Sunday, 26 December 2010

Wikileaks' Christmas Message

Wikileaks' Christmas Message

Bringing "Good News" of Great Truths for "All the People"

By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS

Christmas Weekend Edition

December 24-26, 2010





WikiLeaks is a modern-day Christmas story about the secrets of those who abuse power and pretend to represent what they are not. According to the Biblical story, King Herod became “frightened” when he heard of the prophesized birth of a Messiah, who would set the Jewish people free from Roman domination. So Herod sent for and met “secretly” with the wise men who were tracking the star leading to the birthplace of the future Jewish liberator. Herod told the wise men to inform him when they found the child, “so that I may also go and pay him homage.” Herod sounded respectful, even reverent of life. But the wise men, being “divinely” warned in a (WikiLeak-like) dream of Herod’s real, imperialistic intent, avoided him by taking a different road and traveling incognito back to their own country. “Infuriated” at being found out and “tricked” by the wise men, Herod paid “homage” to the prophesized birth of the Messiah: he ordered the killing of all the male Jewish children, “two years and under,”` throughout Bethlehem born beneath that star—to dispose of any threat to his power. And, according to the ancient story, there was “lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted because they are no more.” (Matthew 2: 1-18)

Former president George W. Bush and his vice preident, Dick Cheney, are “King Herods” of today. They and their administration paid “homage” to Iraq, calling their criminal invasion and occupation, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” stating their pre-emptive war against Iraq was about protecting America and its allies from Saddam Hussein’s horrible weapons of mass destruction. They claimed it was also about bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to the Iraqi people—palatable goals for American public consumption. They kept secret all of the critical evidence that revealed Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. But that did not stop them once they got their war of choice going. The goal of “the greatest nation on earth,” they told everyone, included making America and the world safe by getting rid of the Iraqi tyrant. In reality, they brought fear not “freedom” to Iraq—and to America, and death and not “democracy” to both countries. There is “lamentation, weeping and great mourning” in Iraq today. Rachel is weeping for her Iraqi children, and refusing to be comforted because of the deaths and maiming and diminishing of so many of her children’s lives, on the orders of America’s “King Herods.” Rachel is also weeping for her American children needlessly sacrificed on the altars of corporations and politicians who profit and maintain their power through endless war.

The truths being disclosed are very “frightening” to America’s “King Herods.” Thus they are violently opposed to the “good news” being revealed by WikiLeaks for all the people to see. WikiLeaks’ disclosure of nearly 400,000 classified US Iraqi war documents show that US foreign policy is not about paying “homage” to the Iraqi people but about committing homicide against them. Being “tricked” by WikiLeaks and its whistleblowers, like true humanistic patriot Private Bradley Manning, the “King Herods” of American foreign policy, find these truths “frightening” and “infuriating.”

A number of their spokespersons have condemned the leaking of state secrets. The BBC News reported that “both US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UK’s Ministry of Defence suggested the disclosures put lives at risk.” And Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of the release of more documents, “Another irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by Wikileaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information.” (“Wikileaks: Iraq war logs ‘reveal truth about conflict,’” 23 October 2010)

The documents’ release “puts lives at risk?” The “Iraq war logs” document “more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009. . . .including 66,081 civilians . . . and 3,771 coalition troops . . . which appear to contradict earlier claims that the US did not keep records of civilians killed.” The Iraq Body Count, which collates the death of Iraqi civilians, stated that a sampling of only 860 logs of the nearly 400,000 secret US documents indicates “that around 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths would be identified.” Furthermore, “The documents also reveal many previously unreported instances in which US forces killed civilians at checkpoints and during operations.” And the documents “describe the apparent torture of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi authorities, sometimes using electrocution, electric drills and in some cases even executing detainees, says BBC’s Adam Brookes.” The story continues, “The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked ‘no further investigation,’ our correspondent adds.” (Ibid)

Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates reacted similarly when WikiLeaks released 75,000 classified documents about the war in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported Mullen as stating, “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” (“Gates Assails WikiLeaks Over Release Of Reports,” By Charlie Savage, July 30, 2010) Defense Secretary Gates joined in by “asserting that the security breach had endangered lives and damaged the ability of others to trust the United States government to protect their secrets.” (Ibid)

WikiLeaks “might already have on their hands the blood of some American soldier or that of an Afghan family?” WikiLeaks founded Julian Assange, as reported, responded by “accusing the Pentagon of trying to distract attention from the thousands of lives being lost in the war.” He said, “One must consider why the Pentagon is focusing on the hypothetical blood that it says might be on our hands—although there is no evidence of that—compared to the 20,000 lives that have been lost in Afghanistan that are documented and exposed by our material. (“Afghan leak: Wikilaks’ Assange denies ‘blood on hands,’” BBC NEWS US & CANADA, 30 July 2010) As also reported, Assange “has said that hundreds of . . . unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings by NATO forces . . . should be investigated by the media for evidence of war crimes.” (“WikiLeaks set to release more Afghan files,” By Raphael G. Satter and Anne Flaherty, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, Aug. 13, 2010)

“WikiLeaks may have blood on its hands?” Julian Assange is quoted as “blast[ing] the Pentagon’s leadership today for not announcing a broad inquiry into the war efforts. Saying he was “’disappointed in what was left out’ of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comment . . . ‘about hypothetical blood,’ Assange said . . . ‘the grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan are covered with real blood.’” (“WikiLeaks’ Assange Strikes Back at Pentagon,” by Sharon Weinberger, Contributor, Aol News., July 30, 22010)

How many of those, whose blood has been shed in Iraq and Afghanistan by America’s “King Herods,” are male and female children, “two year and under?” Three years and older? Christmas is about the blood of Rachel and her children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressman Ron Paul proclaimed the “good news” of great truths for all the people to hear, in defending WikiLeaks before Congress in a speech called, “WikiLeaks: Don’t Kill the Messenger—Stop Lying to the People!” Congressman Paul dared to ask the real question: “Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?” He got at the truth with, “Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?” He went to the heart of the matter: “Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?” And he ended with a deeper Christmas meaning of “Blessed are the peacemakers”: “Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?”(RonPaul.com, Dec. 10, 2010)

“Good news” at Christmas, or at any other time, is about WikiLeaks’ and other revelations of truths that expose the secrets of today’s “King Herods.” Truths that inform people, and thus free and empower them to live by the Golden Rule, which is the heartbeat of democracy and of peacemakers.

Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion.




Saturday, 11 December 2010

From Jefferson to Assange

From Jefferson to Assange

Posted on Dec 7, 2010

By Robert Scheer / www.truthdig

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.”

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Feinstein, who strongly supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, has the audacity to call for the imprisonment of the man who, more than any other individual, has allowed the public to learn the truth about those disastrous imperial adventures—facts long known to Feinstein as head of the Intelligence Committee but never shared with the public she claims to represent.

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.”

In the 1787 letter in which he wrote those words, Jefferson was reflecting the deep wisdom of a political leader who often had been excoriated by a vicious press that would make the anarchist-inflected comments of an Assange seem mild in comparison. More than 35 years later, after having suffered many more vitriolic press attacks, Jefferson reiterated his belief in a free press, in all its vagaries, as the foundation of a democracy. In an 1823 letter to Lafayette, Jefferson warned: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted to be freely expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

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 beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.

The pretend patriots who use the national security argument to gut what remains of our most important security asset—our constitutional guarantees of a truly free press—are just what President George Washington feared when in his farewell address he warned “against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism. …”

The pretended patriotism of Feinstein, the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill extending the U.S. Patriot Act, represents the death of the Democratic Party as a protector of our freedoms. As a California resident, I will not vote for her again, no matter how dastardly a right-wing Republican opponent she might face. There is no lesser evil to be found in one who would so cavalierly imprison practitioners of a free press.

That is the issue here, pure and simple. It is unconscionable to target Assange for publishing documents on the Internet that mainstream media outlets have attested had legitimate news value. As in the historic case in which Daniel Ellsberg gave The New York Times the Pentagon Papers exposé of the official lies justifying the Vietnam War, Assange is acting as the reporter here, and thus his activities must be shielded by the First Amendment’s guarantee of journalistic freedom.

Actually Ellsberg’s position, as morally strong as it was, was weaker than that of Assange, in that the former Marine and top Pentagon adviser was working at the government-funded Rand Corp., where he had agreed to rules about the handling of classified information, including the Pentagon Papers. Assange operates under no such restraints and is an even clearer example of the journalist who ferrets out news and attempts to report it. He had no special clearance that provided him access, and what he did was no different from what the editors of The New York Times did in publishing news that was fit to print.

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.