Every child idealizes the idea of one day becoming a hero, saving the world from a great crisis. Stopping the bad guys. Up until Wikileaks, many people were confused on who those, "bad guys" really were - because in a way, it was all simply political. It meshed within the backdrop of our everyday lives as the horrors of bad deeds were explained away as "good", "moral" and "the right thing". Now, we know that most of the human population would not consciously choose to kill as many people that these leaders have. Now, we know that the reasons to defend their actions were lies. The illusion that the general public had some power is completely destroyed. Julian Assange could have been any of us. The people harmed by the governments Wikileaks exposed, could have been any of us. The illusion of Justice, the illusion of political decision, fair participation in the economy has been demystified. Most of the world is plugged in on the internet, learning at a much faster speed, acknowledging, understanding and awakening to the fact that distraction, diversion just does not work any more.
Too many innocent people have died. Too many people have been tortured. Too many people have starved and we all know why. The imprisonment of Julian Assange is a symbolic precipice, that governments around the world must take great care in how they involve themselves right now. Which stance they choose to take, which decisions they make and how they will or will not face up to the true crimes that have been committed. Whilst Julian Assange is in prison for charges that have never been substantiated, George Bush walks free. B.W(Before Wikileaks), the public reaction might have laughed at the notion of George Bush being tried for war crimes. Now, its very serious. Its not just about George Bush, but all the players in these wars.
One might want to ask, how much has the pursuit of Julian Assange costed? How much of United States taxpayers dollars gone into trying to destroy Wikileaks? How much money has gone into trying to censor the internet? Alone, if we consider the average pay for an intelligence officer is $70,000 per year, multiply that by 120 and we have an estimate of 8.4 million dollars. One might want to add that to the cost for legal services to find a way to prosecute Assange under the Espionage act, yet that money could have gone towards something better. Perhaps attempting to house its 2.5 million that are currently homeless could have been a better cause. Yet, instead Julian Assange has become the target of an insane frivolous pursuit:
The term,"United States of Australia"(Australia is termed as "Ausfailia"), a satirical version on Australia originated from the authors Encyclopedia Dramatica intended to provide a lighter view to its audience.
Recent events however are true to this term, but it is no laughing matter. Right now, a somber crowd in London are holding a vigil in hope that Julian Assanges detainment does not lead to extradition. No new reports on how Wikileaks founder is fairing in Wandsworth prison apart from the day after his arrest. The same reports have recycled with inconsistencies on whether or not Julian has access to the internet. What is consistent, is that he is in solitary confinement, that the United States government are mounting a case against him and there is a widely held consensus amongst legal experts that Sweden will deliver Mr Assange to the US.
Only when there was outrage, did the Australian government change their position on Julian Assange, stating that the United States government should tighten their security. The sad fact is that this in Australia is a generous extension compared to previous government stances when expat Australians needed intervention.
Australia on their record of Human Rights has had the "Stolen generation", the "Forgotten generation" and now the "sold out" generation. The sold out generation are the ones whom the governments have abandoned because of trading alliances and loyalties above the priority of its own. Here are a few cases of the sold out generation:
Schapelle Corby
Whilst Australia does not benefit financially from its alliance with Indonesia, the government considers its relationship "strategically important" as 60% of its exports pass through Indonesian waters.
Shappelle Corby was charged by Indonesian authorities for transporting 4kg of marijuana to Indonesia. She is currently confined in an Indonesian prison for 20 years. The case was reportedly riddled with corruption and despite evidence proving that she was Innocent, the Australian government prioritized its loyalties to Indonesia above its own. Although Shapelle Corboys case has never been tried in Australia, her book was censored under legislation that prevents. "Proceeds of Crime".
On the verge of signing the 2004 Australia-United States Free trade agreement, David Hicks was formally charged with conspiracy to commit murder, attack civilians and civilian objects and terrorism,attempted murder, and aiding the enemy by United States military commission. Amnesty International noted that the military commission did not meet the international standards for fair trials. The Australian Government was aware of David Hicks case from the moment he was delivered to United States. In fact it was Australian Officials that David hicks was originally interrogated by. During his detainment at Guantanamo, David Hicks described being repeatedly beaten, restrained, blindfolded, enforced to taken unknown medication, sleep deprived and constrained to a small cell for a year without sunlight and exercise. David Hicks father had requested that the Australian government intervene and bring David Hicks to complete the remaining sentence in Australia. There were many public pleas, but it was not until 2007 that David Hicks arrived in Australia, five years after enduring Guantanamo. Australian Officials were well aware of the torture on Guantanamo making little effort to release David in contrast to Swedish and British authorities on detainee release.
Kerry and Kay Danes
Just as Australia had set its sights upon building stronger economic ties to ASEAN, Kerry and Kay Danes were imprisoned by Laos authorities for allegedly stealing from a gem mine. Kerry and Kay operated a security company in Laos when they noted in their account that when the company was doing particularly well, that was when all the trouble began. The following article, that I note was deleted from ABC website, revealed that Laos officials had stated that they were willing to let Kerry and Kay Danes go if another couple was willing to stand in their place.
The foreigner Prison Support Service makes an interesting point when they place webster's definition at the top of their report.
During their confinement, they were placed in a 3x3 metre cell with 11 other inmates where they endured torture and harsh conditions. According to the Foreign Prison Support Service report, Kerry was detained in the presence of the Australian Embassy. It took 11 months for the couple to be released by Australian authorities.
And there are more
There are many more cases appearing from the outset that these people have committed heinous crimes, but instead become victims of corruption and global politics. Where the Australian government has finally intervened is often at a later stage when the damage is already done or when enough people know that these people are innocent of the crimes that justified torture. What has become clear in these three cases is that there was a delay because there are financial ties with each country.
We know from these historical jailings of Australians that the government will prioritize their ties with other countries above people and we are learning more about that through the cablegate leaks. Most of the world agrees that the charges against Julian Assange is not legal or even valid. People from across the political spectrum have spoken out against it.
We also know that the United States government has been very vocal about seizing the opportunity to have Julian extradited whilst he is detained to face charges from laws that they are updating to ensure that Julian Assanges actions are deemed "illegal". Julian Assange and his organisation are doing what journalists across the globe do everyday and that is providing the information to the public. The only difference is that the organisation is shaped in a way that protects its sources from retaliation.
If United States do successfully charge Julian Assange under an updated version of the Espionage Act, then it will become a landmark case that will kill the media around the world. It is why it is vital that this does not occur. Tools such as writing recording and publishing is a vital resource for accountability that protects us and provides some constraints on what would be enacted freely in silence. It is why it is so important to support Wikileaks and its members, by participating in protests, signing petitions, writing letters to government and donating to Wikileaks.
Some have compared the Wikileaks story to 1984. The leaders whilst behaving badly in 1984 in my humble opinion, appeared to have more intellect than in reality. Instead of the tv show, "The worlds dumbest criminals", maybe there should be one titled, "The worlds dumbest leaders". So far, with the latest comments from American leaders on Wikileaks, appear to be in the lead. There is a belief amongst American leaders, that if they kill the Wikileaks founder with their um..'Spethal' forces, they will stop everyone from knowing about the human rights abuses, corruption and war crimes.
The fact is that we are not seeing 1984 manifesting into our reality, we are seeing idiocracy at its worst. If they bother to do the numbers, most of the world supports Wikileaks, because it stands for the freedom of speech, especially in the face of corruption, injustice and human rights abuses. Many media organisation representatives have become highly vocal on how this is not just an attack on Wikileaks, but on all media outlets. United States leaders efforts to stop this organisation from publishing documents are in reality, a waste of public money. Mirrors are growing into the thousands and worldwide protests are ongoing at the arrest of its founder. Other leaders have spoken out on their outrage at the arrest of the founder and United Nations have condemned the attacks against Wikileaks. When will this Idiocracy amongst American leaders stop? Perhaps only when they are held accountable.
1. "Illegal" Leaks from both the Iraq, Afghanistan war diaries demonstrated how United States repeatedly broke the treaty on convention against torture. UN chief investigator Manfred Nowak, called upon the United States government to investigate war crimes after the Iraq release.
Iraq war logs: UN calls on Obama to investigate human rights abuses. Read more here.
The latest embassy cables show that United States were spying on the UN which is currently being investigated.
2. "..puts peoples lives in danger" The United States government has either directly threatened or taken no legal action against its citizens on murdering Julian Assange and his family. In the afghan documents, Amnesty pointed out that the United States had no consideration of the civilians lives in Afghanistan:
3. "...threatens US national security" As pointed out by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights President Stephen Keim, the threat posed to Wikileaks and its members is a threat to the freedom of speech.
To really understand not only is Wikileaks not a threat, but a protection to every nations security, one has to really delve into understanding what "National Security" means.
Interests of a country is naturally democracy and within the concepts of a democracy, every country must have freedom of expression without intimidation. Thus, United States government action against Wikileaks and all other media outlets is a threat to every nations security. These are after all why citizens agreed to supporting the establishment of such in the first place as it was never mean to be securing government interests, but of their people.
4. "..to solve shared problems" Recent leaks on the Copenhagen Accord reveal how United States government monopolized global action on climate change by paying off developing countries to accept agreements that were obviously not in the interests of the planet. The fact remains, despite slight inaccuracies that global warming is occurring, that its getting worse and that we only have a few years to solve the problem before it gets to a stage beyond the capacity of human beings. The prediction of a runaway greenhouse effect remains consistent, despite the efforts of polluting companies to hire "experts" to state otherwise. Some experts have stated that if action is not taken, this will effect our children. It is no wonder that United States is the only developed country in the world that has not signed the convention on the rights of the child.
5. "An attack on the international community" In one of the cable leaks, United States recommended nuclear weapons for Pakistan to defeat India, despite security scholoars raising concerns over the years of state sponsored terrorism. In July last year, the president of Pakistan publicly admitted to supporting and nurturing terrorist groups. The same terrorist groups that United States government have publicly stated their dedication on eradicating.
Many American security scholars were happy to write about human rights abuses by those who are not American or their allies. During the "War on Terror", few wrote against Americas actions and those who did were treated with suspicion that they may be supporting terrorism. Wikileaks is one of those organisations. The problem is the fact that Wikileaks has provided clear cut evidence that supports years of war crimes yet to be addressed. These crimes are not being addressed because the diversion is at the messenger. Allegations without substance are made against Wikileaks as an organisation or its founder, Julian Assange. Delaying the spotlight resting upon American shoulders, is nothing but old fashioned propaganda. Fortunately, with nearly everyone on this planet being an internet user, most are smart enough to know when they are being lied to. Wikileaks and the support of some media outlets has assisted in giving the population an opportunity to decide whether Wikileaks is what the United States government has painted them as.
Propaganda against Wikileaks in comparison to Cold War propaganda.
The problem is that many countries in alliance of United States have been shielded from knowing what is happening to the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deaths are more often assumed to be a mistake rather than a deliberate act of hatred. This was until earlier this year when the Iraq video "shook the world" into a new understanding. It was the precipice that we were being lied to. We were being lied to about the amount of civilian deaths, the conduct we believe our soldiers are upheld to and the accountability within government. For those never touched by government corruption or knew it existed, were suddenly awoken to this. Those who thought that America were not as bad as other countries in upholding human rights, suddenly realized that it was only because America was monopolizing the UN. Not only that, they were collecting data on the general secretary, Ban ki Moon. So invasive was the espionage, it was described in some news commentary as "frightening". Yet Hilary Clinton and other US government commentators have described the leaks as "an invasion of privacy".
There is yet more to be said as US continues its diversion from their actions. Three major leaks have demonstrated criminal behavior, the same word they used to describe Wikileaks founder. Yet these statements tend to fall at the wayside as the facts from the leaks as bare and raw data stand alone beyond the propaganda United States has utilised. For most the reactions seem to leave more questions and one of the most burning:
When is the United States going to be charged for war crimes?
Upon the release of 251, 287 United States Embassy cables, congressman Peter King has requested Wikileaks to be place upon the terrorist list. He stated that the organisation, "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".
The problem is that he has not defined in legal or even layman's terms exactly how leaking diplomatic cables is a terrorist act. Whilst terrorism is not officially defined by United Nations, in "Measures to eliminate terrorism", terrorism is defined as:
"criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them"
First, dependent upon which jurisdiction defines leaking United States diplomatic cables as a criminal act is the beginning of the problem. A little over a month after 9/11, United States introduced the Patriot Act to as a measure to deter acts of terrorism in America and around the world. United States have pumped billions of dollars into intelligence that the Washington Post reports as, "out of control". Whilst the patriot act combined with a heavy intelligence community, might be successful within United States at defining Assange as a criminal, much is still yet to be questioned about the agents that broke their own laws to obtain monopolize the UN. Sadly, the suggestion that Julian Assange is a terrorist or Wikileaks is a terrorist organisation is simply a diversion from the real crimes committed.
Second, provoking a state of terror must be towards the general public, not the United States government. If revealing corruption by governments causes wide spread panic, it is more likely to stem from the governments responses or tightening up of laws surrounding freedom of speech. Its as relevant as someone shooting their parents and then gaining sympathy for being an orphan.
Third, Wikileaks has published such a vast range of documents that have revealed many aspects that have supported both ends of the political spectrum. Whilst there is a great deal of information exposing United States, all information is presented in a raw format even devoid of personal opinion to accompany the release. It is certainly a stretch to suggest there is political motivation in raw releases.
If United States did decide to consider Wikileaks a terrorist organisation, they risk diluting the meaning for concern when there are real and far more dangerous threats to the population. Other media organisations may avoid publishing even the slightest criticism against governments, creating another chilling effect. Without that, governments cannot properly evolve from their mistakes which in most cases leads to the eventual fraying of foundation. Any government that begins to see general civilians as threats, create them and thus losing the wide support that they once had, lose the very power that they were trying to protect. If United States is to take any action surrounding the leaks, it is to identify the mistakes and learn from them. Its more about not acting badly in the first place than trying to cover it up.
