn’t that the calling of all journalists?
Once upon a time, that may have been the case.
But sadly out current media embodiment is a dull drone of sameness, sycophantically aping the politicians and political movements they have been constitutionally been charged with playing foil to.
It’s not that Wikileaks is really releasing anything Earth shattering with cables... a few lies and double crosses, but nothing major. No troop movements, battle plans, or deeply held national secrets...
Just a naked view of the world's events and its players shown without the varnish of "spin" to 'pretty them up' for our mental digestion.
And in that lies the issue.
Wikileaks, and in truth all members of this new and untamed "alternative media", directly threaten the hold to power that those currently in control (on both sides of the aisle mine you) because of the very truth it speaks.
And Wikileaks is the worst kind of truth there is, as it is the truth in their own words.
Just the truth in all it's fair and balanced glory.
It is that which the government wants to stop... that which Gingrich so cockily referred to as a new form of "information Terrorism".
In all tyrannical societies, the first thing the people loose is the one thing the Governments hold on to the tightest as they know it is the one thing that will eventually bring about their undoing is the ability for people to share news and information freely.
And this is where they begin...Going after a smarmy piece of euro trash with a bone to pick with the U.S. of A being fed information by some low level intelligence analyst (all of which, once looking at it as a method to push for greater control over the news we are allowed to receive, tarts to look a little too convenient to really be how it is getting out, does it not???).
But it will end with all of our thoughts being filtered through the Government prism.
That’s what the "Internet kill switch" is all about. It’s what the Patriot Act was all about...
Thomas Jefferson (or maybe it was the guy in the mask in V for Vendetta) that said:
"The People should not fear the Government... it is the Government that should fear the people..."Wise words that seem to carry more weight these days...