Anisa Abd el Fattah
As a result of downloading and sharing with various news outlets, highly sensitive and sometimes classified information never made public before, an organization known as Wikileaks has been catapulted onto the front pages of every major newspaper in the world. As a result, people everywhere are asking who is behind the Wikileaks operation and why Wiki is leaking.
These are good questions considering that the organization seems to have access not only to extremely sensitive US government defense files, but also diplomatic cables between embassies and secret information belonging to banks and powerful corporations. Most government and bank employees don’t have access to this type of information, which makes it clear that Wikileaks activists are not simply disgruntled government or bank employees as some might suspect, just having a good time embarrassing and frustrating the US government and major banks. It’s also pretty clear that Wikileaks is not an organization that is being energized by a desire for publicity and or notoriety, since it seems that only its founder and leader, Julian Assange is recognizable.
Questions that seek to ascertain if indeed Wikileaks is a criminal enterprise seem to have taken a backseat to a more philosophical conversation that focuses mostly on the morality of what Wikileaks does. That conversation is saturated with somewhat esoteric idealism that pits the small and anonymous Wikileaks in opposition to a government and elite behemoth that is wrapped in unnecessary secrecy. In this respect, it is the secrecy itself that is the target and the details of what is actually being leaked, and its potentially negative impact is seen as merely collateral damage in a war being fought for greater transparency. Wikileaks describes itself in such terms saying on its website:
"Wikileaks is a non profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish information of ethical, political and historical significance, while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."
Wikileaks heads one of its various websites with a banner saying, “Keep us strong, help Wikileaks keep governments open.”
On the other side of the conversation are those who say that Wikileaks is a criminal outfit that is carrying out cyber warfare against the United States. In a USA Today article, (Wikileaks actions: An act of cyber war?) former State Department official under the Bush administration, Christian Whiton said;
“Assaulting the company electronically is something worth trying…it buys you time to go after the organization in other ways.” According to the article, Whiton believes that Wikileaks is a “foreign organization trying to impede US policy.” [1]
US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that Wikileaks is the subject of an “active and ongoing criminal investigation.” This statement is contextualized by Holder’s earlier statement, where he said, “To the extent that we can find anybody involved in the breaking of America law, who put at risk the assets and the people I have described…” [2]
Between these two opinions of Wikileaks in respect to its motives, there still lies the question of Wikileaks criminality. To most observers it is obvious that Wikileaks is not an overtly criminal operation. There does not seem to be any statute that criminalizes publishing sensitive information that has been censored to protect the names of US assets and to censor other information that might be deemed harmful to US interests. According to The New York Times and other news outlets that actually published the information, all information deemed harmful to US interests and assets was redacted.
On December 8th, 2010 National Public Radio,(NPR) aired a program called Fresh Air, which is hosted by Terry Goss. Goss interviewed the New York Time’s Washington Correspondent David Sanger. Sanger makes it clear in the interview that the New York Times acted in cooperation with the US government to insure that no Wikileaks information was released that would harm US interests in any significant way.
An online journal known as Global Research.ca published a transcript of the Sanger interview. In the introduction to the transcript, Michael Chossodovsky, the sites founder and editor wrote the following observations:
"The following transcript points to the involvement of the corporate media including the New York Times in the Wikileaks project. How do we interpret this relationship? The corporate media is the source of disinformation and at the same time it is supporting "transparency" and truth in media. David E. Sanger, Washington Correspondent of the New York Times, worked closely with Wikileaks. He was involved in the distribution, editing and dissemination of the leaked documents. Sanger is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Strategy Group together with Madeleine K. Albright, Richard Hass, R Talbott, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission).
We have highlighted a number of important statements in the first part of this interview, which confirm that the NYT has not only been involved in the selection and redacting of the Wikileaks documents, it has undertaken these activities in consultation with the US government.
Unquestionably the released documents constitute an important data bank in their own right. The question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of the released documents to the broader public. What interests are being served?"[3]
Along with those who don't feel that Wikileaks is a criminal enterprise, and that Wikileaks in fact works in cooperation with the US government, there are also those who feel that Wikileaks has been used by the Israeli government to leak information that actually facilitates Israel’s foreign policy objectives that include a US war with Iran.
In an article published by World Bulletin, (Wikileaks-The Tel Aviv Connection) author Jeff Gates wrote:
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Con me consistently for six decades and the relationship is over, as is Israel’s credibility as a legitimate nation state. Tel Aviv knows this, but what can the Zionist state do about it? Answer: Wikileaks. Why now? Misdirection!" [4]
In Gate’s opinion, Wikileaks is possibly a Mossad operation. He said,”
"Any credible forensics would start by asking: “To what benefit?” Then look to the means, motive and opportunity plus the presence of stable nation-state intelligence inside the US. Other than Israel, who else is a credible candidate? Notice how quickly Israel’s role in the peace process vanished from the news. Now, its Iran, Iran, Iran. To whose benefit? Tel Aviv knows that the phony intelligence on Iraq leads to those skilled at waging war “by way of deception” the Mossad." [5]
Gates goes on to say: “Wikileaks are noteworthy for what’s missing: the absence of any material damaging to Israel goals. But still, Tel Aviv faces an unprecedented peril: transparency. Americans know they were duped. And Israel rightly fears that Americans will soon realize by whom.”
In the most recent development, US Senator Joseph Lieberman along with Senator Diane Feinstein, is seeking to have Wikileaks founder Julian Assange prosecuted under an antiquated and highly controversial law known as the Espionage Act. Sounding the alarm on this approach in an article published by the Huffington Post (Espionage Act: How the Government Can Engage in Serious Aggression Against the People of the United States, Dec.10, 2010) writer Naomi Wolf wrote,
"Presidential candidate Eugene Debs received a ten-year prison sentence in 1918 under the Espionage Act for daring to read the First Amendment in public. The roundup of ordinary citizens -- charged with the Espionage Act -- who were jailed for daring to criticize the government, was so effective in deterring others from speaking up that the Act silenced dissent in this country for a decade. In the wake of this traumatic history, it was left untouched -- until those who wish the same outcome began to try to reanimate it again starting five years ago, and once again, now. Seeing the Espionage Act rise up again is, for anyone who knows a thing about it, like seeing the end of a horror movie in which the zombie that has enslaved the village just won't die."[6]
It is no secret that for years Joseph Lieberman has sought some way to criminalize free speech in respect to a citizen’s right to criticize the government and government allies, most specifically Israel. There have also been rumors that one of the uses that Israel has for Wikileaks is to create a crisis and a cause for emergency measures to be put in place that would supposedly stop the leaks and the danger they allegedly represent to the US government and its interest requiring internet censorship. Now it seems that it might also be used to revive an ancient law, antiquated mostly due to its blatant violation of the US Constitution’s first amendment.
Also, none of us are likely to ever forget former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s’ remark that no crisis should ever go unexploited. In respect to the Wikileaks leaks, it seems that for whatever reason Wiki leaks, its leaks have served more than the cause of transparency.
[1] USA Today, Wikileaks actions: An act of cyberwar? http:/www.usatoday.com/clearprint/?1292293292303
[2] Jonathan M. Seidl, “AG Holder says Wikileaks under criminal investigation” www.theblaze.com/ stories/holder-says-wikileaks-under-criminal-investigation/
[3] PBS Interview: “The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media”, cited at Global Research; www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?content=viewArticles&codes=20101212articleID=22378
[4] http:/www.worldbulliten.net.news/_print .php?id=66903
[5] Ibid.
[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/post_1394_b_795001.html
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Should John McCain reject and denounce Minister John Hagee?
The February 26th debate between Democrat’s Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama may have opened a Pandora’s box that will swarm the political debate in this country with issues related to Church and state separation, the true meaning of the US Constitution’s anti-establishment clause, US unconditional support for Israel, and the role of Evangelicals and Jewish groups in shaping US public policy. It may also set off a competition between denominational religious groups of various faiths, all seeking to be represented in the political process and most specifically the 2008 Presidential election.
Hillary Clinton, in what appeared to be a desperate attempt to create a wedge between Obama, AIPAC, the Jewish Lobby, the Jewish community at large, and Evangelicals, while attempting to rattle Obama, opened Pandora’s box when she suggested that Barak Obama should denounce and reject the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan had issued a public statement saying that Barak Obama is the hope of the United States and the world. Clinton premised her demand for renunciation and denouncement of Farrakhan upon previous Jewish accusations that Farrakhan is an anti-Semite. Farrakhan, many Muslims and non-Muslims who know him, vehemently deny the charge, a charge, which seems to surface at least once in every Presidential political cycle. It is a charge that is perhaps part of a larger effort to politically marginalize the US Muslim and Arab American communities, and their various branches of Islam, hoping to prevent our view of the Palestine/Israel conflict, and our critique of US foreign policy in the Middle East from reaching the US mainstream media, or being included in the political dispute over US foreign policy, including the preemptive strike policy and the so-called war on terrorism.
Among the contents of Pandora’s Box, the one that might prove to be the most contentious is the issue of Jewish and Evangelical political activism, contrasted by government pressure and media complicity in discouraging Muslim and Arab political activism and outright ignoring the political sentiments and issues that interest US Muslims and Arab Americans. There is little doubt among Muslims and Arabs that the detainment and imprisonment of US Arab and Muslim pro-Palestinian activists such as Dr. Sami Al Arian, and the raids and attacks on Muslim charities, mosques and organizations by the FBI that began prior to 9/11, and picked up afterwards, were intended to frighten Muslims and Arabs away from mainstream assimilation, and also the political arena. These raids and other acts of intimidation reached their apex during the run up to the Iraq war, which lends to the suspicion that a government and media attempt to silence Muslim and Arab political speech and to prevent Muslim political activism is, and has been underway.
The scurrilous attacks by leaders of the Jewish and Evangelical communities and the talk radio hosts that promote their brand of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim and Arab hatred and hysteria, not only added to the intimidation, but created a rift between US Muslims, Arab Americans and their fellow Americans that has resulted in a general apathy and disinterest in Arab and Muslim 1st amendment rights, even though this apathy threatens the rights of every American to hold a dissenting view, or as members of religious or other minorities, to enjoy unfettered, their Constitutionally protected civil liberties and rights.
In response to Hillary Clinton’s provocation, Barak Obama did reject and denounce Minister Louis Farrakhan. In less than 24 hours after his denouncement of Minister Louis Farrakhan, Republican political candidate John McCain appeared in a televised news conference with the Islamophobic religious extremist and radically pro-Israel, anti-Muslim and Arab activists Minister John Hagee. Hagee is the leader of Christians United for Israel, which calls itself a Christian version of AIPAC. According to Hagee, who is also the head of a mega church in Texas,the primary aim of his organization is to prevent the US from “ramrodding” Israel into giving up too much land to the Palestinians. His organization is opposed to the US roadmap, which calls for a two state solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict. He also preaches that there will be a “pre-tribulation” rapture of Evangelical Christians and Jews who are covered by the Old Covenant, into heaven to meet Jesus. According to Hagee, a Russian/Islamic alliance will prevent Israel from destroying the Dome of the Rock Islamic shrine in Jerusalem, and as a consequence, God will destroy all Muslims and Russians with his supernatural powers. Hagee also says that the fire and brimstone mentioned in the Biblical Book of Revelations is a metaphor for Israeli nuclear weapons that will rain down, killing all Muslims and Arabs (Hagee, Beginning of the End, pgs. 143-158, and Final Doom over Jerusalem, 144-146).
Hagee’s designation as a Minister and Church leader, as well as the head of an organization that is dedicated to the destruction of Palestine, and all Muslims and Arabs with Israeli nuclear weapons should raise some eyebrows. Why isn’t anyone asking if John McCain should be prodded and forced into rejecting and denouncing the boisterous and unapologetic Hagee’s endorsement? Should Hagee, his organization, or the GOP be subjected to an investigation for what appears to be a clear and brazen breech of the US Constitution’s establishment clause? Should their offices be raided and any or all of them detained for seeking to undermine the peace process? According to the Supreme Court, the establishment clause requires government to avoid excessive involvement with religion. It also prevents the merger of denominational religion with the state, and it prevents the state from promoting one religion, or faith group over another.
Hagee’s brand of Muslim and Arab hatred, and Islamophobia should be no more tolerable to the American public, or government than anti-Semitism. Farrakhan was called an anti-Semite because of his rhetorical comments regarding Zionism’s distortion of the Jewish faith, a position that is supported by many Jews, including Rabbi Dovid Weiss of Neturai Karta, an orthodox Jewish movement that opposes Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish only state in Palestine.
Hagee, on the hand is clearly a racist and religious extremist ideologue that is shamelessly preaching not only outright hatred of Muslims and Arabs, but also their destruction with Israeli nuclear weapons. Should John McCain denounce and reject the political endorsement of Minister John Hagee? Of course he should, but don’t hold your breath because Hillary wont press him on it, and neither will Obama.
The special treatment that such groups have received as a result of their pro-Israel stand, and the protection they receive from their Zionist cohorts in our government includes the absolute acceptance of their hateful and divisive brand of Judeo/Christian political activism, that is perhaps the cause for the chilling, and deprivation of US Muslim and Arab American civil rights and liberties in the US. Consider that Hagee’s crusading is likely also one of the causes of death of nearly 4,000 US soldiers and Marines in Iraq, and more than one million innocent Arab and Muslim Iraqi civilians, along with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian and Israeli lives, lost over the years in the ongoing and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, supported by Hagee and his Judeo/Christian movement, and our government. They are also a major force behind potential wars with Iran and Syria, and they advocate the use of nuclear weapons.
It’s hard to imagine that Hagee’s endorsement will do much to help McCain. It’s pretty clear that it will do nothing to help our country get out of Iraq with honor. Short of nuclear Armageddon, Hagee also has nothing to offer either Israel or Palestine, except more of the same hatred and violence. These are all good reasons to be rejected and denounced if you ask me.
Hillary Clinton, in what appeared to be a desperate attempt to create a wedge between Obama, AIPAC, the Jewish Lobby, the Jewish community at large, and Evangelicals, while attempting to rattle Obama, opened Pandora’s box when she suggested that Barak Obama should denounce and reject the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan had issued a public statement saying that Barak Obama is the hope of the United States and the world. Clinton premised her demand for renunciation and denouncement of Farrakhan upon previous Jewish accusations that Farrakhan is an anti-Semite. Farrakhan, many Muslims and non-Muslims who know him, vehemently deny the charge, a charge, which seems to surface at least once in every Presidential political cycle. It is a charge that is perhaps part of a larger effort to politically marginalize the US Muslim and Arab American communities, and their various branches of Islam, hoping to prevent our view of the Palestine/Israel conflict, and our critique of US foreign policy in the Middle East from reaching the US mainstream media, or being included in the political dispute over US foreign policy, including the preemptive strike policy and the so-called war on terrorism.
Among the contents of Pandora’s Box, the one that might prove to be the most contentious is the issue of Jewish and Evangelical political activism, contrasted by government pressure and media complicity in discouraging Muslim and Arab political activism and outright ignoring the political sentiments and issues that interest US Muslims and Arab Americans. There is little doubt among Muslims and Arabs that the detainment and imprisonment of US Arab and Muslim pro-Palestinian activists such as Dr. Sami Al Arian, and the raids and attacks on Muslim charities, mosques and organizations by the FBI that began prior to 9/11, and picked up afterwards, were intended to frighten Muslims and Arabs away from mainstream assimilation, and also the political arena. These raids and other acts of intimidation reached their apex during the run up to the Iraq war, which lends to the suspicion that a government and media attempt to silence Muslim and Arab political speech and to prevent Muslim political activism is, and has been underway.
The scurrilous attacks by leaders of the Jewish and Evangelical communities and the talk radio hosts that promote their brand of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim and Arab hatred and hysteria, not only added to the intimidation, but created a rift between US Muslims, Arab Americans and their fellow Americans that has resulted in a general apathy and disinterest in Arab and Muslim 1st amendment rights, even though this apathy threatens the rights of every American to hold a dissenting view, or as members of religious or other minorities, to enjoy unfettered, their Constitutionally protected civil liberties and rights.
In response to Hillary Clinton’s provocation, Barak Obama did reject and denounce Minister Louis Farrakhan. In less than 24 hours after his denouncement of Minister Louis Farrakhan, Republican political candidate John McCain appeared in a televised news conference with the Islamophobic religious extremist and radically pro-Israel, anti-Muslim and Arab activists Minister John Hagee. Hagee is the leader of Christians United for Israel, which calls itself a Christian version of AIPAC. According to Hagee, who is also the head of a mega church in Texas,the primary aim of his organization is to prevent the US from “ramrodding” Israel into giving up too much land to the Palestinians. His organization is opposed to the US roadmap, which calls for a two state solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict. He also preaches that there will be a “pre-tribulation” rapture of Evangelical Christians and Jews who are covered by the Old Covenant, into heaven to meet Jesus. According to Hagee, a Russian/Islamic alliance will prevent Israel from destroying the Dome of the Rock Islamic shrine in Jerusalem, and as a consequence, God will destroy all Muslims and Russians with his supernatural powers. Hagee also says that the fire and brimstone mentioned in the Biblical Book of Revelations is a metaphor for Israeli nuclear weapons that will rain down, killing all Muslims and Arabs (Hagee, Beginning of the End, pgs. 143-158, and Final Doom over Jerusalem, 144-146).
Hagee’s designation as a Minister and Church leader, as well as the head of an organization that is dedicated to the destruction of Palestine, and all Muslims and Arabs with Israeli nuclear weapons should raise some eyebrows. Why isn’t anyone asking if John McCain should be prodded and forced into rejecting and denouncing the boisterous and unapologetic Hagee’s endorsement? Should Hagee, his organization, or the GOP be subjected to an investigation for what appears to be a clear and brazen breech of the US Constitution’s establishment clause? Should their offices be raided and any or all of them detained for seeking to undermine the peace process? According to the Supreme Court, the establishment clause requires government to avoid excessive involvement with religion. It also prevents the merger of denominational religion with the state, and it prevents the state from promoting one religion, or faith group over another.
Hagee’s brand of Muslim and Arab hatred, and Islamophobia should be no more tolerable to the American public, or government than anti-Semitism. Farrakhan was called an anti-Semite because of his rhetorical comments regarding Zionism’s distortion of the Jewish faith, a position that is supported by many Jews, including Rabbi Dovid Weiss of Neturai Karta, an orthodox Jewish movement that opposes Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish only state in Palestine.
Hagee, on the hand is clearly a racist and religious extremist ideologue that is shamelessly preaching not only outright hatred of Muslims and Arabs, but also their destruction with Israeli nuclear weapons. Should John McCain denounce and reject the political endorsement of Minister John Hagee? Of course he should, but don’t hold your breath because Hillary wont press him on it, and neither will Obama.
The special treatment that such groups have received as a result of their pro-Israel stand, and the protection they receive from their Zionist cohorts in our government includes the absolute acceptance of their hateful and divisive brand of Judeo/Christian political activism, that is perhaps the cause for the chilling, and deprivation of US Muslim and Arab American civil rights and liberties in the US. Consider that Hagee’s crusading is likely also one of the causes of death of nearly 4,000 US soldiers and Marines in Iraq, and more than one million innocent Arab and Muslim Iraqi civilians, along with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian and Israeli lives, lost over the years in the ongoing and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, supported by Hagee and his Judeo/Christian movement, and our government. They are also a major force behind potential wars with Iran and Syria, and they advocate the use of nuclear weapons.
It’s hard to imagine that Hagee’s endorsement will do much to help McCain. It’s pretty clear that it will do nothing to help our country get out of Iraq with honor. Short of nuclear Armageddon, Hagee also has nothing to offer either Israel or Palestine, except more of the same hatred and violence. These are all good reasons to be rejected and denounced if you ask me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)