I’ve always occupied the emotional frequencies ranging between disgusted and outraged when it comes to WikiLeaks. Regardless of your stance on governments and sovereign interference, putting the lives of human beings at risk by exposing their participation in intelligence programs is aiding and abetting in murder. The psychotic fundamentalists that perpetuate the bulk of the violent crimes on its own and foreign citizens need not be encouraged by the provision of a list of fresh targets by idealistic or simply amoral grandstanders desperate for attention.
Swathed in the self-assigned robes of righteous guardian and revealer of truths, WikiLeaks braves incarceration threats, smear campaigns (Swedish investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on sexual abuse charges), and direct attacks on its I.T. infrastructure by intelligence agencies tasked with sabotaging the WikiLeaks site accessibility and functionality.
However, now somewhat consumed with the audacity of WikiLeaks, I’ve embarked on a part time mission to understand and assess whether in fact WikiLeaks is essentially misanthropic or altruistic in nature. My conclusion, after much research, is the latter.
In fact, anyone who spends any amount of time going over the information that has been brought to light by WikiLeaks is incapable of objectively concluding that there has been anything released at all the would constitute a direct threat to any individual’s security. The only security being compromised is that surrounding various governments’ attempts to gain advantage through covert activities against one another.
The bottom line is the WikiLeaks web site is ground zero for a re-emergent function of the free press, wherein public pressure is applied to entities like the United States who act unethically and immorally to destabilize governments, instigate revolt and sew discontent in populations where it regards regime change, or other significant political outcomes, to its advantage.
By exposing the extent of the unilateral actions of the United States in flagrant disregard for human life or sovereign autonomy, it makes it much more difficult for American covert agencies like the CIA to operate and receive funding, as the exposed information increases public outrage over such tactics.
The government of the United States and its allies are now engaged in a broad based campaign to restrict the international travel of Julian Assange and paint him as a traitor. But the question as to who is traitor must be asked in light of the arbitrary murder and assassinations that come to light in the revelations of the WikiLeaked information.
Hawks decry the release of classified information insisting that covert operations are crucial to the success of American military efforts to protect freedom and democracy. But if my freedom and democratic process must come at the cost of millions of lives of innocents in other countries, then thanks, but no thanks. To undertake murder on grand scale and shroud it in the mantle of the fight for freedom is the and always has been the essence of fascism. If anything, I’ve learned that WikiLeaks is a great source of education for just how deeply a fascist imperative dominates U.S. politics these days.
Now comes the news that Assange and WikiLeaks plan to reveal ‘flagrant violations’ at a major U.S. bank.
Whether ‘flagrant violations” amounts to fraud remains to be seen, according to Assange.
“It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume,” he told Forbes.
I can’t think of a more welcome development, in the context of the public interest, than the existence of a safe and secure anonymous ‘electronic drop box’ as WikiLeaks classifies its system, to accommodate whistleblowers who want to expose transgressions by leaders in both government and commerce.
Take, for example, the decade-plus long efforts by the Gold Anti-trust Action Committee, whose core premise is that the prices of gold and silver have long been subject to manipulation both to provide an unfair profit advantage to certain financially institutions, but also to influence the perception of citizens at large as to the health of the U.S. Dollar and the American economy.
Growing evidence and opinion supports the idea that illegal and unethical manipulation of gold, silver, and who knows what other markets has long existed. Even CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton has opined that, “There have been fraudulent efforts to persuade and deviously control that price,” he said in reference the silver futures market.
What has long been absent, is abundant document evidence from within the banks who are allegedly behind the price manipulation schemes. Imagine how much easier the efforts of GATA Chairman William Murphy and CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler would be if such documents were available from a source such as WikiLeaks?
One can certainly make arguments that the severity of market bubble implosions like the tech market in 2001 and real estate in 2008 are partially exacerbated by such manipulations, in that they provide an apparent foundation to support the issuance of more currency and lower interest rates to fuel leveraged speculation.
If these illegal and unethical practices can be unequivocally exposed, and thus stopped, there is no doubt that a more secure and equitable global financial system would be the result.
Gold and silver are important barometers in a financial world dominated by fiat currencies backed by nothing physical. There unfettered ability to trade freely is in the international interest, not just the national interest. Those eventually discovered to be guilty of such manipulation should be charged and tried for treason, with the appropriate sentences fully applied.
But, unfortunately for Julian Assange, it is WikiLeaks credibility that is being called into question.
As an Australian national, pressure is being applied to the Australian government by the U.S. government to find a way to convict Assange of espionage.
U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder confirmed that an investigation run jointly by the Justice Department and the Pentagon was underway.
”This is not sabre-rattling,” Mr Holder said. ”To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law … they will be held responsible. They will be held accountable. To the extent there are gaps in our laws, we will move to close those gaps.”
If only such indignant scrutiny was directed at the U.S. government and its financial services industry. We might finally, after hundreds of years, end the search for responsible government.
