RoR: Forum

John, I searched the site looking for your formal position statement on the property status of classified documents. I could locate none. Could you please help us to understand your views on the propriety of unauthorized release of classified documents related to a war in progress?

Post 1

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 2:09pm

There a few things to consider here Luke. One, do the documents compromise the safety of Americans, such as a revelation of planned military strategy, intelligence gathering techniques, or anything of that nature? So far it seems no, they do not. Instead, what we have seen are catty assessments of foreign leaders by our diplomats that don't rise above anything you wouldn't see from a media pundit, and the rest reveal the unethical behavior of government officials and their hypocrisy, both foreign and domestic. For example, we know now that China ordered a cyber attack against an American company, Google. We know now that Qatar has manipulated Al-Jazeera to show foreign states in favorable or disfavorable light in order to further Qataran foreign policy. We know that while Middle Eastern heads of state have begged the United States to attack Iran they tell their own people they do not stand for such a position. We now know a German national was tortured as a suspected terrorist, only to be later revealed that the CIA finally realized he was a nobody and Germany was bullied into keeping it all a secret. The government does not have any moral case for keeping these a secret.

The second thing to consider is more of jurisprudence rather than just one of philosophical principle. The Supreme Court has ruled quite clearly on cases such as this. You can prosecute the government official that leaks the information, you cannot do so against the media outlet that publishes the information.

But it's a clever strategy our government is using, falsely accuse someone of endangering safety ad nauseum and thus get sympathy from an uncritical, unthinking public to your position. It's nothing more than a head-fake, get people to talk about the legitimacy of the press and what they can do rather than the legitimacy of what our government and foreign governments as doing as revealed in these documents.

Post 2

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 2:17pm

JA exposited:

The second thing to consider is more of jurisprudence rather than just one of philosophical principle. The Supreme Court has ruled quite clearly on cases such as this. You can prosecute the government official that leaks the information, you cannot do so against the media outlet that publishes the information.

Okay, that makes clear that Wikileaks has a legal precedent for what they are doing.

Thank you for sharing that with us, John.

Post 3

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 2:53pm

Property status would not preclude the press from writing about the documents. But I doubt that property status would come into play in the same sense as, say, the property status of a government automobile that was stolen. It would have to be dealt with as intellectual property, as if the government could copyright their writings. Even if the government could and did claim a copyright type of property status for the documents, the press could still report on the content (but not publish in full).
-------------

This whole Wiki-Leaks thing is bizarre.
-------------

Sweden has laws against "Sexual Surprise"? And having sex without a condom or with a condom that tears is a form of this rape-like criminal offense?
-------------

On the Glenn Beck show today he pointed out that this Wiki-Leaks issue splits conservatives and libertarians - putting Ron Paul on the same side as Michael Moore. It puts Obama on the same side Newt Gingrich. Julian Assange is an anarchist that is closely aligned with various Communist organizations. I have no doubt that his primary motivation is to harm America. The release will harm the country and he is threatening to release information with names if he is harassed - a form of blackmail.

But, there is no question that it is a good thing to expose what our government is doing that it shouldn't be. The Libertarians are correct on this issue, no matter what kind of political scum-bag Assange is, he has the right to publish the information as long he wasn't complicit in the theft. What individual right is being violated? I can't find one.
---------------

It is interesting that these leaks are all coming at the time that FCC is proposing to use "Net Neutrality" and "security" issues to begin controlling the internet.
---------------

I am still very suspicious that a buck private could get his hands on over 250,000 documents that cover such a wide range of areas (banking, military, state department).

Post 4

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 4:25pm

I couldn't find any information on Assange being an anarchist with the exception of second-hand claims that he is by government officials. I did find this forbes interview that I believe suggests he isn't an anarchist. His terminology and epistemology seems a bit confused however I don't think I would conclude he is an anarchist. Some excerpts [the bold text is the interviewer's questions to Assange]:

How much stuff do you have? How many gigs or terabytes?

I�m not sure. I haven�t had time to calculate.

Continuing then: The tech industry?

We have some material on spying by a major government on the tech industry. Industrial espionage.

U.S.? China?

The U.S. is one of the victims.

What about the energy industry?

Yes.

Aside from BP?

Yes.

On environmental issues?

A whole range of issues.

Can you give me some examples?

One example: It began with something we released last year, quite an interesting case that wasn�t really picked up by anyone. There�s a Texas Canadian oil company whose name escapes me. And they had these wells in Albania that had been blowing. Quite serious. We got this report from a consultant engineer into what was happening, saying vans were turning up in the middle of the night doing something to them. They were being sabotaged. The Albanian government was involved with another company; There were two rival producers and one was government-owned and the other was privately owned.

So when we got this report; It didn�t have a header. It didn�t say the name of the firm, or even who the wells belonged to.

Regulation: Is that what you�re after?

I�m not a big fan of regulation: anyone who likes freedom of the press can�t be. But there are some abuses that should be regulated, and this is one.

What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists?

WikiLeaks means it�s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers.

Let�s say you want to run a good company. It�s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they�re not screwing other people over.

Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that�s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That�s the worst of all possible outcomes.

The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don�t have to cut your milk powder. There�s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation.

It just means that it�s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That�s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we�re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.

No one wants to have their own things leaked. It pains us when we have internal leaks. But across any given industry, it is both good for the whole industry to have those leaks and it�s especially good for the good players.

But aside from the market as a whole, how should companies change their behavior understanding that leaks will increase?

Do things to encourage leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat your employees well.

I think it�s extremely positive. You end up with a situation where honest companies producing quality products are more competitive than dishonest companies producing bad products. And companies that treat their employees well do better than those that treat them badly.

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don�t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

How do your leaks fit into that?

To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

There�s the famous lemon example in the used car market. It�s hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can�t get a good price, even when they have a good car.

By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there�s a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they�re dealing with.

You�ve developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I�ve been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don�t come from nowhere.

It�s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I�ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I�m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

Post 5

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 4:38pm

Leaked diplomatic cable reveals the cowardice of the UK and their betrayal to the Lockerbie victims.

WikiLeaks cables: Lockerbie bomber freed after Gaddafi's 'thuggish' threats

The British government's deep fears that Libya would take "harsh and immediate" action against UK interests if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish prison are revealed in secret US embassy cables which show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and "thuggish" threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time "a parade of treats" was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go, though the cable says they were turned down.

Britain at the time was "in an awkward position" and "between a rock and a hard place". The London charge d'affaires, Richard LeBaron, wrote in a cable to Washington in October 2008. "The Libyans have told HMG [Her Majesty's Government] flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly."

This intelligence, the cable said, was confided to the US embassy by two British officials: Ben Lyons, in charge of north Africa for Downing Street, and Rob Dixon, his counterpart at the Foreign Office.

Details of the Megrahi manoeuvrings come in the latest batch of leaked US dispatches which also detail:

� Deep distrust of Gaddafi among other African leaders; Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, for example, feared a Libyan attack on his aircraft.

� Gaddafi's many eccentricities, including phobias about flying over water and staying above ground floor level.

� Saudi calls for an Arab-led force, backed by US air and sea power, to fight Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Megrahi cables may do much to explain why he was released in August 2009, supposedly because he was on the brink of death from prostate cancer. The decision incurred American wrath. More than a year on Megrahi is still alive, having been feted when he was escorted back to Tripoli by Gaddafi's son.

Public congressional hearings in September were told by a US prostate specialist that the official reason for the compassionate release � that Megrahi was within three months of death � was "ridiculous".

Anger with the British persists in some American circles, and UK ministers, Labour and Tory, have attempted to distance London from the release insisting it was purely a Scottish decision.

In January 2009, six months before Megrahi's release, the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, confirmed that "dire" reprisals had been threatened against the UK, and the British were braced to take "dramatic" steps for self-protection.

The Libyans "convinced UK embassy officers that the consequences if Megrahi were to die in prison � would be harsh, immediate and not easily remedied � specific threats have included the immediate cessation of all UK commercial activity in Libya, a diminishment or severing of political ties, and demonstrations against official UK facilities.

"[Libyan] officials also implied, but did not directly state, that the welfare of UK diplomats and citizens in Libya would be at risk."

The British ambassador in Tripoli, Vincent Fean, "expressed relief" when Megrahi was released, the US reported.

"He noted that a refusal of Megrahi's request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. 'They could have cut us off at the knees,' Fean bluntly said."

Cretz cabled that "the regime remains essentially thuggish in its approach". He warned the US itself should keep quiet: "If the [US government] publicly opposes al-Megrahi's release or is perceived to be complicit in a decision to keep al-Megrahi in prison, [America's Libyan diplomatic] post judges that US interests could face similar consequences."

In the light of the repeated, politically unacceptable demands for Megrahi's release from Gaddafi, the illness at first seemed providential for Britain.

The cables reveal how the Scottish Nationalist first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, was edged into taking the political heat for releasing Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with cancer in September 2008. The message US diplomats received from Jack Straw, then justice minister, was that although Megrahi might survive up to five years, Labour's rivals in Scotland � Salmond and his SNP � were nonetheless inclined to release him.

A cable said: "Megrahi could have as long as five years to live but the average life expectancy of someone of his age with his condition is 18 months to two years. Doctors are not sure where he is on the time scale."The Libyans have not yet made a formal application for compassionate release � but HMG believes that the Scottish may be inclined to grant the request, when it comes, based on conversations between � Alex Salmond and UK justice secretary Jack Straw. Although the general practice is to grant compassionate release within three months of end of life, this is not codified in the law, so the release, if granted, could occur sooner."

The American diplomats were worried "Salmond and the SNP will look for opportunities to exploit the Megrahi case for their own advantage". But when the Scottish justice minister finally announced a "compassionate release" to a storm of protest the following August, the US ambassador said the Scots had got out of their depth.

"The Scottish government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision � Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was 'shocked'."

Salmond had told the US consul in Edinburgh on 21 August that "he and his government had played straight with both the US and the UK government, but implied the UK had not � he said the Libyan government had offered the Scottish government a parade of treats, 'all of which were turned down'."

Three days later Robin Naysmith, who served as the SNP's representative in Washington, said Salmond was shocked by the US outcry. "Naysmith underscored that Scotland received 'nothing' for releasing Megrahi, while the UK government has gotten everything � a chance to stick it to Salmond's SNP and good relations with Libya."

SNP "comments were designed to blame the UK government for putting the Scots in a position to have to make a decision", according to civil servant Rob Dixon, talking to the Americans.

Washington's ambassador to London, Louis Susman, observed unsympathetically: "It is clear that the Scottish government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi's release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim."

US officials were suspicious, going so far as privately to accuse the wealthy Gulf state of Qatar of bribing the Scots by dangling the possibility of Middle East loans.

In October 2009 the US ambassador in Doha confronted Khalid al-Attiyah, a Qatari minister who had lobbied SNP politicians at the time.

The US had "strong objections" to what had happened, he said. "The ambassador raised strong US government concerns about Qatar's role in the release � Al-Attiyah explained the Arab League had asked Qatar, in its capacity as the current chair � to seek Megrahi's release on humanitarian grounds; second, Megrahi had sent a personal letter to [the Qatar ruler] pleading for humanitarian intervention.

"On the basis of these two factors � he was dispatched to Scotland to meet the minister of justice there.

"Ambassador pressed the issue of whether Qatar had offered any financial or trade incentives to induce al-Megrahi's release. Al-Attiyah strongly dismissed such speculation, saying: 'That is ridiculous. It was not necessary to offer money. It was all done within Scottish law. We offered no money, investment, or payment of any kind.'"

The other object of US suspicion was Tony Blair's 2007 visit to Libya as British prime minister. The trip was linked to oil and gas. The US embassy in Tripoli noted on 23 August 2009: "Rumours that Blair made linkages between Megrahi's release and trade deals have been longstanding among embassy contacts � the UK ambassador in Tripoli categorically denied the claims."In February this year UK diplomats told the US they were fretting about the prospect of an eventual hero's funeral for Megrahi. The new Foreign Office north Africa director, Philippa Saunders, "explained that fear over how Tripoli will handle Megrahi's eventual funeral remains a major concern".

She added: "The UK embassy is currently engaged in an effort to identify all possible UK 'levers of influence' with Tripoli. Unfortunately 'there aren't too many', although she mentioned Tony Blair and a private doctor who had a personal relationship with the Gaddafi family.

"There will be maybe a 48-hour window if we're lucky between Megrahi's eventual death and a funeral."

Post 6

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 6:27pm

Rush Limbaugh raises a good point:

"Where are the WikiLeaks documents to prove 9/11 was inside job by George Bush and Dick Cheney? Let me ask you liberals, where are these cables?

"Where are the documents to prove Bush intentionally lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to invade the country? Where is the WikiLeaks document, the State Department cable, whatever, that [Karl] Rove leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media? Where's all this good stuff? ...

"Where are the WikiLeaks cables proving that the CIA invented AIDS? Where is Obama's birth certificate? Where's the real good stuff? And how about all the hundreds of other left-wing lies we've been hearing about for years? [Is] WikiLeaks covering up for the United States?"

Not only can wikileaks serve as a means to keep the government honest, it can also serve to discredit false allegations of impropriety leveled against the government.

Post 7

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 9:36pm

Not only can wikileaks serve as a means to keep the government honest, it can also serve to discredit false allegations of impropriety leveled against the government.

I agree, but we have to recognize that selectively pruning which Wiki-Leaks documents are released could slant things to present a false impression. It isn't a proper form of transparency. And even if documents were released that would discredit false allegations, they would be the documents somewhere in those quarter of a million files that would not be reported on... at least not by the MSM and I'm sure not going to be reading all those documents.

There is no way to win on this. If these things are kept secret it is a problem and if they continue to leak stuff out it is a problem.

The only law that actually supports going after Assange is that 1917 Espionage act which would only be constitutional, if at all, if we were in a declared war and they could show the actual risk to the nation.... you know, something more than being embarrassed.

All of the organizations that have hosted and supported Assange are far left communist groups. He met the two women who were "sexually surprised" at a meeting hosted by a Swedish communist group. This whole scenario, from beginning to end, is hard to believe. He is in jail for a broken condom, in England, with no bail because of a very peculiar Swedish law called "Sex by Surprise"!

Post 8

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - 10:44pm

Steve I believe Libertarian groups are supporting him as well, and I don't understand your position, are you saying Assange is selectively choosing which documents to leak to further a specific political end? What is the erroneous impression that is at risk of happening? Just wondering what reason do you have to believe this, what do you think is this ulterior motive and why do you think he is an anarchist or a communist? How does the leak that revealed China used cyber attacks against Google fit into that motive, for example? Or that the U.K. cowardly caved into Qaddafi's threats and betrayed the victims of Pan Am Flight 103? Do you think we're better off without these leaks? Do you think he ought to be punished? Given that the government will not willingly go along with transparency what other option is there besides whistle-blowers and the journalists that report them?

Post 9

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 9:56am

I believe it is unfortunate so much of the focus has been on the organization and the founder of wikileaks itself rather than the revelations of what the world governments have been doing. That a journalist is now a victim of reprisals from these governments should be disturbing to all freedom loving individuals, regardless of the journalist's own views.

And apparently Joe Lieberman if he had the power would shut down the New York Times.

Is this the kind of reaction a free society can be proud of? Which journalist or media site is next? RoR?

Post 10

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 11:09am

John,

You asked if I was saying that he is selectively leaking documents. No, I said that someone could do that and I said it as part of an argument that this is not a good way to get transparency.

I'm not the only person to have these concerns. Various journalists have commented on "cherry picking" and the NY Times stated that they did not receive their copies from Wikileak, but rather from an unnamed 3rd party. There are journalism issues concerning the inability to validate digital versions of documents arriving from unknown sources. (here)

But, again, I'm not denying that these revelations are true, or that it isn't better to have them revealed than not - just that this is not a good way to achieve transparency.
----------------------

I am opposed to any attempt to levy criminal charges against Assange or to attempt to censor him. My position is that he is legally covered by the 1st amendment. And morally, like I wrote in post #3, there is no violation of individual rights in what he has done. In my posts I've pointed out that there are no property rights violations, and that the national security issues can't be constitutionally stretched to make the 1917 Espionage Act fit.
-----------------------

You mentioned that Libertarian organizations and individuals are supporting Assange. That's true and if they are consistent with proper principles they, and I, would defend a NeoNazi's 1st amendment rights.

I just pointed out the very strong outpouring of support from many of the anarchist, communist, socialist and progressive organizations:

■ Code Pink - the anti-war group.
■ Michael Moore
■ The Swiss Pirate Party (oppose patents, want 'reform' of copyright laws, advocate for replacing national governments with global governance, part of international pirate parties organization - in Sweden it is the 3rd largest political party).
■ The Socialist Alliance in Assange's home country of Australia
■ The World Socialist Website - wsws.org
■ Socialist Worker.org
■ Common Dreams.org (far left progressives)
■ Bill Ayers, who compared himself and The Weather Underground to WikiLeaks.
■ Open Society Institute (George Soros' primary political arm) (Wikileaks negotiated funding from them and Mark Stephens, Assange's attorney does pro bono work for OSI)
■ The Brotherhood Movement, the organization where Assange was speaking at the time he is alleged to have had sex with the two women is a Swedish far left, Christian, anti-semitic organization. (here) and (here).
■ Socialist Party USA: Andrea Pason and Billy Wharton are co-chairs of the Socialist Party USA published their statement of support for Assange in LINKS an international Marxist journal run by the Austrailan Socialist Alliance. They wrote, "The latest Wikileaks revelations should be a call to action for all Americans. It is time to tear down the empire that has been created in their name. Two tasks are first and foremost. We need to create a vibrant movement to end the wars being waged in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. No more occupations, no more military surges and no more drone attacks. Simultaneously, we must demand that the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay be closed immediately. Achieving such demands will open a political space to more directly challenge the centre of the military industrial complex by calling for an immediate reduction of the military budget by 50% and the closing of all US military bases abroad. As democratic socialists, we imagine another society, where the great wealth this world produces is put to use to meet human needs. Such a world would not need the secret cloak that covers the operations of the US empire. It would, instead, be based on notions that seem very distant from our current reality � democracy, free association and self-determination. We think that democratic socialism holds the potential to live up to these lofty ideals. Let the Wikileaks disclosures provide the motivation for you to join in this struggle."
--------------------

Take a look at part of an article from WikiLeaks:

"Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:
■The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
■All power issues from a central committee.
■There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
■Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
■There is no freedom of speech.
■There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women is often forbidden without approval.
■The economy is centrally planned.
■There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
■The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
■There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of Information Act is unimaginable.
■Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand, many of these multi-national corporations have nothing like their quality of civic freedoms and protections."

They don't know the difference between voluntary associations and government force, between initiation of violence and choice. This is an organization that has at its roots an aversion to property and to government.

You can draw your own conclusion.
---------------------

Our government is being destabilized to the joy of the far left. While you and I and many of the Libertarians can celebrate the uncovering of wrong-doing, we also have to acknowledge that some of what the government does is legitimate and that is being destabilized at the same time.
----------------------

I remain very uncomfortable about those bizarre elements that I mentioned in previous posts

Post 11

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 11:17am

John,

You wrote, "Is this the kind of reaction a free society can be proud of? Which journalist or media site is next? RoR?"

I agree and I'm concerned that the Obama administration will let the FCC chair use this as an excuse to apply the "Fairness Doctrine" to the net as the beginning of the move towards total government control of the media. And Al Sharpton is calling for the FCC to stop people like Rush Limbaugh from having a license to speak over the public air waves because his speech is "offensive."

It is becoming terribly convoluted when many of the far left are in full support of these leaks that are having the effect of moving the conservatives in the direction of censorship... and that the censorship that would be implemented would suit the ends of the far left who are in power.

Post 12

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 7:46pm

Steven, tyrants will use any excuse to exorcise deceptive laws over others.

I certainly haven't heard much outrage over the Assange guy being arrested; then again, I suppose what else can I expect from the country who voted for an unqualified black guy due to his...well, being black?

For this World Press Freedom Day, Americans are doing what they always do best:

pay lip service to freedom while wanting more government interference and coercion.

And in regards to the Fairness Doctrine, all these terrible ideas must be defeated long before they hit even state level.

If that can't happen, yer screwed, because it is government's nature to regulate. I didn't say I approve it, but it's the unfortunate nature of the beast.

Also, if it can't happen, it should tell you quite a bit about the people who put the politicians in power in the first place...

Post 13

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 8:17pm

Steve I appreciate your view. I don't think I share all of your concerns though. I'm not that worried about any kind of destabilization since most of these countries, like Saudi Arabia and China, have no freedom of the press whatsoever. So their people will never hear of this stuff. As far as Western nations go, I hope to see some accountability for this and I think in the long run it's good for liberty.

Post 14

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - 8:46pm

John, we agree on the basics.

Post 15

Thursday, December 9, 2010 - 4:22pm

John,

Earlier you asked what I thought Assange's motivation is.

He was quoted as saying that "transparency" is not his primary goal - that what he wants is "chaos for good" because that will lead to social justice and that if WikiLeaks is successful it will cause America to go into "lock down" and to "balkanize" our country. This is part of the game plan that radicals have been using for a long time - destabilize, generate chaos, force the government to react in authoritarian ways.

There is a common theme being found among the far left and it is to get control of the media because they feel themselves to be at an apogee of opportunity with Obama, the laws in place, and the current cultural and economic fragility and they want to strike.

The anarchists, far left radicals, and communists are demonstrating, attacking, and generating chaos around the world. They see chaos as the lubricant that will let them transform the nation - that it is the way to loosen all the parts of the existing structures so they can be rearranged.

I've never had any patience with conspiracy theory nuts in the past. But I find myself focusing on the tight integration of ideas, people and events that make up where we are now and it scares the hell out of me.

I have to keep reminding myself that revolutions have occured in the past and that they, as with all things, have necessary and sufficient causes. When you look at it that way, you begin to look for what would be needed as concrete conditions to overturn our current system and replace it -- not in a slow, block by block fashion, but in a period of 2 to 3 years. What happened to take Venezula from where it was before Chavez to where it is now?

If you think that there are major players that want chaotic conditions, that they want crisis, that they want a collapse, rioting, and civil disruption, then you look at everything differently. What if this is what Obama wants? That changes the question everyone is asking: "Is he primarily an ideologue or will he move towards the center a'la Clinton?"

At this point, I think he will make it look like he is moving to the center but just to buy time and maintain political capital so that he can continue working to put in place all the pieces needed to totally transform our country when we have a large enough crisis.

Post 16

Thursday, December 9, 2010 - 5:16pm

Steve could you cite the sources where Assange expressed those views?

Post 17

Thursday, December 9, 2010 - 5:46pm

John,

Sorry. My DVR broke a few days ago. Otherwise I could give you the source of Assange's comments. It was a quote taken from today's Glenn Beck show. I put quote marks around individual words and phrases in my post instead of entire sentences because I couldn't back-up the video (or look up the document) to get the exact wording.

Beck showed the source, but I didn't get it written down. I did some Google searching after the show but didn't find it. Maybe a video clip of this show can be found somewhere online.

Post 18

Monday, December 13, 2010 - 8:48am

I see an article that "sex by surprise" is a mis-translation of the Swedish and that Assange is being arrested for a fairly standard rape charge:
http://www.tressugar.com/Sex-Surprise-Swedish-Law-12475176

heck - should have asked my swedish cousins this they were just here

Post 19

Monday, December 13, 2010 - 11:15am