<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I disagree and take offense intellectually with the statement that the
Obama administration is hypocritical.<br>
<br>
The Obamites are sincere and predictable and they are performing
exactly as expected.<br>
<br>
<i>"The Bush administration was notorious for its attacks on civil
liberties and free speech, and progressives condemned them. <br>
But it's
now clear that the Obama administration has continued the trend--<br>
and
appears to be taking an even more severe stance against those who would
leak government information."</i><br>
<br>
Whoa, Duh, Holmes. Just what the fuck did you think the Rattlesnake
was going to do?<br>
You knew he was a Rattlesnake when you did business with him. He's
just doing<br>
his job as a good Rattlesnake. It ain't his fault.<br>
<br>
It's the Socialist Workers who disappoint me, not Obama and his ilk.<br>
<br>
They don't miss a chance to take a swipe at the "Right", the
"Republicans", and even poor pitiful ol' George Bush,<br>
as if fixing the blame on the "Them" will some how expiate the "Rest of
us" for "Their Sins". <br>
<br>
What a crock of hooey.<br>
<br>
No doubt their readers love to read about the "sins of the Right" and
have that "us vs them" itch scratched.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately that sort of partisanism and beating the drum for the
Left-Right Paradigm <br>
doesnt do any of us much good and it certainly does very little toward
getting the <br>
problem fixed.<br>
<br>
But it certainly has some possibilities in terms of creating dissent
among those who might possibly work together<br>
against the Real Enemy. It's the only "Left" and the "Right" that
wants to chill our dissent. No one<br>
hates free speech more than the so-called liberals, and no groups work
harder to stifle and ridicule than they do.<br>
Unless its those flag-waving muslim-hating muslin-wearing
America-firsters. They all suck. <br>
<br>
There isnt ten cents worth of difference between Bush and Obama. They
both suck.<br>
<br>
Progressives? <br>
Join the Tea Party. I mean it . <br>
They know there is a problem. They dont know what to do about it.<br>
They need your help. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/21/2010 2:49 AM, Karen Medina wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimeU5W-_ufKMn_UjcMvrQUsyBP0Wg2jaD37MAa9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Georgia, serif" size="4"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Highlights
from the article below:</span></font></div>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;"> Swedish
prosecutors are already talking publicly about the conditions under
which they would hand Assange over to the U.S. for prosecution for his
work on WikiLeaks. </span><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">Swedish
authorities have said that if Assange is extradited to them, "they will
defer their interest in him to the Americans...</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">Various
letters in support of Assange, including one signed by Noam Chomsky</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">a
grand jury empaneled in Alexandria Virginia</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; font-size: 15px;">The
Obama DOJ has launched nothing less than a full-on war against
whistleblowers</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; font-size: 15px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 24px; font-size: 16px;">the
appalling conditions of 22-year-old Bradley Manning: </span></span></span><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">"Maximum
Custody Detainee." He is subject to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement
and constant surveillance, has been refused sheets or pillows for his
bed, and is not allowed even to exercise in his cell. </span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">Attempts
to charge Assange as accomplice to Manning, not just passive recipient
of the documents. </span><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">Such
a charge poses a serious threat to free speech, because it threatens
any journalist who might arrange to receive classified information and
documents directly from government officials or other whistleblowers.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;">FOR
JUST a small taste of the hypocrisy in the Obama administration's drive
to get its hands on Assange, consider that Washington has repeatedly
refused to extradite 23 U.S. CIA agents who were convicted in absentia
in Italy in November 2009 for their role in abducting Osama Mustafa
Hassan, an Egyptian imam, from a street in Milan in 2003.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 24px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px; font-size: 15px;">Women
don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused to further a
political agenda</span></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://socialistworker.org/2010/12/17/why-we-stand-wikileaks"
target="_blank">http://socialistworker.org/2010/12/17/why-we-stand-wikileaks</a></div>
<div><br style="clear: both;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<div>
<div>
<div><span>Analysis</span>: <span>Nicole Colson</span></div>
<div><span></span><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size: 32px; font-weight: bold;">Why we stand with WikiLeaks</span></div>
<div>
<p><span>Nicole Colson</span> looks at the latest developments
in the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange--and how this attack is
part of a spreading government assault on free speech.</p>
</div>
<p>December 17, 2010</p>
<div>
<p><span style="width: 330px;"></span></p>
<p><span><img moz-do-not-send="true"
title="Julian Assange speaks to the press outside a central London court building after his release on bail (Adrian Dennis | AFP)"
alt="Julian Assange speaks to the press outside a central London court building after his release on bail (Adrian Dennis | AFP)"
src="http://socialistworker.org/files/imagecache/330/files/images/afplivethree674131-BRITAIN-US-DIPLO-h.jpg"></span></p>
<p><span></span><span>Julian Assange speaks to the press
outside a central London court building after his release on bail
(Adrian Dennis | AFP)</span></p>
<p>U.S. AUTHORITIES seemed closer to attempting to manufacture
an excuse to bring WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the U.S. to face
charges.</p>
<p>This week, amid reports that a grand jury had been convened
in Virginia to consider charges against him, Assange, backed by dozens
of supporters, appeared in court in Britain and was granted bail on
December 16.</p>
<p>Ostensibly, Assange is wanted for questioning concerning
rape and sexual assault allegations in Sweden--but Swedish prosecutors
are already talking publicly about the conditions under which they
would hand Assange over to the U.S. for prosecution for his work on
WikiLeaks.</p>
<p>This makes it crystal clear that authorities are using
accusations of the serious crime of rape in the most cynical and
opportunistic way.</p>
<p>A British judge granted Assange bail on December 14--on the
condition that $373,000 be posted to secure his release, and that he
agree to electronic monitoring, house arrest and the surrender of his
Australian passport (Assange is an Australian citizen). But Swedish
prosecutors appealed this ruling. Two days later, a British court
upheld the bail order, while adding even more restrictions--Assange was
released to the home of journalist Vaughan Smith.</p>
<p>"If justice is not always an outcome, at least it is not
dead yet," he said to the cheers of supporters as he walked out of
court. "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence
in this matter--and to reveal as we get it, which we have not yet, the
evidence from these allegations."</p>
<p>Assange and his legal team now have less than a month to
prepare their case opposing his extradition to Sweden. According to his
lawyers, since he has not formally been charged with a crime, but is
wanted for questioning, there is a legal issue about whether Sweden
actually has the right to extradite him.</p>
<p>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</p>
<p>AS THE furor over WikiLeaks has grown--especially in the
U.S., where calls for Assange's extradition, prosecution (and even
assassination) have grown increasingly strident from both Democrats and
Republicans--Assange has also attracted a growing number of supporters
who see his prosecution as politically motivated and a threat to
freedom of speech around the globe.</p>
<p>The International Federation of Journalists, which
represents more than 600,000 journalists worldwide, condemned what it
called a "political backlash" against WikiLeaks. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/15-2"
target="_blank">Christopher Warren, the head of Media Entertainment
& Arts Alliance, Australia's largest media union, argued</a> that
"attacks on WikiLeaks can also be seen as attacks on the Australian
media outlets which have worked with the organization to publish leaked
material."</p>
<p>Dozens of Australia's most prominent journalists have <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.walkleys.com/news/1076/"
target="_blank">signed onto a statement of support sent to Prime
Minister Julia Gillard</a> (who has vowed her own investigation into
whether Assange has committed a crime against Australia) that reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In essence, WikiLeaks, an organization that aims to expose
official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to
light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.</p>
<p>It is the media's duty to responsibly report such material
if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut
WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official
leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business
with WikiLeaks is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free
and fearless press. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Several rallies have been held in Sydney and other
Australian cities, including one drawing 800 people on December 15.</p>
<p>This defiant support of Assange is in stark contrast to the
reaction of much of the U.S. media--which was either silent about, or
agreed with, growing calls by politicians from both main parties to see
Assange tried for his work on WikiLeaks.</p>
<p>But with each day, as it becomes more and more clear that
the U.S. government is intent on seeing Assange extradited and tried
for releasing classified information, even the complicit U.S. media has
begun to recognize implications of the attack on Assange. If Assange
and WikiLeaks can be prosecuted, then surely any reporter or
publication releasing classified information or information obtained by
government whistleblowers would also liable for prosecution.</p>
<p>As Salon.com's <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/wikileaks/index.html"
target="_blank">Glenn Greenwald</a> noted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The <i>New York Times'</i> Eric Lichtblau and the <i>Washington
Post's</i> Dana Priest--both of whom won Pulitzer Prizes for publicly
exposing classified programs of the Bush administration--warned that
prosecuting WikiLeaks would endanger investigative journalism
generally. The <i>Denver Post</i> editorialized that the idea of
prosecuting WikiLeaks "is about the only one in recent memory that has
attracted bipartisan support in Washington" but "is ill-conceived and
fraught with problems," and that "acquiring and publishing information
is at the heart of the definition of a free press, which has
substantial First Amendment protections."</p>
<p>Even the government-revering <i>Washington Post</i>
editorial page came out in opposition to prosecuting
WikiLeaks...recognizing that "the government has no business indicting
someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its
secrets" and that "doing so would criminalize the exchange of
information and put at risk responsible media organizations." </p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/index.sjs?action_KEY=5343"
target="_blank">petition circulated by Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting (FAIR)</a> and signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Barbara Ehrenreich,
Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky and other prominent progressives points out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Throughout this episode, journalists and prominent media
outlets have largely refrained from defending WikiLeaks' rights to
publish material of considerable news value and obvious public
interest. It appears that these media organizations are hesitant to
stand up for this particular media outlet's free speech rights because
they find the supposed political motivations behind WikiLeaks'
revelations objectionable.</p>
<p>But the test for one's commitment to freedom of the press
is not whether one agrees with what a media outlet publishes or the
manner in which it is published. WikiLeaks is certainly not beyond
criticism. But the overarching consideration should be the freedom to
publish in a democratic society--including the freedom to publish
material that a particular government would prefer be kept secret. When
government officials and media outlets declare that attacks on a
particular media organization are justified, it sends an unmistakably
chilling message about the rights of anyone to publish material that
might rattle or offend established powers. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff for
Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State under George W.
Bush--including years when some of the State Department cables released
by WikiLeaks were published--joined <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2404"
target="_blank">a group of former government officials in a letter of
support for Assange</a> that states: "WikiLeaks has teased the genie of
transparency out of a very opaque bottle, and powerful forces in
America, who thrive on secrecy, are trying desperately to stuff the
genie back in."</p>
<p>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</p>
<p>REPUBLICANS AND the right wing are clamoring the loudest for
Assange's head. But for its part, the Obama administration has
aggressively pursued Assange--and is challenging the overall right of
the press to reveal government information, even when it includes
evidence of previously hidden war crimes.</p>
<p>Recent reports suggest that a grand jury may have been
empaneled in Alexandria, Va. "We have heard from Swedish authorities
there has been a secretly empaneled grand jury in Alexandria...They are
currently investigating this," <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-13/justice/wikileaks.investigation_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-case-grand-jury"
target="_blank">Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens told <i>Al Jazeera</i></a>,
referring to WikiLeaks. "I think that the Americans are much more
interested in terms of the WikiLeaks aspect of this," Stephens added.</p>
<p>The Bush administration was notorious for its attacks on
civil liberties and free speech, and progressives condemned them. But
it's now clear that the Obama administration has continued the
trend--and appears to be taking an even more severe stance against
those who would leak government information. As Glenn Greenwald noted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Obama DOJ has launched nothing less than a full-on war
against whistleblowers; its magnanimous "Look Forward, Not Backward"
decree used to shield high-level Bush criminals from investigations is
manifestly tossed to the side when it comes to those who reveal such
criminality....</p>
<p>[I]f current reports are correct--that the Obama DOJ has
now convened a grand jury to indict WikiLeaks and Julian Assange--this
will constitute a far greater assault on press freedom than anything
George W. Bush managed, or even attempted. Put simply, there is no
intellectually coherent way to distinguish what WikiLeaks has done with
these diplomatic cables with what newspapers around the world did in
this case and what they do constantly: namely, receive and then publish
classified information without authorization...</p>
<p>To criminalize what WikiLeaks is doing is, by definition,
to criminalize the defining attribute of investigative journalism.
That, to be sure, is a feature, not a bug, of the Obama
administration's efforts. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</p>
<p>ANOTHER LESS-talked-about aspect of the case are the
appalling conditions that 22-year-old Bradley Manning--the U.S. soldier
who accused by the government of turning over massive amounts of
information to WikiLeaks, including the "Collateral Murder" video
showing U.S. troops engaging in the murder of civilians in Iraq,
documents showing U.S. complicity in war crimes and torture in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the more recent leaked diplomatic cables.</p>
<p>According to reports, Manning has been detained for five
months in a military brig in Quantico, Va., under cruel conditions as a
so-called "Maximum Custody Detainee." He is subject to 23-hour-a-day
solitary confinement and constant surveillance, has been refused sheets
or pillows for his bed, and is not allowed even to exercise in his
cell. For the single hour he is allowed out of his cell each day, he is
barred from watching the news or any current events programs, as well
as from speaking to reporters.</p>
<p>The government is almost certainly aiming to eventually try
Manning for crimes including transferring classified data and
delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source--and
there is speculation that if the U.S. is eventually able to extradite
Assange to the U.S., he may be charged as an accomplice to Manning.</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?hp"
target="_blank">According to the <i>New York Times</i></a>, the
Justice Department is "looking for evidence of any collusion" between
WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning--"trying to find out whether Mr. Assange
encouraged or even helped" the Army private leak the documents. If it
finds such evidence, federal prosecutors will "charge him as a
conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the
documents who then published them."</p>
<p>Such a charge poses a serious threat to free speech, because
it threatens any journalist who might arrange to receive classified
information and documents directly from government officials or other
whistleblowers.</p>
<p>The reason that the material Manning is alleged to have
leaked was classified is only because it shows the ugly truth about
U.S. wars and imperialism. In many cases, the revelations in WikiLeaks
documents aren't surprising to anyone who is critical of the U.S.
empire--but the government wants to keep it out of the public eye at
all costs.</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/from-the-pentagon-papers-to-wikileaks-daniel-ellsberg-calls-julian-assange-a-hero-20101216"
target="_blank">As Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the famed Pentagon
Papers during the Vietnam War, has repeatedly noted</a>, if Manning is
guilty of leaking the information, then he is a hero, not a criminal.
"To call [Manning and Assange] terrorists is not only mistaken, it's
absurd and slanderous. Neither of them are any more terrorists than I
am, and I'm not," he said.</p>
<p>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</p>
<p>FOR JUST a small taste of the hypocrisy in the Obama
administration's drive to get its hands on Assange, consider that
Washington has repeatedly refused to extradite 23 U.S. CIA agents who
were convicted in absentia in Italy in November 2009 for their role in
abducting Osama Mustafa Hassan, an Egyptian imam, from a street in
Milan in 2003.</p>
<p>Hassan, who had political asylum in Italy when he was
kidnapped in a joint CIA and Italian military intelligence operation,
was eventually flown to Egypt, where he says he was tortured as part of
George W. Bush's "extraordinary rendition" program.</p>
<p>Those who carried out these actions, because they were
sanctioned by the U.S. government, will never see a day in
prison--indeed, they are being shielded by the Obama administration for
their crimes. Meanwhile, U.S. officials hope to exploit Sweden's
attempt to extradite Assange in order to bring him to the U.S.--whether
or not he is ever tried on the charges over which he is wanted for
questioning in Sweden.</p>
<p>Lawyer Mark Stephens <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-13/justice/wikileaks.investigation_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-case-grand-jury"
target="_blank">told <i>Al Jazeera</i></a>, for example, that he has
been informed that Swedish authorities have said that if Assange is
extradited to them, "they will defer their interest in him to the
Americans...It does seem to me that what we have here is nothing more
than a holding charge." The United States wants Assange detained, he
said, so "ultimately they can get their mitts on him."</p>
<p>Indeed, in a statement posted on the Swedish Prosecution
Authority's Web site, Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in charge of the
Assange case, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/swedish-prosecutor-raises-possible-extradition-of-wikileaks-founder-to-u-s/"
target="_blank">has already raised the possibility of Assange being
extradited to the U.S.</a></p>
<p>That Swedish prosecutors are already talking about handing
Assange over to the U.S. for prosecution should give the lie to the
idea that Assange was jailed merely because he is wanted for
questioning on the charges in Sweden.</p>
<p>Instead, international leaders--who care little for women's
rights in the best of times--are using the very serious allegations of
rape and sexual assault as a cover for their drive to prosecute Assange
for his work with WikiLeaks. Just as with the sudden calls to
"liberate" Afghan women in the run up to the war in Afghanistan, we
should not take their sudden zeal for women's rights at face value.</p>
<p>As Katrine Axelsson of the group <i>Women Against Rape</i>
pointed out in a letter to Britain's <i>Guardian</i> newspaper:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the
unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape
allegations...Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of
reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20
years, conviction rates have decreased. On April 23, 2010, Carina Hägg
and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic
Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90 percent
of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006, six people were
convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported."...</p>
<p>There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual
assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's
safety. In the South of the U.S., the lynching of Black men was often
justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white
woman.</p>
<p>Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being
misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at
worst. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In reality, the prosecution of Assange is part of a
government war on dissent that comes in the context of <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://socialistworker.org/2010/12/14/feds-expand-their-assault"
target="_blank">raids and subpoenas of left-wing and antiwar activists
in Chicago and the Twin Cities</a> seeking to criminalize support for,
among other things, the growing movement for justice for the
Palestinian people.</p>
<p>They want to chill our right to dissent. If we are to
prevent that, we must stand in defense of the right of Julian Assange,
Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks to expose the crimes committed by the U.S.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
********************************************************<br>
ISO Resources:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isochampaign.org"
target="_blank">isochampaign.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://internationalsocialist.org"
target="_blank">internationalsocialist.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://haymarketbooks.org"
target="_blank">haymarketbooks.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://socialistworker.org"
target="_blank">socialistworker.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://isreview.org" target="_blank">isreview.org</a><br>
********************************************************<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>