It is worth remembering that verbally inciting others to commit violence is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
The same is true under Canadian constitutional law, which is applicable to Tom Flanagan, being a Canadian citizen (and, embarrassingly, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, and former political aid to Prime Minister Steven Harper). Under Canadian constitutional law:
"Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime]." — s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada
Similarly, most Western democracies have anti-hate and anti-violence legislation built into their articles protecting free speech.
So why are so many prominent media figures going off their moral and legal rockers?
Obviously, Julian Assange, front-man for WikiLeaks, has struck more than a few chords. From the WikiLeaks 'Cablegate' website:
"Wikileaks began on Sunday November 28th publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.
The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February this year, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified Secret.
[…]
The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.
This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.
It is no secret that there is a great deal of corruption in U.S. politics and foreign policy. The depth, extent, and sheer pervasiveness is what has remained largely a subject of debate, until now.
Many who have attacked Julian Assange, have characterized his activities as irresponsible, reckless, and even criminal, with no regard for individuals being put at risk as a result of the classified documents being distributed and published. Some have said he is compromising national security by revealing classified information to U.S. enemies, calling it 'espionage' or 'treasonous' and also calling for his execution. Still others have questioned his integrity with his alleged use of illegal blackmail to achieve his desired ends, as well as the latest 'sex crime' allegations.
However, before addressing these allegations, it might be worthwhile examining first principles. It would appear that there is a fundamental difference in political philosophy between those individuals who are calling for severe censure of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and those who support the work in it's attempts at making governments more open, honest, transparent, and accountable. It would be helpful to bring some of the underlying guiding principles of WikiLeaks supporters out into public view to arrive at a better understanding of motivation:
1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." — Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
2. The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. A non-interventionist foreign policy as advanced by Thomas Jefferson, extending George Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
4. A firm belief that access to information is at the heart and soul of a well-functioning democracy. Such views have as their support many illustrious figures in American history, in addition to Supreme Court decisions (see below).
"Information is the currency of democracy." — Thomas Jefferson
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." — Patrick Henry
"Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy." — Ramsey Clark
"A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty." — Russell Long
"The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." — John Fitzgerald Kennedy
"The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." — United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)
"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry." — Gerard LaForest, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, in Dagg vs. Canada (1997)
With regard to these essential guiding principles, it is also worth noting that every elected official and public servant has sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Further, the United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century.
Interestingly, there has been far more war, death, and destruction in the world since the U.S. rejection of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries. This is certainly not coincidence, as the attention afforded select countries in a climate of foreign interventionism has complex geo-political repercussions that cannot be fathomed by policy makers: the sheer volume and intricate nature of interactions and relationships are far too complex to fully comprehend. One need only examine the seemingly endless history of botched U.S. involvement in 20th and 21st century conflict for examples of this. Even if foreign policy makers are well-intentioned (doubtful), the reality is policy decisions intended to favor select nations are ill-conceived at best, as they are rooted in an overly simplistic and essentially myopic view of the world: one that seeks domination, repression, coercion, and control.
National Security
Many argue that we are living in an age of rogue nation states and megalomaniacal dictators who have access to dangerous technologies, and are hell-bent on hostility and aggression towards the U.S. and her allies. And that we must actively work to neutralize such threats to our medium and long-term security.
However, I submit, that it is a history of duplicitous, oppressive, lying, and even murderous action dealing with nations, their heads of state, and their people, that is precisely the reason for so much hostility and aggression directed towards the U.S. and its allies. For a series of clearly documented cases of U.S. intrusion into the domestic affairs of other nations, read John Perkins' excellent and illuminating book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." This is precisely why a foreign policy of non-interventionism and "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," is not only desirable, but essential.
If the U.S. were to enter into a new era of "cease and desist" as far as military and economic involvement in foreign affairs is concerned, it would find the threats to its medium and long-term security virtually non-existent. The U.S. would be far more respected in the world, and would be in a much stronger position to be arbiters of conflict and promoters of genuine peace, especially when the nations of the world witnessed that it refrained from employing force or coercion even though it possessed the capability to do so. Instead, the U.S. could leave the handling of rogue nation states to those nations that are most affected in the region. And if affected nations requested the diplomatic aid of neutral 3rd party participants then willing parties could provide.
Espionage
The calls for prosecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act have no legal foundation. WikiLeaks is a news reporting and news analysis organization that provides a forum for whistleblowers to divulge corruption and illegal activity within their organizations. They are no different than news organizations like The New York Times, The Guardian, der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El País. Free speech rights of journalists are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
However, a case could be made for trying the whistleblower, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning under the Espionage Act, being in a similar situation to former military intelligence analyst whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. The landmark ruling is instructive as it sets the stage for the primacy of First Amendment rights over Executive need or privilege.
Briefly, on Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. The Times was then prevented from publishing its remaining articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume freely (New York Times Co. v. United States). The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print classified materials.
Daniel Ellsberg later said the documents, "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates." He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".
The question then becomes: should the Espionage Act protect the unconstitutional behavior of our public servants and elected officials, who have sworn an oath of office to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution? The answer is a clear and resounding 'NO'. Perhaps we also need to demand much stiffer penalties for public servants and elected officials who break their oath of office and engage in unconstitutional activities.
Personal Integrity
Many argue that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks are behaving irresponsibly by publishing information that is placing Americans at risk. However, it is not Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks that are behaving irresponsibly and endangering U.S. lives, but rather the U.S. government and their myopic foreign policies by placing Americans and allied troops in harms way in the first place. Remember, the reason provided by the U.S. government for entering into the Iraq war was that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. This claim turned out to be entirely false. With thousands of American and allied lives forfeited, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered, should this instead not be considered the pinnacle of irresponsibility and opprobrious conduct?
Others have attempted to character assassinate Julian Assange allegedly citing his use of blackmail by threatening to release a 'poison pill' of extra-sensitive classified information. However, upon further investigation, this is not a case of blackmail at all — he is simply protecting his greatest personal asset: his life. He has arranged things so that highly sensitive classified information will be released as a kind of insurance policy, in the event he is kidnapped or murdered. Julian Assange is no fool, and understands full well that his activities and the activities of WikiLeaks will upset more than a few individuals in positions of power. Nonetheless, individuals attacking Julian Assange, realizing they have no legal case against him or WikiLeaks, are now resorting to false 'sex crime' charges involving consensual relations between adults, in an attempt to arrest him and eventually extradite him to the U.S. The spectacle has now officially entered into the realm of the absurd.
Julian Assange, being the public face of WikiLeaks, is knowingly putting his life in danger for a cause no less important than the transparency and accountability of our governments. In time, this will lead to greater peace, justice, and freedom for all peoples through the free flow of information that exposes corruption at the highest levels. Citizens of the U.S. and other countries of the world now have increasingly the power of information at their disposal to hold their public servants accountable. Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks journalists and editors, should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism for their selfless, courageous, and ground-breaking work. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour for his bravery, courage and selfless service to his country.
It is clear that the furor that has been unleashed by the publishing of classified U.S. war and embassy cables is the direct result of decades of lies, duplicity, treachery, oppression and murderous foreign policy at the highest levels. History will pass judgement on people like Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and our elected officials who have sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Let us rest content then, in the judgement and verdict of history, which, in the end, tends towards truth.
"Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." — Buddha
Selected Quotes
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
“The first reaction to truth is hatred.” -- Tertullian
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” — Winston Churchill
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” — Albert Einstein
"The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." — Aristotle
"If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it." — Marcus Aurelius
"Honesty is the best policy." — Benjamin Franklin
"Justice and truth are the common ties of society." — John Locke
"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." — Voltaire
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels
References
1. Fighting Words Doctrine, Wikipedia
2. WikiLeaks Website
3. WikiLeaks Cablegate Website
4. John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
5. Pentagon Papers, Wikipedia
6. New York Times Co. v. United States, Wikipedia
7. Robert Scheer, "Jefferson to Assange," Truthdig
8. Ron Paul, "Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks," Campaign For Liberty
1 comment:
Bravo! The pièce de résistance of clear thought.
Post a Comment