Mountain Views News          Saturday, December 4, 2010

10

LEFT TURN / RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, December 4, 2010 

Failure Of Will

GREG Welborn

HOWARD Hays 

As I See It


WikiLeaks is not a news organization. It is nothing 
more than a glossed up terrorist organization, and it is 
very efficient in what it does. Its reason for existence 
is to obtain as much damaging classified information 
from the United States and its allies and to release 
that data in the most harmful manner and timing 
possible. WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, boasts 
about exposing more classified information than all 
the rest of the world press combined. He told the New 
Yorker magazine that he is fully aware that innocent 
people will die because of his disclosures and simply 
wrote them off as “collateral damage”. All that having 
been said, I am not as angry at Julian Assange as I 
am at the current administration. WikiLeaks exists 
and prospers at our expense because we lack the will 
to stop it. 

Before explaining why I’ve laid the blame at our 
own doorstep, let’s first explore briefly the severity 
of the damage done. After all, if WikiLeaks actions 
were on a par with, let’s say, leaking secrets about 
Baskin Robbins’ new 32nd ice cream flavor then my 
complaints wouldn’t be worth the space consumed 
in this newspaper. 

In WikiLeaks first document release, a major 
London newspaper determined that at least 100 
Afghan informants were identified by name, village 
and family membership. None of us should have 
any illusions as to their fate at this point. A Taliban 
spokesman said that the group will “punish” those 
informers. Punishment by the Taliban is not a fine 
or extra hours of community service at the local 
mosque. It is torture and death. The most recent 
release of information by WikiLeaks has deeply 
embarrassed diplomats the world over. Ignoring the 
bruised egos of western political leaders, consider 
the significant damage done to the leaders in the 
Middle East who have been willing to help us combat 
terrorism and stop Iran from going nuclear.

Perhaps it is easy to misunderstand the significance 
of Yemen’s leaders in helping thwart Al Qaeda or the 
leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in pleading with 
the U.S. and Israel to take out the Iranian nuclear 
plants. After all, we live in America where political 
murders are few and far between. We can thank God 
for that, but more often we simply take it for granted. 
Not so in the Middle East. Leaders in Middle Eastern 
Islamic nations take a real and high-probability risk of 
assassination when they conspire against the rogues 
of Al Qaeda and Iran. Whether that happens next 
week, next year or several after that, let’s not delude 
ourselves into thinking that these leaders won’t think 
twice about helping us in the future. And that will 
have very real and deadly consequences on the 
ground. Whether it will cost more American lives 
in some future military operation or will result in 
another successful terrorist strike in the west because 
of intelligence that wasn’t provided, the root cause 
will be these WikiLeaks disclosures. Actions have 
real consequences, and these are likely to be deadly.

As to the blame, there is plenty to be heaped on 
to the shoulders of Julian Assange. But that doesn’t 
really get us anywhere, anymore than heaping blame 
on Al Qaeda gets us anywhere. We already know 
what their goals are and that they are willing to act 
on those goals. The point here is that unlike what 
we’re doing on the Al Qaeda front, we’re really not 
trying very hard to stop WikiLeaks. I don’t know 
why that is so; I won’t postulate as to whether this 
administration is so caught up in their leftist rhetoric 
about “freedom of the press” or whether some secretly 
want to see the U.S.’s ability as 
a superpower compromised. 
The fact remains that we could 
stop WikiLeaks fairly easily if 
we really had the will to do so.

The data that WikiLeaks 
obtained wasn’t hacked. Most 
private data that makes its 
way out into the public isn’t 
hacked; it’s leaked. The difference is important. We 
all want to know that the computer systems of our 
bank and our government are secure from outside 
tampering, and for the most part they are. But we 
have to acknowledge that real people work in these 
institutions, and some of those people have to be 
given access to the data. That is where the real danger 
is, but that is where the real solution lies as well.

Real people, like Private First Class Bradley 
Manning, who is credited with taking all these 
government documents and giving them to 
WikiLeaks, are the ones who compromise our 
privacy and security when they decide that their own 
narcissistic or greedy impulses are more important 
than our safety. Make no mistake about this; they, 
like all criminals, make some sort of calculation 
about the potential benefit (even if just psychological 
or ideological) and the potential cost (slap on the 
hand or firing squad). Bear with me here as I borrow 
an extreme example to make appoint. The New York 
Times’ Thomas Friedman asked, “what if China had 
a WikiLeaker?” His answer: they’d execute him.

I’m not advocating the extrajudicial execution 
of Julian Assange or anyone else for that matter. I 
am questioning why we and our allies haven’t done 
lots more to stop this terrorist. Julian Assange is an 
Australian citizen; his company resides in Iceland; 
and his actions have severely hurt the U.S. and 
Israel (that’s just the short list by the way). All these 
countries have espionage and anti-terrorist laws. If 
we were serious about stopping leaks of damaging 
information like this, PFC Bradley Manning would 
already be convicted and sentenced to prison or 
judicially executed, and Julian Assange would face 
arrest warrants issued by at least 3 countries. More 
than likely, he would have already been picked up 
by the CIA, the Mossad or the ASIA, the Australian 
intelligence service. In short, we could easily have 
demonstrated that the “cost” of leaking this sort of 
classified information is so high as to, shall we say, 
discourage others from leaking. Firing Squads do 
have their purpose.

C.S. Lewis once commented on a similar 
problem in his home country, England, by noting 
that people disparaged loyalty and then were 
shocked to find traitors in their midst. Here in the 
states we need look no further than The New York 
Times’ reaction. When the Times can say that 
leaking these documents “serves an important 
public interest”, we really can’t be surprised to 
find traitors in our midst. There will always be 
Julian Assanges, Bradley Mannings and Benedict 
Arnolds. Whether we tolerate them or not is a 
question of our will. Do we wish to preserve the 
republic or not? 

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a 
freelance writer and has spoken to several civic and 
religious organizations on cultural and moral issues. 
He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. He can be 
reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net.

 I couldn't decide which topic 
to write about this week, there 
were so many. First, there's 
the return to Washington of the 
newly-emboldened party of "Just 
Say No".

Republicans say "no" to the repeal of "Don't Ask 
Don't Tell". They might be waiting to see what 
excuse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) comes up with 
now to justify further delay. For over a year, Sen. 
McCain said he'd wait to see what position the 
military itself takes on the issue. Now the report's 
out and the recommendation from the Pentagon 
is to go ahead with the change, so Senate staffers 
will have to come up with some new rationale for 
continued bigotry.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint 
Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen advise it 
would be better to have it done through an act 
of Congress rather than an order from a court. 
Regarding threats to "unit cohesion" should gays 
and lesbians serve, the response from those in 
uniform is they already do, everyone knows it, 
and units nonetheless remain nicely cohesive, 
thank you. It's reassuring that those serving in 
the military appear to be reasonably well-adjusted 
grown-ups, which is more than can be said for 
many of those serving in Congress.

Republicans say "no" to the DREAM Act, which 
would provide a pathway for those obtaining a 
college education and/or serving in our military 
to fulfill their dream of contributing to our nation 
as citizens. The concern here is not so much 
taking jobs away from current citizens, but rather 
that talk of decent wages and working conditions 
might become more prevalent without the threat 
of deportation hanging over the workplace.

Republicans say "no" to the START Treaty. 
More specifically, Republican members of the 
Senate do, since both Republicans and Democrats, 
leaders of State and Defense Departments going 
back to the Nixon Administration, through 
Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton, have 
testified the treaty is vital to our nation's security; 
not only for the reduction of weapons levels but 
for the safeguarding of nuclear stockpiles and 
non-proliferation.

There might be room for negotiation on this 
issue, though. Republicans have signaled a 
willingness to address Democrats' fear of nuclear 
weapons falling into the hands of terrorists if 
Democrats are willing to address Republicans' fear 
of gays serving openly in the military. (Vladimir 
Putin has it right on this one: rejection of the 
START Treaty would be "very dumb".)

Republicans say "no" to extension of 
unemployment benefits. I don't think it's simply 
to deny 2 million unemployed Americans, in 
an economy with five job seekers for every job 
opening, those $300 weekly checks right before 
Christmas (assuming there's been any thought 
given at all to the effect on peoples' lives). Rather, 
Republicans might fear the impact it could have 
on the economy as a whole.

Unemployment benefits offer the greatest 
"bang for the buck" of any available stimulus, 
with funds going immediately to a landlord, local 
grocer, shoe store or electric bill, rather than 
socked away in a Cayman Islands tax shelter. 
(Yes, unemployment checks are taxable income 
- a legacy of Reaganomics.) Republicans are 
aware their gains in the last election resulted 
from a lousy economy and high unemployment, 
so they figure the worse it remains, and the more 
desperate the electorate, the better chance they'll 
have for building on those gains and winning 
the White House in November of 2012. They're 
confident that by then nobody will remember 
whatever actions they took in December of 2010 
to make sure the nation continues to suffer as 
President Obama seeks re-election.

The one thing Republicans say "yes" to, and in 
fact suggest they might be willing to bend on every 
other issue if they get their way, is to maintain 
those tax cuts for the richest 2% of us (otherwise 
known as the Republican "base"). They insist on 
taking us $700 billion further into debt to pay for 
keeping the top marginal tax rate at around 36%, 
rather than allowing it to rise three points to 39% 
- where it was under Clinton.

During those years of the Clinton 
Administration, the very wealthy did very well. 
The problem, though, is that most everyone 
else did, too. Enormous wealth was created in 
a booming economy, but the already rich didn't 
get all of it. This was addressed during the Bush 
years, when these soon-to-expire tax cuts and 
other policies led to the greatest redistribution 
and concentration of wealth since the 1920's (and 
then to the economic meltdown of Fall 2008).

Troubling notions appeared with President 
Obama and a Democratic Congress, such as that 
taxpayers who foot the bill should share in the 
benefits of recovery, and that the TARP bailout 
under Bush and the stimulus package under 
Obama were not meant to provide for multi-
million dollar bonuses and business as usual on 
Wall Street. Republicans must now fulfill their 
charge to block any moves encouraging shared 
prosperity and reviving a strong middle class, and 
to focus instead on maintaining the redistribution 
of wealth accelerated under Bush - even if it 
means shutting down government to do so. It is, 
after all, what those who bought them their seats 
in Congress expect them to do.

I also considered writing this week on the 
shocking new WikiLeaks revelation that State 
Department personnel spread gossip about 
foreign dignitaries. I especially wanted to 
conduct further research on the Ukrainian "nurse" 
who accompanies Libyan dictator Muammar 
Gaddafi (described in leaked communications as 
a "voluptuous blond").

WikiLeaks first gained prominence with 
earlier revelations of military activities in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Now, it's these diplomatic 
exchanges lifted off a Defense Dept network by 
a 23-year-old Private using CDs and memory 
sticks. Nothing, however, has brought the 
intensity of calls for prosecution and the founder's 
execution for treason (yes, literally - and no 
matter he's not an American) than reports that 
next will be confidential communications from 
Bank of America.

BofA shares dropped 3% upon the 
announcement. Stay tuned - this oughta be 
good. 


The Holidays Are Almost Here!

Advertise in the Mountain Views News!

626-818-2698 or 626-355-2737