WikiLeaks – Hillary’s Pet Monster

Article first published as WikiLeaks – Hillary’s Pet Monster on Technorati.

 

 

WikiLeaks has taken on a life of its own, and grows in stature by the day. This emerging monster thrives on a diet rich in rhetoric, rant and bluster. Why are U.S. officials, especially Hillary Clinton, so determined to continue feeding it?

The greatest casualty of all these leaked documents is The Secretary of State. As America’s face of international diplomacy, she has been the one to suffer the most embarrassment, and has had the unenviable task of dealing with the world’s leaders to try to repair the damage.

How serious the damage to America really is, depends on who you choose to believe, but it would seem the one with the greatest interest in downplaying the effect of the leaks would be Ms. Clinton. Instead she seems determined to give WikiLeaks, and its founder, Julian Assange as much free publicity as she can, and as Secretary of State that is plenty.

Hillary appears remarkably driven to keep this sordid affair on the world stage for as long as possible. Her determination to label Julian Assange a terrorist, and bring him to trial, has kept him and his previously unassuming little outfit on the front pages of the world media far longer than he could ever have managed on his own. She has elevated him from relative obscurity to a media darling.

Was she so humiliated by this affair that she has become blinded by a desire for revenge? There is little doubt that her career has been seriously damaged by the information in some of these leaked documents. There has even been speculation that this could be the end of her time in politics. The time for her departure may come next week or next month, but sooner or later, the weakened and humiliated secretary of state will have to pay. Hillary herself has been sending signals that this could be the end of the line. In a speech in Bahrain she stated that her current role would be her last public position.

Perhaps, having decided that there is nothing else left for her, she should dedicate her remaining time in office to destroying Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If so, this is a serious error in judgment, at a time when the rest of the world is already questioning the judgment of The Secretary of State, and thus of the government she represents. Putting Julian Assange behind bars won’t be the end of WikiLeaks, and even if it were, others would just take its place. “You can’t un-invent WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen … these are facts that aren’t going to go away. Government and authorities need to wise up to that.”

The harder that U.S. authorities work at getting rid of Julian Assange and his organization, the more they are feeding the monster. Maybe Hillary Clinton should just keep quiet, and let it return to its cave to starve to death.

U.S. Investigation of Julian Assange – Legal Process or Witch-Hunt?

Article first published as U.S. Investigation of Julian Assange: Legal Process or Witch-Hunt? on Blogcritics.

 

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange committed the worst possible crime, but it’s not the one that the U.S. government wants to prosecute him for. His most serious offense isn’t the theft or publication of thousands of documents, but the loss of face he has caused for some very powerful people.

Hillary Clinton has vowed to vigorously investigate and prosecute those responsible, but who is really to blame? Julian Assange published the documents, and it may be possible to prove he had some complicity in the theft, but he has no responsibility for the lapses in security, and he certainly wasn’t the author of these documents.

Australia’s foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange. He went on to say that these leaks throw into question the state of American security. Mr. Rudd certainly isn’t the only one who feels that WikiLeaks is being used to divert attention away from those who should be taking at least some of the responsibility for this diplomatic disaster. There appears to be at least as much support for Julian Assange as for those trying to prosecute him.

Attempts to shut down WikiLeaks only resulted in thousands of mirror sites taking over, and companies cutting off WikiLeaks funding saw their sites targeted. The American authorities, not surprisingly, labeled those responsible as criminal hackers, which is a fine example of politics in action. Others see their actions as a legitimate protest against government control.

It’s convenient to keep the focus on Julian Assange, and away from American liability, or criminal wrong-doing. There is a concerted effort to label these leaks as a foreign attack, and even an act of terrorism, but is this an accurate interpretation of the facts, or simply face-saving spin by an embarrassed government?

Julian Assange makes a convenient scapegoat. As a foreigner, and head of an organization that operates outside of the United States, American authorities would love to make him the sole villain in this affair.

Is there any reality to the idea that this diplomatic fiasco is entirely the work of a foreign terrorist organization? It is at best a shaky premise. The idea that Julian Assange is a professional spy, who infiltrated American security agencies, to make off with thousands of classified documents, is hard to swallow. Branding a web-site that merely publishes whatever embarrassing information that comes its way, a terrorist organization, only makes U.S. officials look silly (or desperate).

The actual theft resulted from a combination of ineptitude and an insider with a grudge. Pte. Bradley Manning had little trouble hacking into government computers, to steal classified information that he shouldn’t have had access to. The government’s case against Mr. Assange hinges on the degree to which he may have instigated the theft. Being actively involved in obtaining classified information is much more serious than simply publishing it.

Now U.S. authorities are reputedly offering Mr. Manning a plea bargain in return for implicating Julian Assange in the theft. Considering the seriousness of the charges faced by Bradley Manning, it will be difficult for him to refuse some sort of deal, but will the world see this as justice?

The American government already looks bad enough. If the rest of the world sees the prosecution of Julian Assange as nothing more than a show trial with trumped-up evidence, designed to blame foreigners for something that is really more a domestic issue, then mild resentment over the contents of the documents could turn into real hostility.

There is a big difference between American authorities making a legitimate attempt to defend against foreign attack, and using brute force, as the world’s most powerful country, to launch a witch-hunt, for no other purpose than to divert attention away from themselves. If the Justice Department succeeds in convicting the head of WikiLeaks of espionage, and putting him in jail for a long time, will the rest of the world see this as democracy in action, or the long arm of a vengeful Uncle Sam?

Important, powerful people don’t appreciate being made to look foolish, and need their revenge. If this is the real reason for the government’s aggressive pursuit of Julian Assange, and they are willing to go to any lengths to prove that this whole affair can be pinned on foreign agents, then the result could prove more humiliating than the contents of the documents.

American relations with other governments have suffered serious setbacks from these leaks. Politicians have a God-given talent for making bad situations worse, and are well on their way to turning embarrassment into diplomatic disaster.