The Strange Case of Julian Assange
Sometimes I don't know why I bother. What, after all, is the point to entering into any public discussion of controversial matters? Each side of the question has made up its mind before the facts are in, and the respective champions of the issue or debate are, depending on who has washed your brain, heroes or villains.
Trayvon Martin is either a martyr or a thug, Barack Obama a brilliant and eloquent political genius or a race-baiting alien born in Africa. Unborn babies are cancers or space aliens implanted in a woman's womb by patriarchal males or else objects of reverence that it is everyone's duty to take care of. It is all too much like a cheap Dickens novel for my taste, sweet little Oliver and that evil Bill Sykes.
It was the case of Julian Assange that inspired these melancholy reflections on the futility of political editorializing. If one is an American Republican or one of their flunkeys in the British government, then Assange is quite simply evil: a moral degenerate, virtually a rapist, who has compromised the security of the hundreds of thousands gallant men and women fighting for our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. His informants, particularly Pfc Bradley Manning are traitors, not only to the United States but to Hilary Clinton's campaign to liberate Muslim women from their headscarves. It is just too bad the British government lost its nerve and did not crash into the Ecuadorian embassy to arrest the villain.
If, by contrast, one is a fan of Mr. Assange, then he is a heroic crusader for freedom of conscience, a gallant fighter for human rights who has dared to challenge the might and majesty of the United States, whose flunkeys in Britain and Sweden have concocted a smear-campaign to discredit his work. He and Pfc Bradley Manning should be honored around the world.
If life were like a Dickens novel, then one of the sides would be right and the other wrong. But, as Anthony Trollope pointed out, life is almost never Dickensian. Good things can be done by people of bad character, while pretty good people can make a terrible mess of things.
Let me take up the principle points of contention in reverse order. First there are the Swedish sex charges against Assange. If I had been inclined to endorse the Obama administration's position on Wikileaks, the charges against Assange would be enough to dissuade me. We are being asked to believe that Sweden is not acting at the behest of the USA in prosecuting Assange for indiscretions committed during admittedly consensual sex with women who approached him--and in Sweden? Sweden is a country that has elevated fornication and cohabitation to a legitimacy that marriage used to enjoy in more civilized countries. Can a man really be extradited for allegedly not engaging in safe sex, especially when the allegation comes from a woman scorned?
Have it one way or another. Either formalize Christian morality in your legal code or declare it to be whoopee time until the end of the world, but do not ask a sensible person to pay attention to this feminist hysteria, especially when it serves the interests of the military-industrial complex of the good old USA.
It now appears that the information acquired by Manning and released by Assange was not as potentially damaging to American security as had been claimed originally. What of it? Manning did his best, as a soldier in uniform, to compromise his country's security and put his fellow-soldiers at risk. If he did not wreak the havoc of Phillip Agee, it is not for lack of trying.
So far as I am concerned--and that is not very much--I'd prosecute him for treason. Hanging, as we used to say in the Westerns, is too good for such a man. He was not only disloyal to his country but he violated the rules of the game. Every profession has its code. Physicians are not to harm the patient or perform abortions, scholars are supposed to search for truth, and soldiers are supposed to obey their officers and show loyalty to their comrades. Manning broke the rules and deserves severe punishment.
What of Julian Assange? If Assange were an American citizen--in the days when national citizenship actually meant something--he would be less guilty than Manning but guilty enough for a life-sentence. As an Australian, however, he is really none of my government's business or at least not much. He should not be allowed back into the United States, and it is certainly legitimate to prosecute his American confederates. Perhaps he can be returned to Australia and be sent around the country to fight for his honor in boxing matches with kangaroos. He is a self-important parody of the do-gooder, and his attempt to do a Mussolinia at the Ecuadorian embassy should forever discredit him with his adoring followers, who should, as we say in the States, get a life.
Setting aside Manning's disgraceful conduct as a soldier and Assange's absurd theatrics, what is the substance of the revelations made by Wikleaks? That American officials are dishonest fools? That countries are being destroyed and lives wasted for exactly nothing? That the imbecillity and ineptitude of American officials entrusted with the nation's defense is worse than even I had imagined?
All that and more.
On the whole I am happy that Mr. Assange was able, for a moment, to lift up the rock and expose the nasty little weevils and beetles that look after the security of the "world's only remaining superpower." I am only a little less happy to know that Osama bin Laden is dead. My satisfaction, limited though it be, with these events does not , however, inspire me with respect for the responsible parties. Quite the contrary. Many a man needs killing and many a lie needs to be exposed, but killers and tale-bearers do not necessarily deserve our respect. There are many things that need to be done in this world, but to suppose it that it is our job to do it, when we must violate laws, betray comrades, or assume a godlike perspective, is to start down the road to terrorism.
But if Assange is ridiculous, Manning contemptible, and America's miltary leaders evil and incompetent, what can be said of the journalists who have enlisted with either side? The less the better.
Entries(RSS)
I understand Manning had dual citizenship and grew up in a broken home, straddling between the U.S. and Wales. I have little doubt that these facts played an important role in shaping what seems to be his complete lack of scruple vis-à-vis loyalty and obligations. If we were smart, we would seize upon this opportunity to reconsider the implications and the wisdom of allowing dual nationality.
(And while I'm dreaming, we could also go further and rethink our approach to the concepts of "nationality" and "citizenship." And that is not so off-topic as it might seem: Manning's whole life has been one of an identity crisis. Nationality, name, family, stepfamily, sexual orientation, gender dysphoria, occupational vocation, you name it. Nothing has been clear for the kid. So much for relativism, freelovin' and World Citizens. I know someone who, when I made the case against adoption by a same-sex couple as a violation of the child's right to a patrimonial/archal identity, protested that she'd "rather lose her identity and be loved." Easy enough to protest in the abstract.)
Manning was also, from what I've read, physically and psychologically unfit for combat service but retained because they needed his IT skills.
America's miltary leaders evil and incompetent
It is very telling when one of the country's most important institutions has such trouble finding sufficiently solid quality material that it must scrape the bottom of the pool in this way.
Just as many doctors do not follow the Hypocratic oath, many no longer believe that the ends do not justify the means. Good intentions taking us straight to Hell.
Like Dr. Fleming, I'm tired of being pushed one way or another in this controversy, and I entirely agree with his assessments of the chief players. I'll only add that a Manning would likely draw contempt and perhaps pity from me and my fellow soldiers; there's no way I'd want such a one anywhere near me in a fighting position, on patrol, or in my gun truck.
Indeed, that contemptible people can occasionally and unintentionally uncover some pretty bad stuff others are trying to hide is not debatable. That I am required to lift them to the status of heroes is pure bunk. Hillary, many of our political and military leaders, Assange, Manning et al.: A pox on all their houses!
Thanks, Mr. Smith, for the encouraging response--encouraging because it shows there are sane people in our armed forces. I put this piece up on our website because it was held by the Daily Mail for legal scrutiny for 24 hours, at the end of which the legal department insisted upon the deletion of two paragraphs relating to Assange's Swedish sex crimes. It turns out that it is all right for an airhead female columnist to rant and rail about Assange's "rape" charges, but not all right to point out the obvious flaws in the stories of the two easygoing young ladies. What is sauce for the gander is no longer sauce for the goose.
George Galloway, MP, made a rather more vigorous statement along these lines and is now being pilloried. Now, of course, Galloway is a pro-Muslim leftist, but the reaction to him rather proves the point that the anti-Assange case is a coalition of international feminism and the American war-leader who wears the pantsuit in the administration.
"It is very telling when one of the country's most important institutions has such trouble finding sufficiently solid quality material that it must scrape the bottom of the pool in this way."
I was about to proffer my all-purpose answer to all problems military – reinstate the draft – but then the thought occurred: how much damage an angry, computer-savvy draftee could do.
In my time, damage was limited to what a trooper could do with conventional weapons; fragging, the occasional shot in the back during a firefight, etc. In Viet Nam, one of my duties as an artillery fire direction control specialist gave me precise, real-time knowledge of secret reconnaissance teams, who were deep in enemy-controlled territory calling in air and artillery strikes and doing other unfriendly things to them. I knew their grid coordinates, secret radio call signs, and the general direction their mission would take. Had I been a traitor, I could have delivered a team of our most highly trained, lethally effective troops into enemy hands. But those are limited, one time actions that would leave plenty of evidence; discovery would have been almost immediate. Today, with computer-controlled everything, a draftee angry at having his life interrupted by military service could secretly inflict enormous damage, and have a high probability of getting away with it, at least long enough to get asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy.
On balance, however, and especially after reading the comment of Mr. David Smith, I'd still rather have the draft and take the chance outlined above. Good ones like Mr. Smith deserve the help
On balance, however, and especially after reading the comment of Mr. David Smith, I'd still rather have the draft and take the chance outlined above. Good ones like Mr. Smith deserve the help
I've struggled with that issue morally. I wondered at one point back in 2007 whether I ought to do a tour in Iraq if for no other reason than to show solidarity with my former classmates who were getting hit by shrapnel. Having already done some preliminary ROTC training, it only took my being reminded why I had dropped out.
On the other hand, the U.S. military culture would be drastically different if there was a compulsory service for all able-bodied males. Dual nationality would have to be eliminated, and to minimize the damages you hint at, illegitimate sons and certain psychological conditions the names of which I dare not speak would be grounds for total exclusion...
As a former Communications Officer in the Navy and, as a civilian, having had much personal time with the Navy/Marine Corps network, I can personally vouch that the system is incredibly poorly controlled. Cyber security is tough, even for the best of private sector companies, but military cyber security is more or less the equivalent of having the TSA monitor your networks, only with less than half the necessary budget. Originally I thought it was impossible that Manning could have done all that he has been accused of doing, but then I thought of how loose the security actually is and realized it is not outside the realm of the very possible.
Also, Mr. Jacobi, as a former Naval officer and as one who daily gets to interact with Navy policy, I can say that I cannot support a draft. It just wouldn't do what you think it would do. Maybe if something like it was done earlier, but now it would be too much too late. The former Joints Chief of Staff was fighting two separate wars and what were his two big goals? Getting women on submarines and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And I'm afraid, Mr. Jacobi, that the majority of your drafted recruits would be overweight video game junkies (who likely smoke pot at the very least) anyway - not much help to Mr. Smith. So on the one side you have top officials bent on social engineering the military, and on the other end you have countless Manning wannabees. Not a recipe for success.
And, naturally, having two daughters, I strongly oppose a draft because I strongly oppose my daughters being drafted.
The epidemic of sexual assaults and incidents of sexual harrasment in the military and at the service academies reveals that expanding the roles of women has been a failure. I just read of another Commanding Officer being relieved after being charged with harrasment. All of this was predicted, but ignored, decades ago. I also just read of a recent survey showing poor morale and rising dissatisfaction among members of the Army.
Thank you in turn for your kind words, Dr. Fleming et al. Lord knows, I hope I can aspire to some degree of sanity!
That said, I am actually making the transition out of the Army, having served as a chaplain since '97. Like almost all of my fellow soldiers back during 9/11, I wanted to be a part of defending my homeland, taking it to the enemy. When I finally was deployed to Iraq twice back in '04 and '05, I genuinely believed I was a part of that very effort, and enthusiastically supported our efforts, seeking to serve in the best traditions of the chaplain corps, getting out beyond the wire and assuming many of the same risks and helping with the same tasks in which my soldiers were engaged.
Over the next several years, however, I underwent a paradigm shift of sorts, gradually coming to realize that, though Islam is indeed dangerous and a blight, our nation's efforts were no longer legitimately defensive, but instead just another version of the age-old neocon effort to "make the world safe for democracy". Further, as a student of history, a conservative (more accurately, an emerging paleo-conservative), and a Southerner, I had to reckon with my own inconsistency in taking part in a war, however modestly, where we were invading and meddling in countries that were in no way a part of active hostilities against us, or were only now doing so, understandably, due to our actions. How could I continue, believing what I now did, serving in any such effort when my own country had been illegally invaded 150 years earlier as a result of some of these same or similar ideals of "American Exceptionalism"?
I hope all of this doesn't sound melodramatic, but I genuinely value the examples of our Southern forbears, imperfect as they were, and the idea of a Robert E. Lee pacing the halls of Arlington, agonizing over the decision to resign from the Army (along with many other principled officers) is a vision that has stuck with me since I was a young boy. So in my own likely pathetic way, I decided to make that transition out of the Army, no longer having the heart for serving in any capacity in the effort to subjugate anyone else. As a result, my disgust has only deepened with our continuing to send our people overseas to kill, maim and to be killed and maimed, or to send us half-way round the world to fight "radical" Islam while there are Muslims brought here by "my" government under the auspices of some utopian and imperial ideal, putting at risk the lives of my kith and kin. Seriously, there is some kind of Muslim compound minutes away from where members of my family settled two centuries ago and still dwell today here in rural Tennessee! And that's not including the thousands of Muslim refugees settled in Nashville with their new mosque having just opened up down in Rutherford Co.! I am further disgusted that my Presbyterian wife and little boy are given scrutiny at the airport while Ahmed is allowed to go through the line unmolested. I am no racist, and, again, I realize not every Muslim is a terrorist (Indeed, let us also remember many of our Arab Christian brethren whose lives, incidentally, have been destroyed or painfully altered by our efforts!), but I understand enough of that worldview to know that it is entirely alien and antithetical to the ideas and traditions of our founding.
I apologize for this rant, and for likely repeating some things I have already said on previous posts, but this obviously touches a nerve, and so writing it down I guess is somewhat cathartic. Again, I rejoice that the actions of Assange and Manning may well have exposed and highlighted the utter incompetence and immorality of our leadership, be they civilian or military, Republican or Democrat. But they do not deserve the appellation of hero or to become some kind of cult figures. I repeat, a pox upon them and upon those whom they exposed!
Bravo Zulu, Chaps! What a great post! God be with you and grant you fair winds on your transition.
Wow! Thanks, Mr. Cornell!
I am now returning to grad school here at a local Christian university, seeking to obtain a masters in counseling. I did a great deal of that as a chaplain, so I figured I might as well make the whole pastoral counseling piece an official part of my resume' (my reservations regarding some of the flakey nonsense that often comes out of the whole psychology hierarchy notwithstanding). Unfortunately, living where we do, I stand to enjoy a great deal of job security, shall we say, due to the active and retired soldiers and families dealing with the aftermath of this decade long ordeal.
Mr. Van Sant: "The epidemic of sexual assaults and incidents of sexual harrasment in the military and at the service academies reveals that expanding the roles of women has been a failure. I just read of another Commanding Officer being relieved after being charged with harrasment. All of this was predicted, but ignored, decades ago. I also just read of a recent survey showing poor morale and rising dissatisfaction among members of the Army."
I fortunately served primarily with combat arms units throughout my career, but began to see the inflitration by females into the ranks (support personnel, buy in this kind of warfare, there is no "rear" area, as you probably well know) as time went on. Two tours in Iraq confirmed for me even more that a war zone - and the vast majority of positions in the military, even in peacetime - is no place for a woman. Leave aside the physical differences, etc., it is entirely inimical to any sense of decency and civilization to have women anywhere near any of that. Indeed, we only coarsen womanhood by having females take part in a necessarily masculine pursuit that war indeed is. If this isn't self-evident, I'm done debating with anyone over it. And as bad as the female issue is, the degree to which the military has become a welfare state as a result is about as bad. The amount of money and resources devoted to this is simply beyond the beyond! Even without the problems I have with this war, the prevalence and preoccupation with these social engineering issues, DADT, the emerging welfare state, the rank moral cesspool that all of this has become, would all be reasons to wonder to what extent we were really decisively engaged in anything truly meaningful overseas. Afterall, bullets and bombs landing close to you produce a proper realignment in one's priorities, as many of you who have been anywhere near the front know. There's simply no time to deal with such utter nonsense as the aforementioned when you're facing existential threats! Ergo, we ain't involved in anything that important!
AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!
Okay, time for me to be responsible and get back to my studies!
It seems I am on the wrong side on this one. it is hard for me not to appreciate Assange and what he attempting to do. In retrospect I feel the same for Daniel Ellsberg even though I was dead against him at the time. There is just too much wrongdoing and not enough ways to stop it. If these were normal times and this was the Old Republic, then yes, I would feel the same as the other posters. But we are way past that..
If Mr. Bailey will look at the beginning of my piece again, he will see that my point was not to take sides. One may be happy to have the information provided by Wikileaks without admiring or even respecting Assange and his informants. Being a dirty little sneak or informer or tattle-tale is wrong at all times and places, even if some good may come of it.
PS We'll be discussing this case and the broader implications of finking in a good cause on our radio show, Chronicles Unbound, 3-5 CDT on Friday. Click the Listen Live button on the front page of our website to hear the show streaming live 3-5 PM every Friday.
We welcome your comments and questions during the show: Call us
Toll-free at (855) 430-5300
You can also E-mail the show at: radio@chroniclesmagazine.org. We'll also try to take up questions that have been emailed in advance.
Visit the show on Facebook and leave a message here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chronicles-Unbound/251374278315982
We welcome your questions on air
I agree that it is not good to be a dirty little sneak and mostly I would prefer not to take sides either. However I choose to take the side of the whistleblowers at this time as all the regular ways of stopping these wars and stopping all the wrongdoing is failing. I have also watched the 12 interviews that Assange conducted on RT with a number of prominent people that do not get to go on Fox or CNN and I have found the topics and and the tone to be a lot along the lines of what we discuss. In particular, I liked Tarik Ali bringing out the idea that the world is run not by radical left or right but by the radical center.
I would also posit that the amount of spying that the government does on the citizens, whether legal, illegal or accidental, the overclassification of government secrets takes us to the point where the internet hackers like Assange become the only ones that are able to effectively bring the government and corporate abuse out in the open.
The danger in Mr. Bailey's point of view is that it broadly legitimates a citizen's war against its own government. Taken to the extreme, it would justify if not a revolt then certainly a retaliatory attack against any state apparatus, however "good" in general, that made one moral lapse. I don't think it is necessary to articulate the anarchical danger inherent therein.
Yes, our government these days does much evil, but I for one do not find it at all clear that these leaks served any urgent salutary purpose. If you are going to engage in tyrannicide or other acts of revolt, you need to 1. be reasonably sure that you can win, and 2. know what you are going to replace the tyranny with. On both counts this incident fails to qualify as a legitimate act.
Number one, because this is the difference between pitched battle and terrorism. There was always a pretty high risk of getting caught, and the weasely, pitiful nature of this "revolt" only lends legitimacy to the regime they are attacking.
Number two, because Julian Assange, by all accounts, is definitely NOT a man I want to see leading any front of the charge against the tyranny.
It was nice to read rational commentary on the Manning/Assange debacle by Mr. Flemming and others. It has been frustrating to read articles in other publications which seem to either praise Manning or excoriate Assange. Neither of these points of view reflect the real issues.
In my view, Manning is a disgusting little fellow with lots of emotional problems who should never have been allowed near classified information. His actions were breathtaking in scope. His acts are the very definition of treason, and must be prosecuted to the full extent of military law. It must become crystal clear that treason will result in dire consequences to the perpetrators.
That he is regarded as a hero by many in the media is sad commentary on our society. The issue is not that we gather, ply and contain the type of information that was leaked, but that a soldier, sworn to allegiance, would leak it.
Once that information reached foreign possession, then the U.S. had no authority to do anything about it. There are thousands of people who would likely have done the same as did Assange (I'm shocked that the "New York Times" didn't participate). Was it a conspiracy? Did Assange put Manning up to it? I don't know. He is a despicable person, but he's not a U.S. citizen. Harassment may be good P.R. for the warfare state, but there's not much that can legally be done about the foreigner.
I'm surprised that the CIA hasn't sent a drone after Mr. Assange!
@ Vince Cornell
Reinstating the draft need not lead to any of the problems you mention, if proper pre-induction screening is done. The key is making the levy broad based and as free of loopholes as possible. Weeding out the unfit should not be that hard, given the sophisticated array of tests available today. The upgrade to the overall quality of the force would be worth any friction caused by dealing with those who resisted or resented mil service. Think what some MIT men could do for any number of technical problems, what college athletes could do to relieve the spec ops manpower shortage, etc. The main obstacle is of course political, with all the vested interests in keeping the present system. I'd rather see a smaller military, but in the meantime, spreading the burden around and adding new kinds of people is a major improvement. And re-opening this argument is a good way to force us as a people to face facts about just what we are doing when we start a war, and can result in a greater measure of democratic participation in these war and peace decisions. This does not always guarantee a good result but it has to be better than the way it's done now.
If Assange is absurd and immoral, as same posters feel how do they feel about whittaker chambers? Furthermore, this is not so much about Assange anymore. He would be merely a footnote were it not for the soap opera surrounding him. We are witnessing the perfidiousness of the British, who do not want to extradite him themselves and the total moral collapse and hypocrisy of the Swedes who once saw fit to give asylum to Vietnam war deserters but are now steeped in multicultural correctness that trumps in insanity just about anyone elses.
The immorality of the War party at home and its paid lackeys worldwide are so overbearing that Assange's moral failings by comparison are negligible. Yes, I did not care to take sides on this one for the longest time, but the way this has played out changes everything. As we learnt from Wikileaks, when Hillary directs diplomats to look for fingerprints on wine glasses or credit card numbers of other Secretaries of State and does not get fired afterwards by the President,when soldiers shoot civilians on tape for fun and get slapped on the wrist, but the revealer of this is about to be sent to prison for life, then in my opinion it is time to take sides.
I don't think I follow any of this last post. Are you saying that Chambers was wrong to blow the whistle on an immoral and illegal conspiracy against his country? Or, that his Communist espionage was a good thing? I had already pointedly distinguished the case of Assange from that of Manning.
I fear this sort of talk verges on the hysterical. Mme Clinton is far from being the first political leader in the US to authorize illegal and immoral behavior. Her antics cannot justify a soldier in betraying the trust that has been put in him. He wasn't drafted: He volunteered and got better money and benefits than he ever dreamed of getting in the private sector. Put more simply, he took MY money and then thought he could betray the institution that he went to work for and whose rules he had promised to obey. Sorry, no tears for the androgynous twerp. What your argument really comes down to is this. You have, somewhere along the way, discovered that our political leaders are evil and concluded that two wrongs make a right. Simply put: They don't. Manning is not a hero or a patriot, only a creep. It is nice to have these crumby revelations, but what do they tell us that sensible people did not already take for granted? FDR and his people were every bit as crumby.
"It is nice to have these crumby revelations, but what do they tell us that sensible people did not already take for granted?"
This states my feeling about the whole Wikileaks affair, and the reactions of MY government, the British government, the Swedish government, the Ecuadoran government, etc., ad nauseam, only confirms how right I was. The principle questions one ought to have, and that should be made to cry to the heavens are, 1) why wasn't Manning speedily brought to court martial instead of being detained and mishandled for so long before charges were filed? and 2) why wasn't Australia behemothly leaned-on to discipline its national? The answers are, 1) MY government--both parties of it--doesn't want Manning to be tried, already sensing that he is on course to become a gay hero both parties are slavering to coopt, and 2) MY government has delusions and worse of imperial prerogative.
Perhaps Chambers is somewhat of a poor comarison, but he was a whistleblower who according to some destroyed a reputation of a bad man posing as a good one. Isn't Assange in fact attempting to do something similar? In the first case we had the immorality of communists posing as benign liberals exposed while in the Assnage's case we have the immorality of the national security state in full view.
I liked the article in the "Nation" of all places called "Julian Assange-Justice Foreclosed". Whatever may be the case of Bradley Manning, it is hard to judge his motives. However, Paul Craig Roberts in his defense of him, points out that there is a form of duty in the military to inform when atrocities are commited.