[ExI] pussy riot case

[Jeff Davis]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> I love being the outlier. I am somewhat surprised that there isn't
> anyone else here who thinks he is dangerous or irresponsible.

I am having such fun with, am more absolutely captivated by, this
Assange/Wikileaks business.

Sorry to have to come down on the other side of this issue from you
Kelly, but well, it's our fate.

So,... let's get it on.

> Army Pfc. Bradley Manning swore an oath to protect his countries
> secrets, then violated that oath. That's a little stronger expectation
> of loyalty than "some"...

In fact, he swore no such oath.  Rather he swore an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution.  Then he found himself in a rather
difficult situation: caught between his duty to obey orders (note
important detail: ***lawful*** orders), and his duty report criminal
behavior.

He reported the crimes he saw -- Sunni detained by US forces being
turned over to Iraqi forces (Shia) for torture and liquidation -- only
to be told to shut up and go back to work helping to find and turn
over more Sunni detainees.

So he was faced with a seriously nasty choice, join in the
criminality, or,... do something else.  He chose "something else",
which was to blow the whistle on the criminality.

We each have our attitude towards what he did, but in the end it is up
to a jury of his peers to decide the degrees of rightness and
wrongness of his actions.  I would add that in a just world, the US
civilian and military leadership should also stand trial alongside
him, to see whether the "alleged" criminal acts that motivated Manning
to act as he did, were in fact criminal and whether on that basis they
rose to the level of justification for Manning's actions.

Sadly, Manning will not get a civilian trial -- until his case reaches
the Supreme Court --the military will not recuse itself despite the
self-evident fox-henhouse conflict of interest, and the leadership
elite will never stand trial.  Which leads me to the conclusion that
Manning will get the fairest political show trial the military can
conduct, and spend most of his life in prison.

I don' approve, but then, I'm a person of no importance.

> Assange himself is not guilty of treason in the sense that he has not
> personally committed an offense against the country of his birth.

> Nevertheless, he is guilty of promoting and enabling treason.

The assessment of treason turns on the question of whether the US
conduct witnessed in Iraq by Manning was criminal or not.  That's for
a jury to decide.

Now on to Assange.

> He may be free under US law as I understand it to do what he is doing.
> I hope so. But with freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility.
> He has not exercised that, IMHO.
>
> The charge against Assange isn't so much "playing with people's
> lives", but making all of civilization less safe by outing secrets
> that might well be more safely kept behind closed doors. I've heard
> his counter argument, and I simply disagree. As you know, I have
> serious doubts about the good intentions of governments as a system,
> and would love to take them all down a notch or two... I just think
> Assange is taking the wrong approach to doing that. I think I actually
> agree with his goals.

As you state, this is your view.  Fair enough.

My view is that the world is undergoing a paradigm change in the
accessibility, ease of distribution, and problematic confidentiality
of information.  Assuming there is no turning back, then some will
fear the uncertain consequences of this new paradigm, and others will
say "Bring it on, and let the chips fall as they may."  If things work
out for the better, then those who feared the change will have been
proven wrong.  If things go badly, then the radical transparency
advocates will have been proven wrong.


> ... if privacy is guaranteed to individuals, then
> why not to some extent extend the same privilege to corporations and
> to governments.

It appears that privacy for individuals has been cancelled.  But even
if that were not the case, govts in the era of democracy (phony and
corrupt though it may be) conduct the people's business and have no
inherent right to keep the people's business secret from the people.
Certainly, the govt could argue that privacy was necessary for govt
effectiveness, but my experience suggests that leaders seek power and
employ secrecy primarily to maintain or enlarge that power.  This is
both an ancient truth and an ancient evil.  Modernity calls for its
repudiation and disposal.


> Assange clearly has balls the
> size of Godzilla, and he was creative and courageous to create such a
> dumping ground for the world's secrets. But it is also very clear that
> he has ruined at least one life so far, that of Army Pfc. Bradley
> Manning. If he hasn't damaged another single person, he clearly stands
> partially responsible for the ruination of that young man's future.
> And I can't support him if only for that one example.

Classic case of blaming the victims.  Manning and Assange are both
victims of lawless Washington.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "During times of universal deceit, telling the
  truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                  George Orwell