Because a lot of so-called Liberals don’t seem to get it
Governments and individuals are different types of entities. The presumption for government is that its proceedings and actions should be transparent to its citizens because it exists to serve its citizens, and they can only know that it is doing so, and doing so in ways they would approve of, if they know what it is doing. The presumption for citizens is that they have the right to privacy, unless a judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe they may have committed a crime, and even then that information should be kept private until the trial proper.
The confusion of the right of individuals to privacy and the need to for transparency in what governments do is a classification error. A liberal may use the government to do things, but is always suspicious of concentrations of power, public or private. As someone famous once said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. And that means knowing what your government is doing. It doesn’t mean the government smearing those who oppose it by releasing private information on individuals.
Still, I’ve really appreciated the Wikileaks imbroglio, not so much for the information it revealed, but because it has revealed the authoritarians for who they are.
Comments are closed.
This has been obvious for quite awhile, at the very least since the Bush II administration. National security there became the ultimate purpose of government — implicitly, what we had a government for — and all other relations (rights and duties) between government and citizens became subordinate to it. Government actions and government secrecy needed no other justification
Of course it goes farther back than Bush II — everytime there is a war, or war-like threat, or conjured fear of it, And it’s not exclusive to the US. The best you can say about it is that no large organization could function without power concentrated at the top.
These might be the same liberals and progressives who stopped going to anti-war protests once Obama got elected. Apparently war is fine as long as it’s their side that is doing it.
As Bob Dylan once sang, “You just want to be on the side that’s winning.”
OT, but ’tis the season: Room at the inn for blogger in need.
Addendum: as the seat of empire, now threatened by new empires, war is the permanent condition of America. Hence, so is secrecy, and democracy a thing of the past.
Assange and Wikileaks is almost a perfect litmus test, based on someone’s reaction it is not hard to make an assumption about who they are (or at least what they will support.) Hurricane Katrina was similar but through a different lens: seeing people carrying food out of corner stores led one to either use the word “looters” or “survivors”. Based on which you used informed of how you think.
Stirling had a great post on Corrente just recently in which he mentions “the pyramid” of cultural structure vs. “the sphere”. The pyramid being top down organizations of any stripe (really the corporate and govt structures today), the sphere being a system of mostly equal contacts at all points in an organization (internet, this message board.) Wikileaks definitely informs of which camp you’d lean toward in that upcoming battle as well.
Your last statement is unbelievably right on. This entire thing has just simply revealed more than the cables and scandals, it’s revealed the nature of the chattering classes; including us amateurs.
Exactly Ian,
and Bob gets it right about the well to do Dems…
“the same liberals and progressives who stopped going to anti-war protests once Obama got elected. Apparently war is fine as long as it’s their side that is doing it.”
Again…this must have been what it was like to live in Germany during the run-up to WWII.
Most people do not know that first people Hitler went after were REAL LIBERALS, he was guided to those targets by other “liberals” whose “liberal” policies began and ended with their day to day preferences. The intellectual decedents of those people are with us now and they still confuse “liberalism” with the ability to do what they want, when they want.
Left blog-go-stan is rife with liberals of convenience and only getting worse, they are no match for the forces of fleece lined fascism, in fact, it’s not clear that they oppose the building of a proto-fascist state outside of their own sphere of concerns.
Freedom vs the freedom of petty tyrants to do as they please, an awful lot of “liberals” can’t tell the difference.
The inability of people to even perceive a classification error and the lack of understanding of the exponential function will probably do us in as a species. Not a happy thought. If only it were limited to privacy issues, but it’s not.
Who are the so-called liberals that don’t get it?
Still, I’ve really appreciated the Wikileaks [sic] imbroglio, not so much for the information it revealed, but because it has revealed the authoritarians for who they are.
It depends on who the “they are” is. Insofar as it has revealed that some writers on the internet have been revealed, I’m reminded of the saying about academia: “The fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small.” But when who “they are” is the people in gov’t., WikiLeaks’ revelation of the authoritarians is history rhyming. It is being taught to the current adults who are not old enough to have been subject to the draft for the Vietnam war. Those who were subject to it attempted (some are still attempting) to create a counter-culture (and the reaction to that gave rise to the culture wars that are still with us). The authoritarians of that time attempted to restrict the freedom of the press exercised by the nytimes (pentagon papers) and the wapost (watergate).
From the Canadian professor of anthropology Maximilian Forte’s essay The WikiLeaks Revolution
it’s revealed the nature of the chattering classes; including us amateurs.
you work for the NYT or WaPo? /silly joke mode/
but being more serious: that is the reason why so-called liberals work in favor of authoritarian causes when it suits them. simply: money. access. cocktail parties. lovers.
most of the public voices on the left who are condemning Wiki have a stake in the Village game. when one does not have such, it’s very easy to remove or avoid ever wearing the blinders to the hypocrisy of the wiki critics. don’t get me wrong; i love nice, expensive shoes as much as the next grrl. but i’m no longer in a position to trade my integrity for such. unfortunately, lots of prominent liberal voices still are, and unhappily, do.
The presumption for government is that its proceedings and actions should be transparent to its citizens because it exists to serve its citizens, and they can only know that it is doing so, and doing so in ways they would approve of, if they know what it is doing.
From this month, Dec. 2010, an article on classified information published in the latimes, nytimes, and wapo, including WL and non-WL material:
(emphasis added)
Bogus Afghan “Review” Shows Need for Journalism on Classified Information
The confusion of the rights of the state and the individual mirrors, to my mind, the confusion between the rights of an individual and those of a corporation. In both cases, states and corporations, we’re talking about artificial legal constructs meant to serve a set purpose or purposes. They can’t have fundamental rights, in and of themselves, they’re just tools. Yet we have supposedly sharp legal minds, even lefty ones, go on about how it’s essential to grant corporations free speech rights, and we see many on the left outraged that our government’s secrecy has been violated, as if a basic human liberty had been trampled upon.
The only proper way to evaluate alleged damage to a tool, like, say, lifting the veil of secrecy over some governmental activities, is to ask yourself whether this activity is one you would actually support, and whether being exposed makes the tool’s working less efficient or practical. Has anyone seen any of these mythical benevolent secret activities exposed so far? Illegal spying, environmental catastrophe, warmongering, conspiracies against democracy and justice, I’ve noticed *those* functions of the state being degraded, and I wholeheartedly approve. But I’ve yet to see any actual damage to anything worth defending. In theory, if we had a working, benevolent government, leaking its secrets could undermine something worthwhile, a peace treaty perhaps, sensitive diplomatic negotations toward a good end maybe.
The fact that to date all we’ve seen when Wikileaks uncovered a rock were squirming grotesqueries should really tell our so-called liberal cohorts what they’re dealing with.
Revealed it to whom? To those who have no capacity to see it? That’s rather meaningless. For all of us who already knew the extent of the authoritarianism, it’s rather redundant, and for me, a regression, at this point. Of course, I don’t fashion myself a Liberal. I’ll be damned if I get straight-jacketed with that co-opted, and highly misused, and abused, label.
Still, I’ve really appreciated the Wikileaks imbroglio, not so much for the information it revealed, but because it has revealed the authoritarians for who they are.
Indeed. It’s been telling — and depressing — to watch the reactions of the suddenly civil-liberties-conscious Right and the suddenly civil-liberties-dismissing Left. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to who mouth all the correct liberal pieties at cocktail parties, but who, when faced either with TSA abuse or WikiLeaks denunciation, suddenly find themselves unable to speak. They grovel at the airport (“just don’t inconvenience me!”), and they lap up the government’s and media’s demonization of Julian Assange. They’re happy little players in the theater their overlords have created for them, yapping about “security” and “safety” and “secrecy,” complicit in their increasing subjugation.
By the way, anon2525, great excerpt from Maximilian Forte’s essay.
great excerpt from Maximilian Forte’s essay.
Yes, it is good to get the perspective of someone with deep knowledge in a field (anthropology). I wonder what Forte thinks about Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. And I wonder what Thoreau would have written about the relationship between the individual and the state if he were alive today. Unfortunately, he lived before the time of industrialists, corporations, PACs, etc. — all forms of power and small groups organized as dictatorships.
“most of the public voices on the left who are condemning Wiki have a stake in the Village game.”
Howard Zinn during a conversation with Arundhati Roy:
“It’s interesting what you say about the middle class, blinding itself, protecting itself from what is happening to so much of the population. And this is so much the history of the United States which developed perhaps the largest middle class. That is, the United States has had enough wealth so it could bribe enough people in the population to create a middle class which became useful as a buffer between the very rich and that part of the population which could not even rise into the middle class. So the middle class, in the United States, has always been enticed by the establishment into thinking that it can rise into the upper class and not told that it can also descend. [Laughter]. The result is that the United States educational system teaches us from the very beginning that we are not a class society. To use the term ‘class,’ in the United States…it’s just a term you use for school, right. [Laughter] ‘This is my class’ sort of thing.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/listening-l@zrz.tu-berlin.de/msg21073.html
I agree with this:
“that is the reason why so-called liberals work in favor of authoritarian causes when it suits them. simply: money. access. cocktail parties. lovers.”
Our so-called liberals are liberals when it suits them…and don’t be fooled, the elites screen for this trait. Josh Marshal, Kevin Drum, Ezra K, Matt Y, Jon Alter et al …please pick up the white courtesy phone.
I want to add CDyke, you & I may disagree on some issues, but you’ve been one of the more effective voices in calling down “liberals of convenience”. Keep it up!
Josh Marshal, Kevin Drum, Ezra K, Matt Y, Jon Alter et al
I do not know who Ian Welsh was referring to, but my (quite limited) knowledge of the people in the list above is that they all live near or inside the Wash. D.C. beltway. This is significant for two reasons:
1) They can meet and talk with each other, which means that they come to value what the other people in the group think of each other. This leads to an echo chamber of thinking.
2) They are close to the fed. gov’t. and its warping/insulating effects on the local economy. This means that they are not in regular contact with what the rest of the population is experiencing in the country.
Nonetheless, the so-called liberal writers are not what is influencing the population’s view on WikiLeaks or Bradley Manning (whom most do not even know about). So, it is a small matter what these writers think or write. What matters still is what the corporate media outlets are saying and writing. What matters even more is that the education of the population is so poor that the corporate media outlets are able to have this influence when they are clearly advocating anti-American ideas.
… So the middle class, in the United States, has always been enticed by the establishment into thinking that it can rise into the upper class and not told that it can also descend. The result is that the United States educational system teaches us from the very beginning that we are not a class society.
Don’t forget racism, Mr. Zinn:
“Only a Pawn in Their Game” — Bob Dylan
And Bob Dylan’s Anti-establishment when it suits him. For the times it doesn’t, there’s his Cadillac Escalade. This commercial so epitomizes the state of “America.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X3Bcmf3ckQ
This whole Assange imbroglio is like throwing a brownie to a colony of cockroaches. They climb over one another devouring every last bit until it’s gone and then start the whole thing over again when the next treat is thrown. Meanwhile…..
Anon2525, Kevin Drum lives in OC, but the others live in the NYC-DC nexis and know/meet/read each other. I could have added a few more Invasion/Obama supporters that know one another. But they’re just the water boys for the rich & not widely known people who decide that Obama will be president until things blow over…and other such details.
And Bob Dylan’s Anti-establishment when it suits him.
Artists have lots of things in their personal lives that no one would approve of (take Picasso or Sinatra, for example), but it doesn’t negate their works of art.
A more substantial complaint would have been some criticism of the song itself. The song is admirable, not the least because it includes the assassination of Medgar Evers in the first verse, but it is flawed when it says that the poor white racists are only a pawn in the game. They wouldn’t be a “pawn” if they did not believe in the racism that the politicians and others are able to manipulate. They bear the responsibility for their racism.
When you cast the whole debate as either being in favor of freedom or being an authoritarian you get a skewed result.
Some of us don’t see Assange as a hero. Some of us find the charges against him credible and would like to see justice take it’s course. That doesn’t make us authoritarians.
I believe in the rule of law. When the law is king, no man or woman is above the law.
Just imagine the caterwauling that would be going on if Assange were arrested on “secret” charges.
“We have a right to know!” would be the cry.
I don’t recall this concern for privacy when the two complaining witnesses had their names, photos, addresses and other personal information splashed around the web. Nobody was complaining when Assange’s attorneys were spreading misinformation about the case in the media.
Governments and individuals are different types of entities. The presumption for government is that its proceedings and actions should be transparent to its citizens because it exists to serve its citizens, and they can only know that it is doing so, and doing so in ways they would approve of, if they know what it is doing.
This is all screamingly obvious, though, to any halfway-educated person. I’d ascribe the seeming epidemic of incomprehension on this point to a combination of cognitive dissonance, disingenuousness, and flat-out bullying sophistry. (Mostly the latter two.)
Anon, I was responding to CD’s comment–about faux liberal comfort with the status quo. Race is certainly a major element/distraction from what should be class warfare, but not so much in earnest liberal boutiques.
Anon, I was responding to CD’s comment–about faux liberal comfort with the status quo.
And I wasn’t disagreeing with Zinn’s point so much as adding to it.
Some of us find the charges against him credible and would like to see justice take it’s [sic] course. That doesn’t make us authoritarians.
I believe in the rule of law. When the law is king, no man or woman is above the law.
The problem with your observation is that it does not describe reality. We live today in a country where a whole class of people live above the law. If your concern is with the rule of law, then you’re like the person who is standing in the midst of a great flood who notices a few raindrops falling on your head and saying “Oh no! I don’t want to get wet!”
You would be better off starting with the investigation and prosecution of the bush/cheney war crimes and the massive fraud in the lawless banking industry if you truly want to uphold the rule of law.
The screaming about how leaking sucks and hahahaha, look at his file being leaked, the clear personal animus, belays high minded words about letting justice takes its course.
They can meet and talk with each other, which means that they come to value what the other people in the group think of each other. This leads to an echo chamber of thinking.
They don’t have to meet with each other. They had Journolist, and now they have son-of-J-list, along with other bloggers and journalists for their echo chamber.
myiq2xu, this is absolute bullshit from you.
“Some of us don’t see Assange as a hero. Some of us find the charges against him credible and would like to see justice take it’s course. ”
Your pretense to be unbiased doesn’t pass the laugh test. You are breathlessly reporting every media toady’s slam on the guy, three posts against Assange in one 24 hour period…how stupid do you think people are here.
You must have a pretty low opinion of folks here, saying you don’t have an oar in water is an outright lie that anybody can check by checking your Sat-Sun postings over at Confluence. Go back to where you can ban comments that challenge your hysterical hyperventilating coverage, better yet, start your own blog. Your postings at Confluence will diminish it’s credibility if you are allowed to continue, hopefully they will read your lie here and pull the plug on your ass.
Your pretense and artifice is a disgrace.
…belays high minded words…
I think that IW meant ‘belies’ here.
A more substantial complaint would have been some criticism of the song itself.
It wasn’t a complaint, it was an astute observation. If you have a hard time spotting irony, don’t project your failings on me by suggesting I find another observation. I think the observation I posited is substantial, and quite poignant. Criticizing hypocrisy with another hypocrisy is the height of irony. Maybe I’m just weird that way. Don’t take the aforementioned as a defense of “Liberalism” or hypocrisy, because it’s not.
For the record, I don’t give a shit about Assange or Wikileaks, one way or the other. I do care immensely about Justice, and I’ve yet to see any evidence that Wikileaks, its face and all the accompanying ballyhoo, is resulting in Justice.
Where’s The Beef, that’s what I want to know, because I’m not seeing it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
“Some of us don’t see Assange as a hero. Some of us find the charges against him credible and would like to see justice take it’s course. That doesn’t make us authoritarians.”
Some of us are wholly disinterested in elevating the debate to the possible errors of one individual. As if the would-be debate about the rampant evil of the American empire should be sacrificed to the micro/possible injustice of … what is it exactly … sex without a condom?
Forest-for-the-trees much?
“I believe in the rule of law. When the law is king, no man or woman is above the law.”
Nope, this is and always has been b-s sold to you by your rulers. i.e. in Anon’s words: “”We live today in a country where a whole class of people live above the law.”
Chomsky, discussing Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” (1755):
“[He] argues that civil society is hardly more than a conspiracy by the rich to guarantee their plunder. Hypocritically, the rich call upon their neighbors to ‘institute regulations of justice and peace to which all are obliged to conform, which make an exception for no one, and which compensate in some way for the caprices of fortune by equally subjecting the powerful and the weak to mutual duties’–those laws which, as Anatole France was to say, in their majesty deny to the rich and the poor equally the right to sleep under the bridge at night. By such arguments, the poor and the weak are seduced: ‘All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom…’ Thus society and laws “gave new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, destroyed natural freedom for all time, established forever the law of property and inequality, changed a clever usurpation into an irrevocable right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the whole human race to work, servitude and misery.'”
Actually I wrote three posts on the topic of Assange and the rape allegation over a period of four days, all of which linked to new stories. That is all the posts I’ve ever made concerning the topic. By contrast I’ve written four posts today, none of which involve Assange.
You yourself are hardly the model of neutrality and objectivity. None of your comments (nor anyone else’s) regarding Assange have been deleted or banned at TC.
If you have any complaints, please take them to Riverdaughter. I keep begging her to fire me but she won’t.
I find this angry hysteria reminiscent of Obama supporters back in 2008 –“How dare you support Hillary!”
Actually the charge is rape.
I admit to being amused by the irony of a leaker complaining of leaks. But those leaks serve the purpose of correcting misinformation about this case and the people involved.
If a judge issued a gag order it would also apply to Assange and his attorneys. They have not been shy about misrepresenting the law of Sweden and the allegations against Assange.
What do you want to happen in this case, Ian? Do you want Assange to return to Sweden and have his day in court? Or have you concluded that you know the facts and the case should be dismissed without further proceedings?
“I wrote three posts on the topic of Assange and the rape allegation over a period of four days” – myiq2xu
I’ll stand by my comment “Your pretense to be unbiased doesn’t pass the laugh test. You are breathlessly reporting every media toady’s slam on the guy…” But given what you just said, it is possible that you are too far gone to recognize reality if it slapped you in the face
“You yourself are hardly the model of neutrality and objectivity. ” – myiq2xu
a) I AM NOT PRETENDING TO BE as you did above. I really seem to have a screw loose to try that dodge, you have to better to get out of your lie. My point stands, you are over posing as disinterested, you are not disinterested, you are a fraud.
b) As a commenter, OF COURSE I AM GIVING AN OPINION, that’s what a comment is.
“None of your comments (nor anyone else’s) regarding Assange have been deleted” – myiq2xu
Another outright lie, your next line will be, “prove it” which I can’t, but people can go up thread and prove to themselves that you came here and posted falsely. I pretty sure the majority will conclude that if lie once on a subject you’d lie twice.
Lousy typing skills, should have been:
“a) …[you] really seem to have a screw loose to try that dodge, you have to [do] better to get out of your lie. My point stands, you are over [here] posing as disinterested, you are not disinterested, you are a fraud.
It wasn’t a complaint, it was an astute observation.
It is up to the readers, not the writer to judge whether an observation is “astute.”
I think the observation I posited is substantial, and quite poignant.
“Posited”? I don’t think word means what you think it means.
So, it is ironic that advertisers hired Bob Dylan to sell cars when he was the author of a song about the use of racism by politicians to get the support of poor white men? And he titled the song “A Pawn in Their Game,” when now he is a pawn in their game? Is this the irony we’re supposed to see? You are correct in noticing that I failed to see the irony, much as I fail to find sales and assassination to be equally offensive. But I don’t want to project my failing on you.
I admit to being amused by the irony of a leaker complaining of leaks.
Actually, there is no irony here, despite the juxtaposition of the words “leaker” and “leak.” WL is disclosing crimes that are being hidden by gov’t. classification, while Assange is not in the position to classify documents. So the complaining, if there is any, is about different actions, not the same actions by different actors. Furthermore, if a just and open trial takes place (assuming that the charges against Assange are not dropped again), then any information that is relevant to the charges will be brought out then, unlike in the WL disclosures, which would never have been revealed in open court.
But those leaks serve the purpose of correcting misinformation about this case and the people involved.
Only the leaks are not necessary to correct misinformation if a just and open trial is held. The (fair?) judge will rule on what is admissible. The real questions are 1) will there be a trial or will the charges be dropped, and 2) will the trial be just and open, given the influence the u.s. has on the Swedish gov’t.?
You can’t prove a lot of the things you say, but that never stopped you before.
I never claimed to be unbiased. I have said more than once I tend to believe the two women who have accused Assange. That is my informed opinion, but it’s just an opinion.
What I don’t get is your hysterical reaction. You act as if you are personally invested in the outcome of the case.
I invite anyone and everyone who is interested to come to The Confluence and read what I have written. They can read your comments as well. (all of them)
And I’m being accused of bias?
It’s pretty obvious that you will consider any result except a dismissal of charges or an acquittal to be unjust.
The prosecution is supposed to remain silent, but today Assange talked to the media and said his accusers were liars who were motivated by revenge.
Yeah, you say this now
I never claimed to be unbiased – myiq2xu
but you started with this
Some of us don’t see Assange as a hero. Some of us find the charges against him credible and would like to see justice take it’s course….I believe in the rule of law. When the law is king, no man or woman is above the law. – myiq2xu
So you post on daily, delete comments one of which points out that it was the women in question the went to the press right after they wen to the police. They don’t deny it, and the paper doesn’t either…but you do, even now.
“I don’t recall this concern for privacy when the two complaining witnesses had their names, photos, addresses and other personal information splashed around the web.” – myiq2xu
FYI, to the clueless, if the accusation was false, it would be slander and the women’s lawyer would seek damages.
Yes, MYIQ2XU, you are a fount of falsehoods pouring from a podium. I’m done with your ceaseless artifice. You’re ruining Confluence with you garbage. Sstart your own blog, stop killing the few remaining places where people can truthfully discuss and disagree.
Alright, you win, anon2525, and besides, your way is so much more fun. It’s better to use other noteworthy individuals words rather than one’s own when criticizing hypocrisy. Considering that, I think these words are an erudite (I bet I don’t even know what that word means) rendering of the current malaise that promotes plenty of debate, but very little, if any, action.
You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy. Charles Manson
Interestingly enough, ol Charlie, artist that he is, isn’t nearly as hypocritical as Dylan turned out to be.
And I’m being accused of bias?
No. I would say, “I think that you are biased,” and state the reasons why I thought you are. Are you paranoid? Why are you taking the words that I wrote to be about you?
It’s pretty obvious that you will consider any result except a dismissal of charges or an acquittal to be unjust.
That’s a reasonably clear statement that you think that what I have written means that I am biased. I have no view as yet on the charges against Assange brought by Sweden, and I don’t know Swedish law. So, I’m fairly ignorant about the facts and the law.
It’s entirely possible that the charges should be dismissed or that Assange should be acquitted. I don’t think that we can know in advance whether an open and just trial will take place, as I said in the questions I listed. It’s entirely possible, given the pressure being applied by the U.S. that the Swedish courts will not be just or they will be. And it might turn out to be easy for us to determine that it is unjust, or it might not be easy.
What we can say at this point is that the fact that the charges are being made is extraordinary because they were dismissed once already. And we can say that the fact that an Interpol warrant was issued for Assange is extraordinary, as well:
There is much more here about the unusual actions that are being taken by the British and Swedish gov’t.s in Assange’s case. It is far from assured that if he faces trial it will be open and just.
…I think these words are an erudite (I bet I don’t even know what that word means) rendering of the current malaise…
I think that you’ll win that “bet.”
Once again, rather than respond to the points I made, you have changed the subject, possibly hoping that no one will notice in all the muddle. It sounds like you’re familiar with the saying “When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
That’s what I keep telling Riverdaughter.
You’re really good at disproving things I never said.
Last I checked the two women weren’t saying anything. I have no knowledge as to whether they went to the press or not. But NONE of your comments were deleted at TC.
BTW – Publishing the names and personal information of two alleged rape victims is not slander.
anon2525,
The charges have been dismissed twice, this is the third time up. In the US we call that Judge shopping. It’s what the rich powerful corrupt people do when they want their way.
Here the link to MYIQ2XU fellow scumbags, I put this up last night on the previous Ian post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/rove-suspected-in-swedish_b_798737.html
As you can see there’s a lot of money pushing this story, wrongful convictions is this crews specialty.
A friend of mine who works for a Texas Republican research-op says the marching orders are to say rape-Rape-RAPE as often as possible which is what MYIQ2XU has been doing non-stop for the past 5 or 6 days. JTBC, I’m not saying MYIQ2XU is a Republican operative, he’s too obsessive to get paid for it, I’m just saying he’s performing like a pathetic wannabe.
The job basically is to get Assange extradited to the US, with a poisoned Jury pool thanks to “bloggers” like MYIQ2XU everybody will believe Assange was convicted of rape, when eh faces charges of espionage. It’s quite a kick to watch operatives work left blog-go-stan one more time. MYIQ2XU is just a pathetic tool.
What happened to the previous ingenious notion … What was it again? We don’t know who the leakers are, therefore Wikileaks is the tool of unknown (possibly omg anti-Hillary!!) actors. So maybe Assane is guilty … of what, again? Rape laws that are so liberal they seem to verge on being a tool of revenge for jilted lovers? If Assange wasn’t careful then he’s made his own bed, but I completely agree with the above, the posts on this at the Confluence are depressingly, seemingly willfully stupid.
Just read this at False Dichotomy and somehow it reminded me of some of the comments here today:
“In 2002, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards supported a preemptive war on Iraq that ended hundreds of thousands of lives and forced more than 4.5 million people to flee their homes. And according to his top political adviser at the time, he did so not because he thought the invasion was necessary to protect America – he was privately skeptical of that – but because he thought it would be good for his political career.
Edwards of course went on to be the 2004 Democratic candidate for vice president – because, not despite, of his support for the war. Even after it was exposed that he’d backed the bombing of poor brown people on the other side of the globe for purely selfish reasons, he made a serious run for the presidential nomination in 2008.
Only after it was revealed that Edwards porked someone who wasn’t his wife did all good, patriotic Americans start hating on the sleazy bastard. That whole support for an unjust, immoral war he knew was wrong thing? Again: a feature, not a flaw.
Seriously, fuck you America
n 2002, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards supported a preemptive war on Iraq that ended hundreds of thousands of lives and forced more than 4.5 million people to flee their homes. And according to his top political adviser at the time, he did so not because he thought the invasion was necessary to protect America – he was privately skeptical of that – but because he thought it would be good for his political career.
Edwards of course went on to be the 2004 Democratic candidate for vice president – because, not despite, of his support for the war. Even after it was exposed that he’d backed the bombing of poor brown people on the other side of the globe for purely selfish reasons, he made a serious run for the presidential nomination in 2008.
Only after it was revealed that Edwards porked someone who wasn’t his wife did all good, patriotic Americans start hating on the sleazy bastard. That whole support for an unjust, immoral war he knew was wrong thing? Again: a feature, not a flaw.
Seriously, fuck you America
Hmm, comment fail–no farkin idea how that happened. Anyone, here’s the link:
http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2010/12/sure-hes-war-criminal-but-at-least-he.html
Still, I’ve really appreciated the Wikileaks imbroglio, not so much for the information it revealed, but because it has revealed the authoritarians for who they are.
==========================================================
Since when has this not been obvious?
The kerfuffle above aside; I find exceptionalism isn’t the sole territory of the U.S.; but of it’s citizens and the left may be the biggest abuser.
I don’t have many people in the west that I communicate with, but to a person; they say they see what’s really going on but! And there’s the rub, but; how can there be any but if one truly sees what’s going on?
I’ve been calling that denial; possibly I mis-spoke and it’s really exceptionalism. Cheers.
Once again, rather than respond to the points I made
You didn’t make a point, so there’s no need to respond to it. All you did was attempt to rationalize a misstep. I’m anxiously awaiting your next Dylan quote, or a quote from another esteemed (I don’t know what that word means either, professor, but it sounds intellectual and it flows nicely) icon of your choosing. Instead of using your own words, you used the words of a celebrity to add weight to your argument. Ironically (there’s so much of it), your argument had plenty of intrinsic weight and the Appeal to Celebrity blew it. There was no need for the fallacious overkill.
jcaplan, I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive when it comes to gauging the character of John Edwards. Sure, one action has a much greater impact on humanity, and that can’t be overlooked, but both actions speak volumes, synergistically, about John Edwards, and the actions the “Left” and “Right” condemn and condone speaks volumes about their collective characters. It’s obvious that John Edwards is a sociopathic, narcissistic, egomaniacal self-absorbed opportunist….or, in otherwords, a politician. I wonder if he’s a Dylan fan and drives a Cadillac Escalade? He fits the profile.
Celsius 233, please don’t give up on all of us. Some of us in the West do realize what’s going, don’t water down our principles with a simpering “but,” and do see the sham of American exceptionalism.
Actually the charge is rape.
The charges have been dismissed twice, this is the third time up.
Is there a charge? As of yesterday morning (Monday), there had been no charges filed. There were only allegations. In some respects, discussion of the case is premature because there are not facts available. What is reprehensible is that Assange was locked up by the British when no charges have been filed in Sweden.
A friend of mine who works for a Texas Republican research-op says the marching orders are to say rape-Rape-RAPE as often as possible…
This is reminiscent of the instructions to say “war” “on” “terrorism” as much as possible in order to scare people.
If you actually research the law you will discover that in order for an extradition proceeding to occur there must be an arrest warrant for purposes of prosecution filed with Interpol.
That warrant had to be certified by Sweden’s highest court. That means a criminal complaint has been filed in a Swedish court.
Anon2525, you have it right
CBS reports today:
“No charges have been filed against Assange in Sweden relating to the claims of sexual misconduct, which include an allegation of rape by one of the two women. Nor does he face any charges — yet — in the United States or anywhere else relating to his organization’s publication of thousands of leaked U.S. diplomatic cables.” – Paragraph 6
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026260-503543.html
Meanwhile, Murdoch’s Australian Papers touts that the charges are much, much worse than they appear.
So when MYIQ2XU practices his sophistry here, it’s good to know Murdoch has got his back. Sort of like the Iraq invasion with Josh Marshal, Ezra K, Matt Y, Kevin Drum carrying Murdoch’s water.
As the original post points out, the so-called left has always had it’s turncoats, MYIQ2XU is just one of the many for whom betrayal of principals can always be rationalized. Just look at Ezra K preening daily at WaPo.
It would appear that the “ball is in Sweden’s court”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/21/julian-assange-defends-decision-sweden
Wow – you’re a day late and a dollar short as usual:
Whose side is Murdoch on?
BTW – I quoted the law, you quoted CBS
Here’s a little more:
I really find it amusing how Sweden has morphed from the model of a socialist democracy to a right-wing dictatorship and U.S. puppet.
Anon2525,
As you can see MYIQ2XU is attempting to be clever here by using specious argument* when he quotes the law to imply that Assange must have been charged with an offense. Note the condescension that drips when he uses this line on your comment:
“If you actually research the law you will discover that in order for an extradition proceeding to occur there must be an arrest warrant for purposes of prosecution filed with Interpol.” – MYIQ2XU
This is the type of statement that gives you the ability to lie…and back away from the lie should…[in MYIQ2XU case], WHEN you are discovered. People will see that fraud is being practice, but they can’t really prove it. Here is an example of that type of denial by MYIQ2XU
“BTW – I quoted the law, you quoted CBS” – MYIQ2XU
Again, MYIQ2XU use of sophistry is obvious…and really a pretty pathetic attempt. So it was a little unfair to Josh Marshal, Ezra K, Matt Y, Kevin Drum et al to compare them to MYIQ2XU, those bloggers made much better specious arguments. With MYIQ2XU…even with my poor typing skills, it takes but a few seconds to plainly reveal his use sophistry.
Having gone through this drill in 2000 with Gore Vs Bush, 2003 with the invasion & 2007-8 with the Obamanation it’s old hat, but still amusing to me that their people out there that feel so superior that they practice it when it’s so easily displaced with the truth. I guess he thinks we’re all rubes to his “superior intellect”
“Even the simplest peasant knows he is being lied too, but he also knows if he calls a gentleman on it, he will be whipped so hard, he may well die..so he keeps his words to himself. It is in this way, order is kept” – An Irish Lord explaining to his son why he told such an obvious lie.
Sophistry – “In the modern definition (from Plato), a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. ” – Wiki
*Specious Argument – “an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious.” – Wiki
Brennan:
Your arguments are fellatious – they suck
You post replies twice as long as my comments and yet say nothing.
Nor do any of your comments address anything I have said on the merits.
The point is not whether Assange is guilty or not, the point is the deep hostility to the very idea of leaking/journalism and transparency along with the category error that states that since Assange has provided government transparecy, everything he or Wikileaks does should be entirely transparent. This is a deeply authoritarian argument which fundamentally misunderstands what government is for, at least government in a free state. Governments acts for people and those people should expect to be able to know what government is doing in its name. Wikileaks is acting to provide that transparency when the state is not.
The “Please don’t tell me what my government is doing” mantra is profoundly, even sickeningly, authoritarian. It is also absurd coming from anyone who calls themselves a liberal. You really trust government to do the right thing? After the past 10 years, including both the Obama and Bush administrations. Really? You don’t want to know what’s going on?
WTF?
As for Honeypots, given the screams to kill Assange, I don’t think it’s unreasonable that he might suspect dirty pool and it is also true that Sweden has one of the lowest prosecution rates in Europe for rape, yet somehow Assange, who is accused of the third lowest severity that Swedish law recognizes, is such a high priority. Odd that. That he may have done something bad and that he is being persecuted in ways that an ordinary person would not be who had done the exact same thing are not contradictory. That somehow it’s so important to get him, when war criminals in the US and Britain, responsible for hundreds of thosuands of deaths walk free, when torturers walk free, is sickening. Somehow it is only the “enemies of the state” who get this treatment, not bankers who destroyed the world economy and effectively destroyed the lives of millions and millions of people.
I don’t know whether Assange is guilty, and I don’t think I’ll ever know. Because this is going to be completely he said/she said and political motives are clearly involved in the prosecution. What I do know is that Wikileaks has been persecuted, not prosecuted.
“That somehow it’s so important to get him, when war criminals in the US and Britain, responsible for hundreds of thosuands of deaths walk free, when torturers walk free, is sickening. Somehow it is only the ‘enemies of the state’ who get this treatment, not bankers who destroyed the world economy and effectively destroyed the lives of millions and millions of people.”
Thank you. What I was attempting to say above.
Here’s the new hero of Dude nation:
Ian,
As I have been reminded repeatedly when making the same argument that other crimes are much more important than the current one being prosecuted, any recognition of the absurd priorities expressed by the legal authorities is utterly irrelevant to the innocence or guilt of the particular case in question. What’s more it’s also illogical. Denigrating the charges brought against Assange won’t bring Cheney, Bush, John Yoo, or the banksters any closer to prosecution. The legal system, like so much in life, is based upon whimsy and caprice and to point out some conspiratorial agency lurking behind the curtain simply shows that one has not moved beyond grad school thinking. Let the system work, goes this train of thought. Let the cogs and wheels of our appointed superiors grind through the evidence. Let the facts be sifted. Have faith in procedural justice – except that such faith seems badly misplaced. We now imprison more people than the Chinese (many for non-violent, victimless infractions), and Bradley Manning is serving a sentence of solitary confinement without trial. You’d almost think there’s a reason people don’t want to play that game, though I’m pretty sure those logicians would tell you it’s an immature one. Strangely (or perhaps not), adulthood always seems predicated upon accepting another’s rules, even when it is pointed out that those rules appear to be rigged. Nobody wants to seem a child.
At this point, given what we know, all posts that are calling for the trial of Assange on “rule of law” grounds should start with a condemnation of the non-trial and treatment of Bradley Manning, who is being imprisoned with no charges being filed against him in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Unless those supporters of a trial for Assange do that, they have no credibility.
Strawman much?
Just because some of us believe in the rule of law that doesn’t make us goose-stepping Nazis. Just because I am skeptical of WikiLeaks doesn’t mean I support government secrecy. I support the rule of law, not anarchy.
This isn’t all as black and white as you want it to be.
In case you haven’t noticed, everything WikiLeaks has done supports the neocon case for war with Iran.
Do you know who WikiLeaks is?
Do you know their sources?
Do you know the goals of those two groups?
Bullshit.
Manning was arrested and charged with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. There really is no debate about his guilt. He has a lawyer.
Do we give him a “get out of jail free” card because we approve of his motives?
What about Scooter Libby? He thought he was doing the right thing when he when he participated in the outing of Valerie Plame. I don’t remember a bunch of lefties running to his defense.
Do we get to ignore the law because we don’t like it? Who decides when we get to break the law? What are the rules?
Let me add:
This country doesn’t just include the left. It also includes the right.
How do we define a rule of law that applies equally to left and right regarding when the breaking of the law is authorized?
If we can break a law we don’t like, why can’t the right?
It’s clear to me that Assange/Wikileaks is a petard, wittingly or unwittingly, by which the “Left” is hoisting itself. The way this should have been done, and should be done, is anonymously with no names attached. The underlying principle is Justice, and in order to render Justice, you need the verifiable facts, not some compromised news organization’s highly censored interpretation of the facts. However, there is also something else that is vitally important in administering Justice and that is to act on those facts, and that’s where this also falls flat on its face. You can have all the verifiable facts you want, but if there is not a mechanism to prosecute the multitude of criminals in a timely manner, then the verifiable facts, and Justice, are damned. The Judiciary, and every other institution, is so thoroughly corrupted at this point, and perhaps it/they always was/were, that there is no where to go with all of this except………
CBS reports today:
I’m sorry, but I must point out irony, once again. CBS? Admittedly, Wikileaks was propagated because the MSM wasn’t providing the verifiable facts, so it’s rather humorous to be citing CBS in defense of Wikileaks.
Does anyone here listen to CBS? That’s regressive, isn’t it, if not foolhardy?
Manning was arrested and charged with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
Manning and all military personnel swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and are not allowed to obey unlawful orders. The agreement that he signed not to disclose classified materials does not override his oath or the requirement not to obey unlawful orders. The materials that are classified includes evidence of war crimes. The agreement to not disclose classified materials cannot override his obligation not to cover up knowledge of war crimes.
There really is no debate about his guilt. He has a lawyer.
That’s all that I needed from you. “Guilty without trial.” Thank you. I won’t be addressing any more of your comments.
And which law school did you attend?
You certainly have an expansive definition of what constitutes “covering-up” an alleged war crime. Who decides whether Manning’s conduct was justified?
You?
Please explain the legal process involved in presenting this defense.
“What about Scooter Libby”
2 sec google and here’s the answer:
“The prison sentence of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby has been commuted by United States President George W. Bush. Libby is the former chief of staff for U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney…Bush’s intervention ensures that Libby will not serve jail time, however Libby must still pay a US$250,000 fine and undergo two years of probation. In a statement, Bush said, “I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison…his fine was paid through donations” – Wiki
Shorter version..no punishment at all.
More sophistry…
So you’re okay with Scooter breaking the law.
That makes you a wing-nut.
When I took an oath to be soldier in the US Army there was this phrase:
“…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.”
Wikileaks has revealed that those entrusted with defending the US Constitution of the United States of America have repeatedly with forethought and malice did meaningful harm to the provisions set forth in this document. Both the current CiC and former CiC have repeatedly violated the US Constitution and have made provisions to cover up those crimes.
I don’t want to defend Manning. I don’t know all the details of the case and I can’t match the one poster who has all the facts in the case…enough to pronounce judgment prior to a preliminary hearing…but back in the day, when a helicopter door gunner, named Ridenhour heard about the My Lai Massacre he did something similar. Ridenhou, while still serving active duty, gathered enough evidence to reveal the crime. He wrote letters and spread the news far and wide, which spurred a probe that led to indictments against those involved in the crime. He broke the law in several ways in exposing the crime and defending the constitution from domestic enemies, but was never punished.
Today we have “leaders”, little twats who cry for “the rule of law” when it suits them. Back then we had people, arguing whether Lt. Cali should do time, not whether Ridenhou should time.
Because we have those arguing that “orders are orders”, “the law is the law” and other verbal excrement. Let me share the story of a man who thought that was crap, he defied orders and nobody on this board could carry his jockstrap on the very best day of their lives.
“A pilot named Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr. from Stone Mountain, Ga., was furious at the killings he saw happening on the ground. He landed his helicopter between one group of fleeing civilians and American soldiers in pursuit. Thompson ordered his helicopter door gunner to shoot the Americans if they tried to harm the Vietnamese. After a tense confrontation, the soldiers backed off. Later, two of Thompson’s men climbed into one ditch filled with corpses and pulled out a three-year-old boy whom they flew to safety.” – Wiki
Thompson and his men broke the law and defied orders. But back then we had men big enough that they had to dress to one side, or the other. I’ll never match Thompson, but I too have disobeyed an illegal order. I was in the process of being punished for it, ordered not to communicate with anyone. One letter to my congressman slipped out by a friend and me and my CO were best buddies. Funny that.
People who say stuff like “orders are orders”, “the law is the law” and other verbal excrement have never seen shit, or are habitual liars.
Lisa Simeone PERMALINK
December 21, 2010
Celsius 233, please don’t give up on all of us. Some of us in the West do realize what’s going, don’t water down our principles with a simpering “but,” and do see the sham of American exceptionalism.
======================================
Good to hear. I am aware there are people who “get it”; this forum, the Agonist and many others are evidence of that. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to stop the backwards/downward slide of the U.S. Best Regards
That was almost as impressive as Otter’s speech in Animal House:
Both are equally relevant to the facts in this case. (0 = 0)
BTW:
Where’s the “unless I decide the army is breaking the law in which case I can copy reams of classified information and turn it over to WikiLeaks” part?
myiq2xu, all your arguments have been thoroughly debunked. You don’t even know what a fallacious argument is, let alone spell it. You are pure sophistry and lazy thinking. Get a life, loser, and stop wasting bandwidth on this subject.
Celsius, it’s worse than that. The people who think they get it, don’t even get it. Just look at all the bickering over minutia here amongst people that should be in solidarity. The blogosphere is a huge disappointment and ultimately a form of containment that enables egos to be flouted, passions thwarted, and positive momentum mitigated and disbanded.
When I took an oath to be soldier in the US Army there was this phrase:
You were a dolt? Do I have this correct? As a matter of redemption, I sure hope you are out pounding the pavement every day dissuading young, naive idiots to make the same mistake you did in joining a murderous corporate mercenary organization.
Anyone who is truly Anti-War, and is worth their salt, must oppose the military on all fronts. The only moral support given to soldiers should be safe harbor to those who have laid down their arms, renounced their commissions as a a crime against humanity, and have gone AWOL. Yet another area where the capitulationist “Left” falls flat on its face.
Morocco Bama
Celsius, it’s worse than that. The people who think they get it, don’t even get it. Just look at all the bickering over minutia here amongst people that should be in solidarity. The blogosphere is a huge disappointment and ultimately a form of containment that enables egos to be flouted, passions thwarted, and positive momentum mitigated and disbanded.
===================================================
I second that; I’m hugely disappointed/sickened over the complete lack of meaningful ACTION! Not to be mistaken for posting!
Internet fail!
Addendum; if the Internet we’re a tool of freedom, then it should be able to marshal millions of people to an event to demonstrate the power of the people.
Where are the people? Not disenfranchised enough yet? just wait; coming soon! Fuck all!
“Please explain the legal process involved in presenting this defense.”
He blew this defense, by not following proper channels. In the US legal system, writing in your diary has no legal privilege and can be subpoened, but write the same words in a letter addressed to your wife it, become a privileged spousal communication. Likewise, playing the whistleblower by emailing information to Wikileaks is a crime punishable by years in prison. Playing the whistleblower by exercising every soldier’s right to petition Congress, say by emailing information to Congressman Ron Paul (who can do with the info anything he wants)— no punishment, well except for the pissed off commanders, who’d make it their mission to make Manning the last man on the last day to get DADTed out of the Army.
In the end, the Army may have to let Manning walk. Greenwald came up with a very big scoop (whether its true or not, its if Manning reasonably believed Lanos was a minister that counts).
ndeed, Lamo told me (though it doesn’t appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under California’s shield law. Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Manning’s talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential (early on in their chats, Manning said: “I can’t believe what I’m confessing to you”). In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential — perhaps legally required to be kept confidential — only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks
Ahh, the classic Obot troll technique.
Declare victory and say STFU
Can we expect your sockpuppets to soon chime in, giving the appearance of consensus opinion?
Now we have MYIQ2XU, a “troll poster” casting accusations far and wide that sock puppets are be used. You make this accusation in the same gutless manner you have at least three times on this thread, a careful construct so that you can run away when it’s proven false.
Sophistry and specious argument are your only talent, implying without being explicit. Be specific MYIQ2XU, whose the sock puppet here?
And Ian, if this fool can stutter a name [me thinks he lacks the courage] please feel free to cut down his accusation which you can easily do. What.a.loser.
Gee Ian, does Michael Lind read your blog?
“I second that; I’m hugely disappointed/sickened over the complete lack of meaningful ACTION!”
Come now, surely you’re forgetting the Rally to Restore Sanity!?
In contrast, our beloved Netroots has given so much attn. to a protest that actually stands for something:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/hope_is_action_hedges_ellsberg_arrested_at_white_house_protest_20101217/
But that’s OK, I’m sure when the candidate on the white horse comes along (Go Hillary!) they’ll be out in force.
Otherwise, I have to generally concur with Mo-Bama’s depiction of the blogosphere, and I’d add technology writ large. Get into your pods people.
jcapan
Otherwise, I have to generally concur with Mo-Bama’s depiction of the blogosphere, and I’d add technology writ large. Get into your pods people.
=================================
Yes, the actuality speaks for itself.
Having endured this entire thread that seems now to revolve around MYIQ2XU’s “valiant” defense of…..something or other, against you inferior peoples’ inferior understanding of … stuff, I have a comment:
“Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, stinky, and out of breath…and the pig LIKES it.”
For those who are interested and may have missed it, here is a link to the interview with Assange on msnbc earlier today. It is about 15 minutes long.
It’s all a losing proposition…but some folks wouldn’t have it any other way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Mf9j8co70&feature=player_embedded
So a rape case proves Assange is the brave man facing down the machine/tank? Because the leaks that weren’t actually leaks sure haven’t done it.
Lots of noise and smoke but no actual gains. The guy is a brake stand using up people’s hope that a white knight is coming to save us from TPTB.
Nothing has changed as a result of Wikileaks. It keeps the machine going by having citizens stand down waiting for his next leak that will finally change it all.
Great point, Hmmm. It’s the point I’ve been making, but people need their heroes. It’s a socially-engineered reflexive response. What I want to ask these same people is how much do they have invested in this Machine that crushes the Universe 24/7? For example, it was discovered and reported not too long ago that Michael Moore is invested in some of the very Corporations he criticizes in his documentaries. I can’t, and won’t hang with that kind of hypocrisy.
You want to make a positive change, Assange worshipers and defenders, then starve the Beast that starves us. Don’t work for Corporations. Help to inculcate an informal economy that provides for the basic needs of survival. Invest any excess you have in people…not the Stock Market, or Gold, or any other manner of Beastly-Created investment. Renounce the Beast for what it is. Oppose the Beast at every turn. Defy unjust laws, and behave according to an alternative, agreed upon, perpetually adapting set of principles and values versus that which has been imposed upon us by this Beast.
Hmmm PERMALINK
December 23, 2010
So a rape case proves Assange is the brave man facing down the machine/tank? Because the leaks that weren’t actually leaks sure haven’t done it.
Lots of noise and smoke but no actual gains. The guy is a brake stand using up people’s hope that a white knight is coming to save us from TPTB.
Nothing has changed as a result of Wikileaks. It keeps the machine going by having citizens stand down waiting for his next leak that will finally change it all.
============================================
There is no white knight; there is no second coming, there is no savior; silly man.
In the end there is only us. And us is no where to be found.
And therein lies the tragedy; there is no us to be found………………………………….