“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” - Ayn Rand
As the story unfolds, it reads like a work of fictional apocalypse. Classified government documents are exposed via the Internet by Julian Assange, romantic yet controversial protagonist for whom questions of morality blur the distinction between hero and villian. Acting as both judge and jury, the world’s powerful elite set out to figuratively and literally crucify Assange. Using the media, they manipulate public opinion into two camps; those who revere him and those who despise him. As everyone clamors to choose sides, they ironically fail to realize that the entire debate has been carefully crafted to deflect attention away from the very issues he’s working to expose; most notably the corruption, abuse of power, and crimes against humanity perpetuated by the so called democratic government of the United States of America.
Senior government officials are so threatened by the exposure of their top secret documents that some have publicly called for the “illegal” assaination of Julian Assange. As if incitement of his murder isn’t bad enough, they are racking their little brains trying to come up with a way to charge him under the
Espionage Act of 1917, constitutionality of which has been questioned since 1917. Worse yet, the hysteric labeling of Assange as a “terrorist” brings to mind not only
McCarthyism but also possible implications concerning the
Patriot Act, when in reality a terrorist by definition must conduct violence to achieve a political, religious, or social goal. Since Assange has never perpetrated violence by any stretch of the imagination the motivation behind labeling him a terrorist is highly questionable . The CIA has even formed the
Wikileaks Task Force, sole purpose of which is to “investigate” Wikileaks. This task force is appropriately called “WTF” for short. Speaking of WTF, Assange has been accused of “raping” two women in Sweden. Dismissing such accusations would be doing a great disservice to all victims of rape as would trumped up charges of rape being used as a smear campaign. Either way, somebody is insulting rape victims everywhere. To quote my friend Maggie McNeill, “the whole thing stinks on ice”. (read Maggie’s detailed explanation on this issue
here and
here)
I am a supporter of Julian Assange because he is working to expose the “glaringly evident which everyone has decided not to see”. The leaked documents only confirm what I and other so called extremists have suspected for years. Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please – we do NOT live in a free society. It is only an illusion. Our civil rights have been slowly eroding over time and now – good fucking morning America! Our government started a war under false pretense and used it to take our rights away. Now they are spying on American citizens, committing war crimes in foreign lands, and torturing people in the name of our country. Don’t we as a society know that’s just plain wrong? We are being conditioned to accept the unacceptable and this is only the beginning. What could be next and where does it end? The possibilities are endless and thoroughly frightening.
Our government’s persecution of Assange for blowing the whistle on crimes against humanity goes against all moral standard. When human rights are being violated it is our responsibility to speak out as failure to do so will certainly bear the eventual result of the violation of our own. What about that is so difficult to understand?
“The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against the victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.”
— Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)
And then there’s Bradley Manning.
Private Bradley Manning just turned 23 last week. Sadly, he did not have the opportunity to do any of the things a 23 year old kid should on his birthday. He did not go out, get drunk, get laid, hang out with friends, see his family, or even recieve a gift, a hug, or a kiss. He did not even have the opportunity to go outside, much less the opportunity to get a good night’s sleep. You see, Bradley Manning lives at a maximum security military prison. He spends 23 hours a day in solitary confinement in a 6×12 foot cell and hasn’t seen the light of day in months. Inside his cell, he is not permitted to perform basic physical exercises such as sit ups nor is he allowed to read a newspaper. Access to proper bedding has been denied. Even sleep is a luxury for Bradley Manning, as he must respond affirmativly to “welfare checks” performed by guards every five minutes. What, you ask, is the crime of which he was convicted?
Ah. That is hard to explain, glaringly evident, and you may very well decide not to see it.
Private Bradley Manning has been convicted of no crime. He hasn’t even officially been charged with a crime. Then why the fuck has he spent the past seven months imprisoned first in Kuwait then at Quantico Military Prison?
Allegedly, Private Bradley Manning had the nerve to provide proof of war crimes and human rights violations committed by the United States military to Julian Assange, who then exposed it to the world. Circumstance of which has proved quite unfortunate for Manning; fortunate for those who may have been victims of future atrocities such as those already committed in the name of the good ol’ US of A that now may not occur due to the heightened scrutiny of the world. Thanks to Manning we will never know.
And so a rosy cheeked 23 year old kid is a political prisoner facing fifty plus years in prison for the alleged crime of espionage. Due to military rules of procedure, he is not entitled to trial by jury. Instead, he will eventually face military court martial. In the interim, the conditions of his imprisonment are certainly brutal and constitute torture by internationally accepted standards. I suspect his treatment on the inside isn’t improved by general knowledge of his sexual orientation (Manning is gay).
Aren’t you proud to be an American?
The imprisonment of Bradley Manning serves a dual purpose to our dear Big Brother. Primarily, it serves their greater goal of annihilating Wikileaks and Julian Assange. As
Glenn Greenwald wrote in his
Dec. 18 column on Salon:
“… The Independent yesterday shed further light on one of the motives for the repressive conditions imposed on Manning: namely, that U.S. officials believe it is “crucial” to “persuade” Manning to testify against WikiLeaks if they are to convict Assange, i.e., to “persuade” Manning to say that WikiLeaks did not merely passively receive classified information, but actively provided Manning technical and other assistance in advance to access and disseminate classified information. The more inhumane the conditions are of Manning’s detention, the greater pressure the Government can apply to induce him — “persuade” him — to testify how they need him to testify in order to prosecute Assange.”
In short, this is Big Brother’s method of persuading Bradley Manning to snitch on Julian Assange.
Secondly, it sets an example for other potential dissenters. Follow the rules – or else! To be honest, it made even me – fearless, tough as nails Kelly James who couldn’t care less about rules and has never turned down a dare – think twice before writing this article. I’m sure my government file is growing exponentially as I speak. So why don’t I shut my mouth? Simple – because running my mouth is my Constitutional right and believe it or not, I am proud to be an American. Black hearted as I may be; while I don’t care much about “rules” I do care deeply about what is right – and I don’t believe the two necessarily intersect.
If the allegations prove true then Private Bradley Manning, the unnoticed hero in an unfinished saga, broke the rules.
Thank God somebody did.
“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”
-Ayn Rand
Tweet
18 Comments
It’s important that we see the power of distraction caused by the rape allegations as you do. Ad hominem was once recognized as a fallacy of logic. As a whistle blower in my neighborhood, I discovered how rampant this tactic is used across America by those protecting their power. It’s now the first response right down to civic associations in neighborhood decisions. When I saw the Wikileaks disclosures vital to the people of the world, I was immediately certain that a smear campaign would be launched against Wikileaks and it would be framed by the powerful corporate media to drown out the vital issues.
It seems that only about 10% of our population can detect the ad hominem strategy and every whistle blower must be prepared for this. We can’t know what happened in Sweden at this time. But to understand that Assange would be personally attacked was a certainty.
recommended
absolutely. It’s the glaringly evident that everybody just decides not to see. Why? I haven’t come up with a satisfactory theory but the fact remains.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the government is able to distract the nation from such blatant human rights violations :-(
I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for the government as a general institution if they were to address the real issues and admit the need for change.
Kelly,
It’s the result of a concerted effort to destroy public education and especially civic literacy since the civil rights and Vietnam war rebellion. Early fascism pretends to be utilitarianism and education becomes technical education The fascist movement learned that entertainment, drugs, and trinkets could be used to addict and distract the middle class. This has been developing over several decades. I was preoccupied and didn’t fully realize this until 10 years ago when I left my job in behavioral health care research and got involved with neighborhood issues in Philadelphia. All of us thinking people need to recognize that the principles we believe in are not understood by a majority in 2011 America. I fear that the revolution will not be based on principle but on the lack of bread! But we need to remind each other, that although it is lonely; we are not alone. Thanks for your post!
Glenn – I’ll admit that I’ve had similar suspicions for awhile but I don’t yet know enough about the facts or fully understand the concepts behind the theory well enough to attempt publicly arguing the point. If people think I’m nuts it would take away from my effectiveness as an activist :-) But I totally get what you’re saying and you’re right – the majority does not. Which is why we need to rationally explain it to them.
Fascism in and of itself is a difficult concept to fully grasp and talk about without contributing to the detraction of it’s actual meaning. Here’s a couple links I just read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Kelly -
Thank you for your thoughts on Wikileaks. You hit the nail on the head.
However, you and glennm7 missed it on the subject of fascism.
Benito Mussolini knew something about fascism and he said that “fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” All other definitions of fascism describe its effects rather than the root cause of those effects.
If the palpable effects of fascism are mistaken for its essence, we hack at the multitude of branches rather than the root.
Corporatism is at the heart of the meaning of fascism. The historical systems categorized as fascism, which we should study, all had differences, of course. But they tend to be bound by features in common too, which I think is very important to study and discuss leading to the proper use of the word. I recognize the word fascism comes with risks, because many people immediately interchange it with nazism and accuse the speaker of inappropriately invoking the holocaust. When I use it, I mean to invoke the common characteristics that bind those historical systems together in a way that the word corporatism might not. I find frightening parallels within several of these historical fascist systems and our own society. When we get to more specific comparisons, it’s different. If I want to speak of privatization, I might talk about Chile and Pinochet and not use the broader term. Umberto Eco’s Ur Fascism might be helpful. All systems are not identical and have binding features of greater and lesser significance but there are more parallels than simply corporatism. We can also find troubling parallels between our empire, the ancient Roman empire, and the Soviet Union which were not fascist. I don’t want to fear the word because of the threat of a straw man. In many circles, we can’t mention the 1930′s in Germany without being shouted down because the subject is taboo.
Wherever there is institutionalized human exploitation by other humans, there will be found fascism in some guise.
Naomi Wolf’s take on Fascism is interesting:
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
Wolf’s essay focuses on the manifestations rather than the interests that drive the fascist cause.
See:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/fascism-a-false-revolution-by-michael-parenti-1996/
Corporations are disembodied psychopaths, having shareholder profit as their only legitimate goal. The writings of Milton Freidman lay out this concept. Grasp this concept and you understand why deregulated capitalism invariably morphs into fascism. Check out Naomi Klein, Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, for real world examples (which includes, among others, Chile under Pinochet).
Yes, indeed, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have stated the obvious by leaking government and military secrets to the whole world, thereby enabling the people to know what their governments are doing in their name and with their tax dollars.
Stating the obvious can help to establish common ground for discussion, hold governments accountable and possibly lead to progressive reforms. But in a highly oppressed society, breaking the silence to state the obvious also can be subversive to the establishment and powers-that-be. Stating the obvious is a practice that calls on everyone to acknowledge the issues and no longer remain in deep psychological denial. That can be very threatening to the status quo. The person who states that the emperor has no clothes on can be viewed as a villain by the power-elite and as a hero by the non-elite.
Two following two points are mentioned for clarification.
First, in U.S. civil criminal law, there are two types of trials: a bench trial, where the judge is the sole trier-of-fact; or a jury trial, where up to 12 jurors are the trier-of-fact. The number of jurors required in a jury trial varies across the States in the U.S.
In U.S. military criminal law, the formal trial is called a court martial, and there are the same two types of trial (either a judge or a jury is the trier-of-fact), but the number of jurors in a court martial is a minimum of either three for a Special Court Martial or five for a General Court Martial.
The following link is the source for information about courts-martial:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/in-a-military-court-martial-how-many-people-is-nee-99708.html
Second, Army Pfc. Bradley Manning has been formally charged. The Charge Sheet can be found elsewhere at the FireDogLake website. If I recall, it currently includes 12 charges against Pfc. Manning, and there is no charge of espionage or a violation of the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917. This unconstitutional act is broader than the “treason clause” of the U.S. Constitution and in effect criminalizes dissent. The Espionage Act of 1917 is infamous for its convictions of Eugene Debs (10 years in prison), E.E. Cummings (6 months in prison), and Julius and Ethel Rosenbergy (death sentences).
EG – Thank you on the article! and for helping to clarify the definition of fascism, it is a concept I am still working to understand myself :-) I totally agree on the importance of attacking the root of any issue.
Whatever the proper term to describe it may be, it is painfully obvious that there is something very wrong happening in our country :-(
exactly, that’s why it’s a difficult subject to discuss in a rational manner’
great article! I haven’t yet had the chance this afternoon to give it my full attention which it deserves but thanks for the link :-)
Godwin’s Law aside, I agree that it is of utmost importance to study and discuss history and apply it’s lessons to the world in which we live.
This is slightly off subject but I found this link http://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf
to “The Five Stages Of Fascism” by Robert O. Paxton. I only skimmed over it so far but this jumped out at me “Fascists despise thought and reason, abandon intellectual positions casually, and cast aside many intellectual fellow-travelers. They subordinate thought and reason not to faith, as did the traditional Right, but to the promptings of the blood and the historic destiny of the group. Their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the race, of the nation, of the community.”
That caught my eye because as an Objectivist, I believe thought and reason should be subordinated to nothing! I also noted the last sentence “their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the nation/community. Hmmmmm. Like I said I’m getting off topic, but I found that link interesting nevertheless.
thank you, I’ll read that as well!
Thank you for clarifying. I am admittedly not at all familiar with military court procedure. There’s obviously been some misinformation floating around the blogosphere concerning Manning’s formal charges and so I stand corrected :-)