Scott Horton at Harpers has been following
the push-back by the government against WikiLeaks. He correctly says (my emphasis):
WikiLeaks’ disclosure of the 91,000 U.S. government documents that it labels the “Afghan War Diary” raises a number of vital issues. . . . But quite apart from their contents, the WikiLeaks documents are a test for America’s voracious national-security state. Its response to them gives us a sense of how it intends to fight perceived threats to secrecy.
The WikiLeaks "Afghan War Diary" page
is here. The document collection itself
is here. Our own initial coverage of the WikiLeaks story
is here and
here.
Horton identifies three areas of response:
- An information war against WikiLeaks
- An attempt to make an example of the leaker
- An attempt to destroy WikiLeaks, and perhaps even Julian Assange
About the first, you're probably aware of the scare-tactic assault — demonize WikiLeaks as somehow anti–American and anti–American interests, and claim the leaks made soldiers and Afghans unsafe. This meme should get good media play. As Horton points out:
Much of the American media, which filled the airwaves with bogus claims about WMDs in Iraq, can be counted on to view WikiLeaks as an adversary rather than an ally.
After all, WikiLeaks
is an adversary of the captive corporate media, by doing the job that the traditionals fail to do — tell the truth about these wars.
About the second, we've covered the
leaker's fate here. Horton adds:
Private Bradley Manning, a young enlisted man from Potomac, Maryland, [has been] arrested and detained in Kuwait. He appears to have been denied access to independent counsel and held incommunicado outside the country. Reports also indicate that criminal investigators are looking to identify individuals who may have facilitated his leak. . . . [I]t seems hard to see how Manning can mount a meaningful legal defense. [T]he heavy-handed tactics which are being applied against him are mystifying displays of asymmetrical legal warfare.
It looks like
students at MIT are being investigated as well.
And finally, about destroying WikiLeaks:
But the major target surely is WikiLeaks itself, and on this score the goal of the national-security state is unambiguous. WikiLeaks must be destroyed. Indeed, as I noted in March, long before these leaks, the Army Counterintelligence Center had prepared a 32-page secret plan to destroy WikiLeaks. The memo notes that the American intelligence community has valuable allies in the struggle against WikiLeaks—China, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. It recommended emulating the tactics used by these tyrannical states.
Emulating the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans; ah, the ties that bind. There's a
Huffington Post report that WikiLeaks volunteers are already being targeted for "special attention" when they travel.
And what about Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder? Well, if this were a novel, he's a stain on the pavement by page 204. Horton again:
Julian Assange may himself be a even more serious target. How might the United States deal with Assange? Marc Thiessen, a Republican publicist and torture apologist with close ties to former CIA Director Hayden, argues that Assange is a non-American who lives outside the country and therefore apparently has no legal rights. He advocates kidnapping and hints at still more violent conduct.
I don’t think the Obama Administration will use a drone to murder Assange, but some in the intelligence community will be arguing for use of some of the “black arts” that were a staple of covert operations in the Bush era. . . . [E]fforts to kidnap him are almost certainly being spun at this very moment.
Yikes. Julian, don't
eat the sushi; it's that new
polonium fish!
Read the
whole piece, and if you're really interested, follow the links. This continues to be a major story.
GP
Read the rest of this post...
