Things are a bit behind this week. Glorious few days in Suffolk and then getting the Lounge and Dining area ready for the Decorator who (2 weeks later than we had hoped) will be coming tomorrow.
Have been ruminating about the Julian Assange affair. Is he a saint just seeking to speak truth to power (yawn) or a narcissistic publicity seeker (another yawn). It is worth looking over the chronology of this saga. 391,000 reports covering the period of 2004-2010 of the Afghan War were released via WikiLeaks in 2010 from information obtained from the “whistleblower” Chelsea Manning and possibly others. These documents show (prima facie) that the USA engaged in activities in Afghanistan that could be War Crimes, e.g. deliberately killing civilians. The USA response was to seek the arrest of those responsible for the release of this classified information. That the information was classified is one of the few agreed facts here. Whilst it was implied that the security of the USA was threatened by the release of this information nothing further was detailed. This is to be expected, as to suggest that security was endangered would require (subsequently) proof in a closed court session. I think it reasonable to believe therefore that USA security was not endangered! And since it is now 12 years since the release of the information one would have thought the USA security agencies would have by now closed any actual or potential breaches. It was widely reported that American Generals were furious at the release of the information. Perhaps this was because, they had been found out – undertaking actions in breach of International Law or, that it was necessary to come down hard on the perpetrators else questions might be asked about political authorisation, or simply to provide cover for soldiers working in a particularly hostile environment. What is of great interest is that Barack Obama in January 2017 issued a pardon for Chelsea Manning!
Of course Assange has been claiming privilege in that he is an Investigative Journalist, which may be the case – although I have never seen a tight legal definition of what one of those is! Hence umpteen years in the Ecuador embassy in London and now Home Secretary approval for extradition to the USA for what inevitably will be a “show trial” (to discourage others).
What I get from this is: a) there is a great difference between what those in power say they are doing and that it is lawful; b) that in refusing to acknowledge that “fighting dirty” does happen treats electorates as infantile!; and c) it is no surprise when electorates turn to the openly nasty as they at least know what they are getting! Treating electorates as stupid and juvenile opens the door to the precise opposite of what governing elites want! It is they who want to mature and stop infantalising citizens. They might be surprised at a mature response! In the end therefore Assange should not be extradited to the USA because for all his faults he has shown the massive duplicity of some of our leaders and thereby indicating a possible better way forward with much greater transparency and open debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment