Dismantling Julian Assange

Wikileaks may be embarassing to certain governments,but are not damaging.Investigative journalists did similar jobs,be it Watergate Scandal,Irangate Scandal which involved two presidents.Both scandals put presidents in awkward  positions but had no damaging consequences.

During his recent visit to India,Obama said that US would like to see India as permanent member of UNSC in a revamped UN.Hillary Clinton said in a signed cable that India is self-appointed forerunner for a new permanent seat.The other self-appointed forerunners are Brazil,Germany and Japan.What damage has been done either to India or UN?None of the self-appointed forerunner trusts US president or Secretary of State,even if there were no leaks.

In my opinion,Julian assange has done a great, commendable job,and even if he is punished some one else must step in his shoes to carry on crusade against hypocrites,liars and their deceitful conduct in international affairs.

Not everything is for public consumption. And Julian Assange demands such privacy protection. He epitomizes hypocrisy and deceitful conduct. He denies businesses and governments their privacy and protections under law, selling a false morality and appealing to human greed to achieve his attack on that privacy. All the while demanding the worlds courts uphold his right to privacy and protections under law.

Can we try non citizens under the Espionage Act? Would that be the equivalent of trying past administration officials for war crimes in the Hague?  Was the purpose of the leaks to embarrass the US? Could be part of the equation. Do we deserve it?

Here's a snippet from a post at The Hunting of the Snark:  We are not going to be rich and powerful forever. When we fall the rest of the world will not mourn our passing. They won't talk about how moral we are, how we just want to do good. They won't debate whether or not we deserve to be embarrassed before the world.

We killed people and we walked away scot-free. We don't even have the grace to feel guilty for what we've done. We are indignant when others criticize us or try to harm us. We think that everyone should just forget about it and continue to treat us with respect, admiration and envy.

Actions always have consequences. Sometimes they affect you, sometimes someone else, but actions always have consequences. By The Way
I await the righteous indignation for having the nerve to raise the question.

My question is what wrong Julian Assange has done?Has he voilated privacy laws?In democratic societies,do government have rights to conceal truth from the public,the public which has brought them to power and the governments are accountable to?National interest,as one journalist defined it,is last refuge of present day scoundrels,and urging an empire to attack a country which is accused of obtaining missiles from other countries,developing nuclear bombs,to protect family rule.Is family rule always in national interests?Was war on Iraq,ongoing war in Afghanistan is in national interest?A sane American or European or anyone who belongs to the country which was member of'coalition of the willing' would never agree with that.Weren't these wars waged in national interests?The last refuge of coalition of  scoundrels,Bush,Blair,Cheney and Rumsfled.If public comes to know the truth about these wars through Wikileaks,what is wrong?

Obama's assurances or Hillary's signed cable,which is in the national interests of the United States of America.Destruction of nuclear facilities of Iran is in whose national interest?And purchase of missiles and nuclear technalogy is in whose national  interest?The absurd logic is:one country should persue its national interest,the other not.It is collision of national interest which promotes wars;in the past when there were no territorial states,no concept of nationhood,wars were fought in whose interest,only history can tell.History which neither we want to read nor are willing to learn from and are condemned to its repetition,in the name of national interes.

Wikileaks are neither going to disrupt international relations,nor expose individuals to physical elemination.Some day in very near future,national governments would be back to daily routine of telling lies,deceiving public,engineering conspiracies to protect national interests.Wililaeks are gainst national interest,Bushilies are in national interest.

There have always been territorial states in one form or another. Do not tribes have secrets they keep from other tribes? Do families air their dirty laundry in public? Does Macy's tell Walmart their business? Do lovers never lie to each other?

There were empires,no territorial states.Tribes did not haveconstitutions,elected governments,families secrets are not of conspitorial nature,Wallmart are not answerable to Macy's and vice versa.Lover's lies to each other do not affect others.Don't compare fresh applaes with overipe or rotten ones.

I am pretty sure tribes held territory and acted aggressively to intruders to it. Following that there isnt really that much difference although you are correct about the constitutions and elected officials.

Lovers lies can affect others and families can conspire too.

Lets look at this issue a little closer.

Some may say:

'National interest is last refuge of present day scoundrels,and urging an empire to attack a country which is accused of obtaining missiles from other countries,developing nuclear bombs,to protect family rule'.

lol..Maybe we need to better define "national interest," or better put, 'National Security Interest' as;

'The foundation for the development of valid national objectives that define a nations goals or purposes. National security interests include preserving a nations political identity, framework, and institutions; fostering economic well-being; and bolstering international order supporting the vital interests of the a nation and its allies'.

Or specifically for the U.S.A. :

'The foundation for the development of valid national objectives that define US goals or purposes. National security interests include preserving US political identity, framework, and institutions; fostering economic well-being; and bolstering international order supporting the vital interests of the United States and its allies'.

and:

'To use as a tool for analysing foreign policy, particularly by political realists'.

'National interest' can be defined as sort of a foreign policy version of the term ‘public interest’—indicating what is best for the nation in its relations with other states. This use of the term emphasizes not merely the threat to the nation from the international anarchy, but also the external constraints on the freedom of manoeuvre of the state from treaties, the interests and power of other states, and other factors beyond the control of the nation such as geographical location and dependence on foreign trade. This analytical usage of the term places much emphasis on the role of the state as the embodiment of the nation's interest. The realists' use of the term national interest in evaluating foreign policy has focused on national security as the core of national interest. ‘Interest of state’ and ‘national security interest’ are closely allied terms.

Some may suggest that the best interests are, nevertheless, objectively determined by the situation of the state within the international system and can be deduced from a study of history and the success/failure of policies.

Wikileaks and Mr. Assange maybe needs to better understand what International Security and International espionage means in the context or relation to what he is doing and has done; especially after accusing U.S. Sec. Clinton yesterday of acts of espionage.

As of now per this article, U.S. Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act.

Some here state;

There were empires, no territorial states. Tribes did not have constitutions, elected governments, families secrets are not of conspiratorial nature. Walmart are not answerable to Macy's and vice versa. Lover's lies to each other do not affect others.

Statements like these, for whatever value, are not accurate or specifically defined. Nor do I find specific meaning or definition with this issue. These type of comments seem somewhat off the subject and issue being discussed.

1

Tribes held territory,small kingdoms,too.Repulsed intruders,killed enemies.Some territories were undependent,but part of an empire and paid tributes to the emperors.But obnoxious and pernicious nationalism was unknown to humanbeings.Lovers lies do affect others,and families conspire too,that is correct but is out of context.Lover's lies affect whom?Certainly,the lovers or at the most few members of each one's family.Family conspiracies too affect limited members of family/families.

Bush's lies can not be compared with Clinton's lies about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.Bank robbers conspiracy can not be compared with Irangate conspiracy.

I think the point GreenSpirit raised was germane. Like as our personal relationships so do we have international relationships. And we don't need the likes of Assange sticking his finger in disrupting those relationships that take years to reach workable harmony. Certainly not for the reasons that Assange suggests. The moral right to the truth of these relationships. Mature peoples in every nation realize their governments are playing a hand that often needs to be played close to the vest. Even when it comes to domestic governing there are instances when the people don't have a need to know. Especially when that would infringe negatively on national security and international business relationships.

@ Piobar.

Wikileaks have unearthed bitter truth that our governments lie,deceive and conspire.Governments have to do a lot of explaining and in order to do that more lies will be spoken to come out of  embrassing position,there is no security threat to any country from any country.Only Julian assange's life is in danger.

@PioBar

When soldiers are on ground,enegaged in a prolonged war their lives are always in danger.Wikileaks or no Wikileaks.Who decides what is in the interest of a nation?Of course,handful of people who roost the rule.I am from India and in my opinion the kind of money our government spends on defence procurement and manufacture is not in our interests.Our government has failed to provide safe drinking water to majority of people,living either in Urban areas or rural areas.We have bombs and longe range missiles,more billioires than Japan and at the same time 400 million illitertae population.Which yardstick we have to measure national interests and in what context.Bombs or one hundred percent literacy rate?Missiles or education for every child?Nuclear deal with US empire or safe drinking water for each one of us?

Mr. Assange and any of those who find this acceptable are overdue for a reality check. Their about to get a wake-up call from the international community.

Specific international negotiations and relationships aren't always best played out on a public stage.

Discretion and diplomacy wouldn't last long with people like Mr. Assange around.

Sort of like playing a game of poker_except everyone showing their hands before betting.

1

No cultural bias or hate issue anyone has  suggested,nor are those subject matter.The whole bombastic non-sense is about national interest and national security which have been put in jeopaedy by Wikileaks.If lies and deceptions are two pillars on which stands the structure of international diplomacy,then let such structure collapse without a murmur.National interests are selfinterests of the ruling elite and whom they serve.Indoctrination of Osama was in national interest(as if US has reservoir of interests in the caspian sea or Unocal represented national interests),arming and funding was in national interests,hunt for same representatives of US interests in the region is national interest.