[The views and opinions contained within this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Constitution Party or its other members.]
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is, according to various politicians, the most dangerous and evil man alive.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that WikiLeaks’ release of a quarter million e-mails and diplomatic cables was an “attack upon the international community.”
Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said that the person who leaked the information to Wikileaks is guilty of treason and should be executed.
Sarah Palin stated on her Facebook page, “He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders?”
Tom Flanagan, senior advisor to the Canadian prime minister, said that he should be assassinated, and that Obama should put out a contract on him “with maybe a drone or something.”
It’s not enough that Assange has an international criminal warrant out for him through Interpol; he should be hunted down and assassinated like al-Qaida and Taliban leaders.
My analysis of what Julian Assange did leads me to a different conclusion.
Who is actually guilty of attacking the international community? Did Julian Assange order the United States military to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, resulting in the deaths of God only knows how many people? Did he destroy the infrastructure of those countries and pollute them with depleted uranium weapons?
With regard to having blood on his hands, did he kill over 5,000 young Americans and wound tens of thousands more? Did he order American diplomats to commit espionage against their host countries? Has he led a campaign to destroy the Bill of Rights by authorizing warrantless searches, denying the right to counsel, and denying the right to Habeas Corpus?
People who have the courage to reveal the truth to the world should be assassinated, but those psychopathic criminals who commit war crimes and then run around the country bragging about it to sell books, along with the central bankers who finance them, should be allowed to live out their lives in palatial luxury?
People who reveal the truth have blood on their hands, but those who commit murder on a mass scale are referred to as the honorable this or that. The lunatics and murderers who run the world from their nice suits – or in some countries, their silly uniforms – are able to degrade, humiliate, and strip us naked every time we fly, monitor all our credit card charges, intercept our e-mails, listen to our phone conversations, and pursue us to the ends of the earth for the fruits of our labor, but they are entitled to remain comfortably under their rocks in private. When a man lifts the corner of one of their rocks, he must die.
I, for one, am glad to see the information released. I understand now that WikiLeaks plans to release information from a large bank, and to that I say go for it, Julian. If you can stand the heat and the consequences, lift every rock in hell and let us see what slithers out. It’s time these international lunatics come to understand that we can not be expected to allow them to plot their evil schemes in private. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I’m sure the reaction to the release will be to restrict access and be even more secretive. I suppose that makes more sense to American leaders than to stop murdering and lying.
Julian Assange is an international criminal according to many, but I would like to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. At least he deserves it more than the president did.
- by Darrell Castle
There is a lot of truth in this article!
The government is desperately trying to put a lid on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. They are blocking WikiLeads and secondary reporting sources from all military, other government computer networks, as well under the claim of national security and threat of pulling contracts demanding government contractors to do the same. They probably have a right to do that, however they go further. They are telling all military, other government employees, and employees of private companies with government contracts that reading WikiLeaks even on their own personal computers constitutes a violation of commitments to protect classified government information. Now that is Hogwash! Commitments to protect classified information extends only to not revealing information residing on secured government forums, and not verifying or otherwise commenting on the validity of such information that may exist in the public realm. There is a big difference between that, and being instructed not to read readily available public information public for this latter amounts to censorship in violation of an individuals private rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Everybody, go ahead and read WikiLeaks!
If they should read wikileaks they might discover the goverenment has been lying to the soldiers . Boys if the goverenment has not been lying to you , it will be the first goverenment that ever told the truth and nothing but the truth in any war that I know of . It is our job to find out the truth as best we can . But our goverenment seems to want to make it as difficult as possible
Bravo! Well said!
Darrell, your article is good, but just please forget about the Nobel Peace Prize. That one is really bad, it is usually given to war criminals, and it is from the same system which wants to kill/jail Julian and destroy Wikileaks.
Any thinking, informed person would have to come to the same conclusion as Darrel Castle. Unfortunately there are few thinking, informed individuals that inhabit the United States.
Oh not true, there are 2 of us, and I’m the other one..
Yay!!!
Hear! Hear!
What should please people even more than the Wikileaks business itself, is the what it tells us about where we are headed regarding the future of transparency. The Iraq war records, the Afghanistan war records, and the State Dept. cable dumps have been massive, and the USG will undoubtedly take steps to prevent future wholesale downloading of confidential records. But individual records and smaller groups of records will still be accessed by persons inside organizations. To the extent that those are persons of conscience, they will still think about the propriety and morality of revealing any documentary evidence they think reveals govt or corporate wrong doing. No doubt some people “inside” operate without conscience, are loyal “company men(or women)”, or are to afraid of the consequences of being found out, to answer any pang of conscious. Others however, will see how Wikileaks made Assange a hero, and will want a piece of that; taste, no matter how private, of that heroism. And they will know, make no mistake, that they can leak the truth in complete safety. Yes, you heard me right: if they are just a little careful, they can heroically reveal the truth to the world with almost no risk of being discovered.
This truth needs to be emphasized, and spread far and wide. Assange might take some heat, and Wikileaks as well, but the leaker can be safe. You might think that Bradley Manning’s predicament contradicts the notion of leaker safety, leaker anonymity, but Manning’s in trouble because he blabbed, and did so to the wrong person.
The realization that leaking can be done safely is all that is needed to unlease a torrent of evidence of wrong doing from the government and corporate sectors. Welcome to the new world of transparency, accountability, and finally honesty and good governance. About time.