Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo
bedmison writes "In an op-ed in the Washington Post titled 'WikiLeaks must be stopped,' Marc A. Thiessen writes that 'WikiLeaks represents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States,' and that the US has the authority to arrest its spokesman, Julian Assange, even if it has to contravene international law to do so. Thiessen also suggests that the new USCYBERCOM be unleashed to destroy WikiLeaks as an internet presence."
Reader praps tips an interview with another WikiLeaks spokesman, Daniel Schmitt, who says they have no regrets about releasing the Afghanistan documents, and says WikiLeaks is "changing the game." Several other readers have pointed out that WikiLeaks posted a mysterious, encrypted "insurance" file on Thursday, which sent the media into a speculative frenzy over what it could possibly contain.
Julian? Sure, he's the face of WL, but that would not stop the signal.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This wasn't the Washington Post saying this, it was a columnist who writes a weekly column for the Post. Saying that the Post says this is like attributing George Will's tirades to the Post. The Post publishes opeds from all over the political spectrum that may or may not reflect the editorial stance of the Post. Thiessen is a right-winger from the American Enterprise Institute. If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the AEI, not the Post.
No sig? Sigh...
No, not necessarily. It was an Op Ed. Anyone can write an Op Ed and submit it to popular newspapers to be published, including you and the people who marked you insightful. Politicians submit Op Eds to newspapers regularly. So, do journalists on occasion, but that's why it's in the Op Ed section and not the news section.
Yes, mod up this AC.
Thiessen worked for George W. Bush, Jesse Helms, and Donald Rumsfeld. He's a well-regarded pundit and speechwriter in conservative circles.
His writings do not represent the editorial board of the Washington Post. The Post publishes columns by Thiessen so that they can represent different shades of the political spectrum.
___
Cognitive Overflow
more than yo
Thiessen didn't just work for Bush, Helms and Rumsfeld. He was spokesman for and senior policy advisor to Helms, when the ancient and decrepit Helms was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1995-2001. He moved with Rumsfeld to the top of the Pentagon as his chief speechwriter 2001-2004, then to Bush's speechwriting team, becoming its chief in 2008.
He's "a well regarded pundit and speechwriter in Conservative circles" in that he was among the people most responsible for starting the Iraq War (as they'd planned through the 1990s), for ignoring the threats from the Qaeda in Afghanistan (because they cared only about invading Iraq), for running both wars as epic catastrophes while attacking everyone questioning them as a "clear and present danger" to America's security.
The Washington Post publishes columns by Thiessen because his radical rightwing warmonger faction is the Post's board's favorite tiny sliver of Americans. Who always get whatever they want, especially wars.
--
make install -not war
This is princeton's somewhat muddled definition
Liberal:broad: *showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" having political or social views favoring reform and progress tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties*
Wikipedia is more specific and defines two (three counting economic liberalism, but no one is referring to the third one when they say liberal bias) types of liberal:
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."
"Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights."
So just remember that when someone says a newspaper has a liberal bias what they are saying is that the newspaper has a bias towards being broad minded, tolerant, favouring reform and progress and supporting civil liberty. This is actually what newspapers are supposed to do, it is in some cases written into their founding documents and is basically what newspapers have a mandate to be.
Do any of you young folk remember a man by the name of Daniel Ellsberg? If not, please take a little bit of your time and look up a movie called "The Most Dangerous Man in America". For more information please visit the Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319726/.
Daniel Ellisberg was the man who leaked what has become known as "The Pentagon Papers". He was the first man to be charged under the Espionage Act, with results that the administration did not intend. He never spent a minute in jail. The documentary of his actions came out last year (2009).
Here is a little breakdown of the story:
"The Most Dangerous Man in America" is the story of what happens when a former Pentagon insider, armed only with his conscience, steadfast determination, and a file cabinet full of classified documents, decides to challenge an "Imperial" Presidency-answerable to neither Congress, the press, nor the people-in order to help end the Vietnam War. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg shook America to its foundations when he smuggled a top-secret Pentagon study to the New York Times that showed how five Presidents consistently lied to the American people about the Vietnam War that was killing millions and tearing America apart. President Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger called Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America," who "had to be stopped at all costs." But Ellsberg wasn't stopped. Facing 115 years in prison on espionage and conspiracy charges, he fought back. Ensuing events surrounding the so-called Pentagon Papers led directly to Watergate and the downfall of President Nixon, and hastened the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg's relentless telling of truth to power, which exposed the secret deeds of an "Imperial Presidency," inspired Americans of all walks of life to forever question the previously-unchallenged pronouncements of its leaders. "The Most Dangerous Man in America" tells the inside story, for the first time on film, of this pivotal event that changed history and transformed our nation's political discourse. It is told largely by the players of that dramatic episode-Ellsberg, his colleagues, family and critics; Pentagon Papers authors and government officials; Vietnam veterans and anti-war activists; Watergate principals, attorneys and the journalists who both covered the story and were an integral part of it; and finally-through White House audiotapes-President Nixon and his inner circle of advisors.
Documentary is available at Megavideo: http://www.megavideo.com/?d=6VI4M5CC
Posting AC because I've done 7 missions with MSF (Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders).
Your posts contains elements that are both right and wrong. MSF left Afghanistan when five of our expats were murdered. MSF can only work in the areas we do (in conflict areas, where no one else goes except the ICRC) only because we are both neutral and impartial and if this fact is understood and respected by all parties. Clearly, a targeted attack is sign that this understanding is no longer respected.
Regarding the refusal to evacuate. No one likes doing it. I've done it several times and it feels like shit. You are abandoning the people you were there to help as well as your national staff counterparts while you tuck tail and leave. There's no way around this. OTOH, if the situation's come to the point where death is highly probably, you waited too long to evac. The moment an expat or multiple MSF expats are intentionally killed, that's it for operations in that country. Game's over and no one's coming back for a while. The major players usually understand this and our white t-shirts and white Landcruisers are pretty good protection. If it turns out it was by accident or a rogue action, then that has negative implications as well. In one country, we had an expat staffer killed. Eventually, the killers were found and as a show that their actions didn't represent any of the differing factions, they were executed and bodies dumped with an explanation. Those deaths are on us, too, because somebody wasn't careful enough and didn't see the signs.
One way or another, the evacuation order is the one order that cannot be refused or argued about. If you refuse, your contract is terminated on the spot. You're no longer MSF and you're on your own. Your refusal to evacuate will damage operations and hurt the people in the long run. This is made clear to you in training and prep. I know of no one who's refused an evacuation. I know of no one who knows of anyone who's ever refused an evacuation order. Oddly enough, I'm a former soldier so people expect me to be the most reticent to call an evacuation, whereas the reality is that I'm usually the first one to put the option on the table.
In the past decade, humanitarian aid's become highly politicized. As in, everyone talks of neutrality and impartiality but very few can actually walk the walk. How can they? They're all taking money from USAID ECHO or various UN agencies and that money usually comes with strings attached. Really? You're impartial? You're taking money from European nations that all belong to NATO and you say you're impartial? You work within the UN cluster system and may be traveling under ISAF (aka, the "bad guys" if you're Taliban) protection (which was established by the UN) and you say you're neutral? Really? REALLY?
MSF avoids this whole can of worms by only taking private donors and/or money with no strings attached. It gives us the freedom to actually be neutral and impartial. But here's the kicker. No one knows that, least of all, the guys who associate Americans and Europeans with NATO, ISAF, UNAMI and the US government and the US military.
"No really, we're different from all the other guys! Really!" You try that line and see if anyone with a hard-on against anyone not like them believes you. We are, but it's impossible to get that point across where it really matters.
That's not to shit on the other NGOs. They do good work, too. Some do it better than we do - the Oxfam guys really know their water and ACF does famine better than anyone else - but very few NGOs have the luxury of financial independence that we do. It sucks, but that's the way things have gone and for us, we no longer have the trust and access that we once did.
It also doesn't help that the military is involved in "humanitarianism" as well. Thanks.
Oh yeah, and these views are my own and don't necessarily represent the views of MSF, official or otherwise. Yeah.
"There is certainly nothing that indicates they did it for the hell of it."
Perhaps you should listen to the unedited tape. They were clearly enjoying killing people.
"The crew saw people approaching the US position carrying AKs and at least one RPG."
They did NOT identify an RPG. A camera is not an RPG. Protocol requires clear identification.
"According to protocol, they received clearance to fire, and did so."
They LIED in order to receive clearance to fire. I believe that is against protocol.
"A van approached and started loading bodies, a common insurgent tactic."
It's also a common civilian tactic.
"They are obviously unaware (based on later audio) that there are children in the van."
Who would have thought there would be civilians in a van in a city. They certainly weren't concerned about having killed them
"Again, according to protocol, they received clearance to fire, and did so."
What part of protocol allows them to fire on civilians? The people loaded into the van weren't going to walk away.
"There is nothing in the tape to indicate intent to kill photographers..."
Other than the fact that they did.