More on Julian Assange

Last night on PBS' Charlie Rose, a guest again used the word "treason" with respect to Assange.  According to Black's Law Dictionary, "treason" is "The offense of atempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance."     Emphasis added.  Black's continues, "Treason consists of two elements: Adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort."

Assange has never been an American citizen.  The word "treason" does not apply to him, even in the twisted vocabularies of the Far Right.  [Well, perhaps Sarah Palin....]  

And who is the enemy here, who is rendered aid and comfort?  Is it that world opinion is the enemy?  American citizens who also want to know?   To what enemy does Julian Assange adhere?  To freedom of access to information?   Doubtless that is an enemy of the United States, and of most regimes the world over, but surely the politicians don't want to emphasize that so baldly.

Should doing harm by revealing private information that is supplied to one by a third party with access be criminalized?  The crime of disseminating information by exercising free speech?  How does the 1st Amendment come in?  Is the 1st Amendment to fall by the wayside like a scrap of soiled paper, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the Guantanamo connection?

Will knowing, thought itself, become a crime,  analogous to possession of a controlled substance or child pornography?   Mental possession of things it is illegal to hold and to know?   This is what scares me most, that as the fascists go after Assange tooth and nail, they are well on their way to declaring possession of information to be a crime.  And after that, George Orwell's thoughtcrime is only a skip and a step away.

And what is the harm done by Wikileaks?  That everyone will be less inclined to confide in American diplomats?  Remember that once these confidences were made, it was expected they would be shared with tens, if not hundreds, in the U.S. government, and that, as it goes in the world, there would be leaks.  As Ben Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead."  Did anyone who confided in State Department personnel have a realistic expectation of perfect confidentiality?  Hah!

With respect to military operations, spies, informers, agents, fifth columnists, there may in fact be specific harm possible.  But remember, this data was not kept like the identity of a mole in the Kremlin;  it was accessible by thousands. 

It was in fact only a matter of time and chance before all this information came to light.

And what laws have been broken by Assange and Wikileaks?  Assange is Australian.  Does Australia have a law forbidding its citizens from revealing information tht comes into their hands about another government?  I don't think so.

Nick Davies of the British newspaper The Guardian  was leaked a copy of the criminal file on Assange compiled by the Swedish police.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-davies/post_1506_b_802680.html   Did Davies commit a crime by looking at the material?  By his newspaper exposing the information in the file?  Is Sweden justified in trying to prosecute Davies for his role as a passive recipient of confidential government information?  Are there some Swedes, like some Americans, talking of treason and assassination?  Again, hah!

Events surrounding the Wikileaks matter contain so many analogies.  Davies' role is similar to that of Julian Assange, as far as we know.  Assange is in a position similar to the U.S. government, protesting access to leaked information, and so on. 

Assange and a cohort have had a falling out.  Both are writing books, that are each expected to diss the other.

If the Wikileaks/Assange situation did not have the potential of becoming deadly and destructive to free speech and access to information, it would be terribly funny.

Now.  About Julian Assange himself.  Except for his role in establishing Wikileaks, he is no hero.  Why should we expect him to be?  Who is a hero through and through, anyway?  Will Assange be convicted of anything in Sweden?  Who knows?  Who cares, so long as he is not rendered over to the Americans for assassination, extra-Constitutional detention a la Guantanamo, or formal prosecution, and I don't think Sweden will do that.

Is Wikileaks senescent, to be replaced by other such organizations?  That may be.  Cryptome carries an obit for Wikileaks, estimating that at the current rate of document release, in 35 years all of the diplomatic cables will be edited and released.

What is most disturbing is the accusation that Wikileaks may have sold or suppressed information for pay. 

And so once again we have that circular irony surrounding Wikileaks.  Who polices the police?  Governments need to be watched, to have their confidential goings-on made public.  But so does Wikileaks.