Freedom of speech hangs in the balance

Even Julian Assanges lawyer has stated that the "sex" charges were a political stunt.  Despite all risks, Julian Assange has offered to have a meeting with the police in UK.  On the dawn of Christmas, Wikileaks founder is not allowed to return home to be with his family over Christmas as Australian authorities are looking into pathways to detain him too.  Scotland yard has received a request by Swedish authorities to extradite Julian to Sweden.  United States government has changed their law within the espionage act so that they can successfully prosecute Julian Assange.  Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks has gained worldwide support from people from all walks of life. Its only a few who do not see or understand the impact right now that this case has on freedom of speech in the future.  

Despite all of the spin, he has been able to prove deeply how United States government and others have engaged in war crimes, corruption and human rights abuses against everyday citizens.  Exposing the truth is always the starting point to improving human rights as the evidence to prove them are often hidden away from the public eye.  For the first time since the pentagon papers, the world has been able to really understand how deep the rabbit hole goes...How we have all been lied to.

The reward for a noble act?  United States, Australia and Sweden have scraped around the garbage dump of "laws" that they can use to detain him.  Detaining is of course in history, proven to be a remarkable method for governments to do what they wish behind closed doors.  Its a place where the media cannot simply waltz in there and keep the spotlight on the authorities treatment.  Most accounts of abuse are often told by the subject after the detainment where authorities can debate the occurrence or write it off as "before the reforms".  Public reforms are a wonderful show when abuses happen to make it to the media and maintains the visage that governments are actually working to look after their people in a fair and transparent manner.
A brilliant example is the Australian government making a public apology for the stolen generation whilst initiating a very controversial program that only targeted indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.

This time, despite all of the threats by governments around the world, they risk losing worldwide support.  In fact, they risk a great backlash.  Supporters of Wikileaks are growing and are a majority, beyond the few trying to claw away at reviving the former regime.  Everyone can at least think of one release that help the world understand that it was not the leak, but the act that was wrong.  Government spokespeople on the issue have openly admitted that the Swedish court case is an opportunity for revenge.  Many well respected reporters have put into perspective how the case is fraught with corruption and denial of justice.  If governments do succeed in their ambitions of revenge, they will lose all support and any efforts to contain public reactions will also add to the outrage.

Governments must choose between saving face and destroying the messenger or doing the right thing and ensuring proper administration of natural justice.  If they choose the latter, they have the opportunity to redeem themselves as responsible leaders with accountability for their past actions and the apologies they made have at least substance.  The outcomes of their decisions also hang in the balance.

False Confidence: What United States Is Hiding From Itself

     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?

Why Julian Assange Must Not Be Detained

While the chase is on to silence Wikileaks and disable its founder, the world watches and waits.  The struggle to shine the spotlight on the depth of corruption inside the US embassy is one of the most intense.  Commentary from US government is as expected, against the release.  More disturbing, calls for his assassination were made public.

 It leaves a lingering question, is Julian Assange safe in the custody of police or in Swedens jail?  

Whats clear is that the crimes have become merged, the issue is no longer about whether or not the Swedish charges were correct, but more about how they can use these charges as a foothold for United States to detain him.  

Considering United States history on torture of detainees, it is of great concern that the United States government is attempting to use the Swedish charges to detain Julian Assange in their country.  

The same people making such requests are from the top and as Wikileaks have proven, are criminals that are not being charged for crimes beyond the fraying case they are attempting to establish against him.

Amnesty International has noted serious concern over United States transferring prisoners to places where they can be abused without accountability.  The prospective of transferring Julian Assange from Sweden to United States, I would argue as no different other than they are yet again planning to breach the convention against torture.



The outcome of Julian Assanges case is important and will have a dramatic impact on how free speech is delivered in the future.  You can help change this by adding your signature here or by donating to the Julian Assange legal fund here.

Terrorism and Wikileaks: Know The Difference

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.