One Month in Belmarsh: 29th Vigil for Julian Assange

Here’s an argument against the “traitor” charge you assert here with no discussion. It’s somewhat long and similar to a high school lesson. I hope you and all those calling Assange a “traitor” will consider it.

This argument is also based on an ideal system of democracy versus an authoritarian style which rejects criticism and seeks to distract and placate its citizens with brainwashing.

It rejects the idea that “freedom” primarily means materialism and narcissistic self-pleasuring plus obedience to The State, and is closer to Camus’ idea that “freedom is a burden.”

~~

First, it should be noted that “love of America” can be claimed by both sides of the conflict, not just those angry over release of classified materials.

At an extreme of being angry one could defend any exposure of wrongdoing by officials of America, including by its military services, as service to America, and love of America no matter what.

This is the meaning of “my country, right or wrong.”

Either way “love of country” is a beautiful allegiance. Entirely opposed viewpoints can claim to love it, and to being patriots.

But a problem exists if it is possible America’s government could fall into the wrong hands, or into the hands of those no longer loyal to essential ideals and principles in the nation’s backbone, as with its aspiration to belong to the people, in a democracy.

Therefore, going further into the discussion, both sides of the conflict may claim a right to “love America” and to “defend it”—even with dire disagreement.

It is also possible that a government representative may pretend to love America while engaged in betraying it. This notion, in fact, was (is?) a central suspicion relevant to the recent Trump collusion conspiracy idea.

To reduce emotionalizing, discussion of what is best for America must be founded on facts and principles consistent with its Constitution and its ideals of a representative democracy.

It should not be founded on distaste for personalities involved, on rumors, ad hominem attacks, on false narratives, and on false flags.

Now, the case for requiring espionage laws must rest on the belief that a) it is wrong to disclose information damaging to a military’s capacity to defend the nation.

Further, that defense must pertain b) to a just cause (as with national defense), and c) use methodologies consistent with that just cause, within the boundaries of what type of defense is allowed.

It may not allow, for example, capturing an enemy village of civilians, the torturing of village children as an intimidation tactic to the elders of that village.

Or for that same village, bayoneting all toddlers and infants as another way of intimidating the enemy, as was the method of troops under Henry V a few centuries ago.

In terms of “rules of war” (if there are any) for a nation priding itself on decency, civility, and democracy, plus making efforts to be at peace with other countries, there may be certain conditions considered so abhorent (as above) that they belong only to the more savage and uncivilized world nations, such as those of our enemies.

~~

In order to probe these foundations under “espionage” more thoroughly, an analogy may be helpful. No analogy is adequate, only approximate, and not a proof. But an analogy can help to elucidate underlying principles.

Back to love of one’s country, the flag, and “America, right or wrong.”

Suppose a person discovers that his/her mother has been engaging in suspect activity, in fact, increasingly clear as criminal activity.

Of course the person’s love and loyalty to his/her mother is paramount and the first impulse is to reject, deny, disbelieve, protect.

But if the mother’s behavior becomes ever more clear as a threat to law, to neighbors, to one’s children, to one’s self, to surrounding communities, the question now becomes what to do.

To continue to wrap one’s arms around mother, or the flag, while denying any possibility of wrongdoing, while that wrongdoing is in plain sight, is to avoid making any response whatever.

The harm meanwhile may continue or worsen, while one looks the other way, or pretends not to notice.

The dilemma is exceedingly harmful and traumatic. Turn in one’s mother? It seems, a priori, not possible to do this.

This analogy I believe is parallel to what lies behind “America right or wrong.”

But it also lies behind Chelsea-Bradley Manning’s action that led to disclosing various classified information to wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Information on what was disclosed is available. Note that what has been disclosed does not bear on why the entry into the Iraq War in the first place, its justifications, and its pretenses.

Instead the first significant leak bears on conduct of the war in the face of justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which we now know were based on false information, and which possibly had been used to mislead the public.

Conclusion:

In contrast to seeing the actions of Manning and Assange as “espionage” or “treason,” it can be argued they are actions of loyalty and patriotism, an idealism in the highest degree.

It can further be argued that for each citizen of a supposed representative democracy, there is one duty which must be observed, and which should be actively taught to children.

That is, continually evaluating and promoting government officials in terms of those who uphold the country’s integrity and honor.

Each citizen in a representative democracy has a right to know—particularly in terms of information that assists evaluating government policies, programs, and justifications for its actions.

If we as citizens forego the duty of keeping an eye on those who purport to rule over us, we are allowing the possibility for rogue elements to enter governance and take it over.

And if that could happen, these rogue elements are likely to play on and advance citizen ignorance, particularly those who have stopped paying attention because the task is too boring or tedious or interfering with a shopping trip.

A citizen watch-dog acuity is what we need to foster, not destroy, so that we might not be taken over by a predatory group with enormous brainwashing power.

The Manning-Assange collaboration was not a betrayal (as with “traitor”); it was an act of duty to conscience, to an interpretation of wrongdoing on the part of the US Government, and to a duty to reveal it.

Manning and Assange have a right, every much as anyone else, to be considered loyal to convictions of right/wrong, indeed as “heroes,” not “traitors.”

A major question is: to what authority should one’s allegiance be given?

Take the “collateral murder video.” Should that information be kept hidden/”classified”/ignored/brushed under the carpet?

If there is wrongful conspiracy to wage a collusion accusation and campaign against an elected leader, should that be kept quiet?

If YES this particular authority would seem to prescribe blind obedience to an authoritarian state governed by a select group, and no matter what it does should be ignored/obeyed.

If NO there is another authority, sometimes called a “higher authority,” which is determined by values of what is right/decent/civilized/prescribed by international law.

This higher authority is founded in principles–not in loyalty to human beings subject to corruption and lust for power.

Assange and Manning have responded to this higher authority.

Let’s argue further—unless all you want to do is name-calling.

I also read about the psychotropic drugs based on my readings for the past 10 years A lot of it or CIA strategy and methodology from former officials in the US government I’d like to know I could see them giving him psychotropic drugs because he’s very agitated, those who are his overseers.
last evening I saw a YouTube report called counterintelligence a lot of until officials were interviewed there was some video and so based on that and as I mentioned 10 years worth of we are mildly researching the CIA and their methodology I would say that certainly is possible. In his case they want to get into his head or destroy his memory because he has a tremendous amount of information he has been mistreated dehumanized and no one has been able to really help him including his lawyers.
To YouTube heading is counterintelligence IV.
It is fourth in the series.

The report is written by Karen Kwiatkowski, 2018 Sam Adams winner.

https://opensociet.org/2019/05/09/us-and-uk-governments-feed-julian-assange-drugs-to-induce-psychotic-episodes/

hetro good response. I especially appreciate you picking up on the conversation so that it might be discussed further on this other platform making it multimedia.

It’s incredibly important to understand that back in the sixties our government was Actively operating Against what would become largely unacceptable positions with regard to foreign policy. But (most importantly) it was a hostile and illegal government from November, 1963 forward. Understanding this is crucial for realizing that from that point on, the government was Working actively Against Democracy so that now we are faced with something akin to total fiction. Yes, the contemporary media is a non-participant in the truth but it has had fifty years to mature into near complete distraction. We’re left with this small but important glimmer of hope here at CN… I know you know this, but I thought it necessary to make a point. Thank you.

Make your case. Based on what?

Thank you for the adress. I will spread it and write. Imagine tons of letters arriving at Belmarsh Prison!