Memo to the CIA:
I know that ever since President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11905, you have been legally barred from whacking bad guys. And ex-worst-President-in-history Jimmy Carter managed to find time to sign Executive Order 12036, which actually barred you from not only whacking bad guys, but even giving them wedgies.
However, “targeted killings” are an entirely different matter. During the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton began a policy of direct action against those who represented a clear and present danger to the safety and security of American citizens. Clinton was trying to act against al-Qaida — and headlines about Monica Lewinsky’s wardrobe — but the goal was clear:
Self-defense is entirely justifiable.
So call the elimination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a “targeted killing.” Hell, call it a “vacation to EuroDisney.” Assange’s web-based monument to his own vanity is as clear a case of deliberate endangerment of American security as exists without an explosive-laden vest.
Assange’s WikiLeaks project has released hundreds of thousands of classified documents relating to delicate American diplomatic efforts to deal with intransigent and occasionally hostile regimes. WikiLeaks has also revealed information which either specifically identifies individual allies in the war on terrorism, or offered enough about some of these valuable human assets to have piqued the curiosity of some of the most dedicated enemies of freedom on the planet.
Even the redoubtably liberal The New York Times, which proudly printed the Pentagon Papers, has redacted sections of WikiLeaks releases in order to protect people from likely retaliation. In Sunday’s edition of The Times, the editorial board offered an explanation of their decision to publish some of the WikiLeaks material:
“The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security.”
Only the most pathologically dishonest among us would suggest that The Times could list farther to port without capsizing. As for those of us Outside the Asylum, it’s fairly astounding to imagine the same paper, which years ago sacrificed journalistic integrity on the pyre of liberal hypocrisy, would have enough conscience to back off — slightly — from the War on Terror version of publishing the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the witnesses in a mafia trial.
Even the White House is aghast at the possibility that valuable diplomatic relations, much less individual lives, may be destroyed as a result of Assange’s grab at the brass ring of infamy.
“By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.”
Put aside the air of permissiveness fostered by a Barack Obama Administration which has been guided by racism, hypocrisy and unequalled ineptitude, and focus on the fact that even the first truly socialist President has removed Assange from his Kwanzaa card list.
In the course of researching this piece I was surprised to discover sizeable opposition to WikiLeaks, even at the tinfoil hat brigadier website DailyKos.com. Given that the owner of Daily Kos once celebrated the murder of four Americans by Islamofacist terrorists, the idea that some of the inmates in that particular asylum are cognizant of the extreme danger posed by WikiLeaks is nothing short of remarkable. According to one Daily Kos poster:
“People who celebrate these leaks are like people dancing on the warhead of a nuclear missile.”
Keep in mind, Daily Kos maintains a policy of deleting posts which its members find contrary. (They call it “hiding.” People with IQ’s higher than broccoli call that “bull.” We don’t do that here at Personal Liberty Digest.) The bigger picture: About the only Americans who support WikiLeaks are likely traitor Bradley Manning (who’s enjoying the hospitality of Marine Corps Detention Center Quantico) and Ward Churchill.
Assange is living the life of a celebrity. In the meantime, lives may be lost. Reports from outlets including London’s Sunday Times acknowledge that WikiLeaks’ war diaries are regularly studied by Islamofascists for details about potential enemies. They are not looking for hints on Ramadan gifts.
Assange will continue to publish every scrap he can find. His sources remain mostly anonymous, a courtesy he does not extend to the potential victims of his hubris.
“…if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives we would publish all of the archives because it’s extremely important to the history of this war.”
Again — Ben to Langley: Squash this Assange bug — and his collaborators. You have more than your own reputation on the line here.