As Julian Assange awaits his fate, socked away in maximum security lockdown in Great Britain, his supporters and friends—many of whom believe he is one of the most significant publishers of our time—are vigiling, writing, and speaking out in support of his work and calling for his immediate release.
I have a couple quibbles with Orlov here but even so he gets it right.
Thanks D.B. for bringing the fate of Assange to the *CD* site, there is a dearth of writers about his
violent removal from legal asylum and the importance of his work.
But on this momentous issue Daniel Ellsberg compromises his own valor for protecting the First Amendment by hedging on his support for Julian’s work when he says, “he goes beyond what I would agree with.”
This personal remark should have been kept to himself, not even considering the good, honest
truthfulness WikiLeaks showed in publishing it, and maybe even you might have intervened with
a statement in total support of Assange’s truth telling.
They take countless millions of our tax dollars to create and support a supposed “Security Apparatus” we are told is necessary to “keep us safe” — whatever THAT means to “them,” (whoever THEY really ARE — do we ever get any idea?), and then there is the little matter of “safe from WHOM?” which is also decided from a critically significant point of view we may never be aware of.
Besides, with all that infrastructure out there — that we fund, remember — we are NOT secure. We are not as a nation truly defended.
There seem to be many reasons to call what our nation has officially labelled “our defenders” as a group with a tremendous infra-structure quite unable to even recognize actual security threats to our people, often due to ideological orientation and goals of their leaders, rather than situations of true threats to our nation’s security.
On 911, quite independent of the determination of who was responsible for the event and its consequences, the nation suffered an incident with close to 3,000 deaths. Indeed, this was an invasion of our space and security.The fact that no one was ever tried or punished for such incredible holes in our national defense, is in itself astounding, and brings to question our ability to even DEFiNE “defense.”
Ever since that day, the nation has undergone an intensification of so-called defensive measures such as the universal airport inspections, and many legal restrictions as well, put in place, we are told, to prevent another such attack — thus PROTECTING our population.
THIS … was our response to the events of that day: a bricks-and-mortar physical protection of our nation from people with potential weapons. Not ANY serious examinations or inspections of … the processes and purposes of our defense postures and those policies that apparently FAILED us on 911!
One would think THAT would be elementary. Shouldn’t we deal with that?
But that would mean the Defense Structure … questioning itself: its own procedures, visions, goals and abilities that this nation NEVER discusses publicly nor gets examined by our elected representatives.
SECURITY, DEFENSE OF THE NATION: Big ideas. Profound ones. Expensive ones.
3000 people dead in one event 18 years ago. Terrible. Our defense failed. The nation suffered a tremendous loss. Luckily, it was not worse, and was not repeated. Right? But … what if a preventable incident killed 15,000 people? THAT would be horrible, unthinkable! Right?
Well, … THAT DOES happen — every year, — when health insurance companies fail to serve their own “insured” patients properly! Yes, those deaths are of insured people, not the uninsured.
Is THAT not an attack on our nation’s security?? Should we not be defended from such a situation that kills so many? Is this non like a domestic WAR situation, with all kinds of preventable casualties and some group of responsible forces knowingly creating incredible harm and damage to our families and communities??
So where … WHERE … are our “Security Forces” … WHEN WE NEED THEM??
Is this not a security issue? 15,000 people dead — regularly — from an identifiable cause?
• Is there any reason NOT to doubt that our highly paid “security” apparatus has a poor definition or understanding of the very basics of real security — and that it is WE, the People, who should be making THAT DEFINITION which describes and determines OUR SECURITY ourselves — definitions that THEY — our well-paid employees — must FOLLOW … and not MAKE themselves?
Now, we talk of those very same proven incompetent and prejudiced folks “protecting” the nation from the acts of Julian Assange, whose publishing of other’s words and ideas, we are told, can harm the nation. Oh, yeah? It must NEVER be by their definition of security that we judge the acts of Assange and others who inform the public what is going on on main streets and in the back rooms. The nation itself must determine that definition. They should merely be enforcers of our rules, … if that.
The “security apparatus” functions to keep corporate welfare and corporate profits SECURE and growing at our expense.
Somehow more people have to come to understand this.
No “closing” of “ranks”
Only the cell door
Thanks Po!! I have been reading Orlov (and his books) for years. This article on Assange is a keeper!