Vinayak sen is no assange why then govt is hostile to both fw

Julian Abbott sat alone in the tea-room at the old and famous Brown’s Hotel in London. The weather outside was unusually miserable for early December with forecasts of worse to come. Tall, athletically-built, and showing the first hint of grey hair, he sipped Scottish Breakfast Tea colored tan by a bit of skimmed milk. Julian was the only Black in the room.

Born on the South Side of Chicago, Julian had battled his peers’ self-defeating pursuit of ignorance and rage . . . a pursuit always overt, often violent. Despite the dreadfully low level of education provided by the municipal government, he had managed to gain a basic, intellectual foundation by studying under the guidance of an elderly aunt who had been a teacher in the segregated South. Graduating high school and achieving respectable scores on his examinations for college-entrance, he had received a scholarship to Northwestern University under its program for “Affirmative Action” for “disadvantaged minorities”. Although he felt demeaned by the offer, he accepted it.

During the following four years, he proved himself more than adequate to the academic challenge while many of his fellow, black students accepted under the same program quit despite special, remedial tutoring. A system intended to help them become all that they were capable of being and, thereby, to challenge the world for the better had the consequence of impeding their ever doing so.

Following his B.A. in History, he gained his M.B.A. from the same institution. During his final year, he was deluged with offers for employment by some of the largest and most prestigious firms in the country while many of his white classmates, a few with even better grades, went begging. Again, feeling demeaned, he, nevertheless, accepted an offer from a relatively small firm that seemed to value him more for his skills than his race. He believed in himself and in his own and others’ capabilities as individuals to support the good and to challenge the bad in the world.

Having successfully completed his latest assignment, he had decided to take a few days of personal leave to enjoy London; meteorologically, an unwise decision. As he sat sipping tea while snowflakes swirled outside, he read articles about the latest consequence of Tim Berners-Lee’s having launched the World Wide Web in the 1990′s . . . this time, the uproar caused by one Julian Assange and his website, WikiLeaks.

“So, what do you think?” asked a raspy, male voice with an American accent from the table behind him.

Julian turned to see a man of late middle-age, pink-faced, balding, and bloated. The man seemed more suited to a pub than a tea-room.

Julian replied, “What do I think? A sign of our not-so-brave, new world.”

“Mind if I join you?” the man asked, already on his way.

At the time, Mr. Assange, a citizen of Australia, already had been interrogated by authorities in Sweden under its bizarre laws regarding rape then released and allowed to leave the country for the United Kingdom. Later, in a curious twist of legal position, the same authorities requested Her Majesty’s government to hold Mr. Assange for the same alleged crimes of which they previously had absolved him and to extradite him for trial. He would face several years in a Swedish prison.

Mr. Assange had fought the extradition and, after several days in jail, had been released on what some regarded as an excessive bond. An international clamor of protests arose against Sweden, vilifying it as a political pawn of the United States. Indeed, the USA did make itself appear to be manipulating the international, legal system to achieve political ends; a gambit of which it had been accused many times before Assange and would be again immediately afterwards . . . this time in Switzerland.(1)

In this context and while seating himself, Julian’s uninvited guest exploded, “I’ll tell you what I think. I agree with Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, and National Review.(2) I think we should bring the bastard here, give him a fair trial, then string him up by his ‘cajones’.”

“He already is here.”

“Huh?”

“He’s already in England . . . as are we.”

“Aw, Hell, you know what I mean. Bring him to the United States then give him what he deserves.”

“Which is?” Julian asked.

“To be executed . . . that’s what. Yeah, I know. We can’t do it, but we should. Show the world what we do to traitors.”

“I’m a bit confused. He’s a citizen of Australia. How can he be a traitor to America?”

“Huh? Oh, that’s just a legal technicality. We’ve got to show this anarchist and others just like him that America means business.”

“Haven’t we been doing that in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan . . . just to mention a few places?”

The man’s twisted countenance shouted anger. “What are you . . . a leftie? I should’ve guessed.”

“Guessed? How?”

“Well, just by looking at you. Your people are all lefties as far as I can tell.”

“You mean my people such as Thomas Sowell?”

“Who’s he?”

“A scholar at Stanford and a syndicated columnist. Quite conservative, actually . . . in spite of being one of . . . my people.”

With beads of sweat popping onto his forehead despite the cool temperature, the man replied, “Yeah, well . . . maybe, I misspoke.”

“Maybe, you did. Forget it. More importantly, we’re both Americans. It’s obvious that you’re proud of our country and want to defend her best interests. I do, too. Because I’m a Negro doesn’t mean I’d go down to Cuba to pal around with Fidel and his cabal of Communistic cutthroats as have some other of . . . my people.”

“I thought that we’re not supposed to use the ‘N-word’.”

“Perhaps not, if you’re PC. How about the ‘C-word’?”

“Huh?”

“The ‘C-word’. You know, Caucasian.”

“Oh, I get what you mean. Say, you’re alright.”

“Thank you. Let’s examine this current flap about Assange. Remember, regarding his disclosures, he and many others claim that he did nothing illegal. Even the Australian government agrees with them. So, did he lie? Did he blackmail, extort, or commit fraud?”

“Well, no . . . not that I know of.”

“What, then, is his alleged crime?”

The man sat silently before replying weakly, “Sedition?”

“Under what law?”

“I’m not sure.”

“You’re probably referring to the controversial Espionage Act of 1917 amended in 1918. It was enacted during a declared state of war . . . declared constitutionally by the Congress. Congress hasn’t issued a declaration of war since 1941. Even the current US Code about gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information refers explicitly to it being in time of war or in case of national emergency . . . neither of which exist constitutionally.”(3)

“Yeah, well, after ‘9-11’, the politicians passed a resolution.”

“I’ve read the Constitution of the United States of America more than a few times. Whereas it may give the Presidency military power in the context of a military emergency, it clearly implies that he’s to seek congressional approval via a declaration of war within a reasonable and appropriate period of time. There’s no mention of ‘resolutions of war’.”

“Even so, American men and women in the military are being killed.”

“Sadly. No patriotic American wants to see his fellow Americans killed or wounded in combat. The question arises, however, are our troops there constitutionally? Where’s a declaration of war by Congress pursuant to the Constitution?”

Julian continued, “You know, I always thought that it would require a peculiar set of circumstances for me to agree with Michael Moore and his ilk politically. Well, this situation just may represent that set of circumstances. Don’t you think Moore can make a case that Julian Assange, whatever his reasons, might have done the world a favor? Hasn’t Assange shown that the power of the individual . . . of one man or woman . . . still exists to change the world while acting within generally accepted legal and ethical boundaries? The professional politicians may fear organizations less than they fear individuals . . . the so-called loose canons . . . whom they can’t control with money or favors. Couldn’t Assange be one of them?”

“Maybe . . . maybe not. Still, what about the people whose lives he’s endangered?”

“Isn’t that the chance they took . . . whatever their reasons?”

“Even so, shouldn’t we, the United States, be protecting them by whatever means necessary?”

“Means that include violating the civil rights of our own citizens and concocting schemes of questionable legality against foreign nationals who may not have violated any applicable laws? How far should our protection go? I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said that to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous . . . to be a friend is fatal. The United States failed to safeguard the information that Assange published. Does the fault lie more with Assange or with us?”

“Fault or no fault, he didn’t have the right to do what he did.”

“What did he do? Throw the light of truth on the often dark, self-serving evasions labeled ‘Secret’ by governmental officials . . . not just in the United States but around the world? Keep in mind, in doing so, he went to some lengths to shield those whose lives, otherwise, actually might have been jeopardized. Ask yourself, Do the desirable consequences of his actions outweigh the undesirable ones?”

“I . . . I don’t know. What I do know is that the undesirable ones have hurt us.”

“Unfortunately, they may have. Look, I’m probably more conservative politically, economically, and socially than even you. This government of ours, especially since George W., has been on a tirade, destroying the civil liberties of the individual in the name of protecting the nation. Well, I’m all for protecting the nation but the right way not the wrong way. The question is, Has what the federal government done since ‘9-11’ . . . and long before . . . violated the Constitution, violated American Tradition, and been just plain wrong? Has the government been destroying constitutionally-based, individual privacy and rights in the name of a failed ‘War on Drugs’ or an ill-defined ‘War Against Terrorism’? Meanwhile, has it been building a wall of secrecy around everything it itself does? Is Julian Assange’s alleged crime simply that he poked a hole in that wall? Can’t a case be made that Assange has done us all a great good in challenging an expanding tyranny by a group of governments, most labeling themselves ‘democratic’ . . . all cooperating to increase economic and political control over their respective citizenries?”

Again, the man sat silently. Eventually, he replied, “Okay, for the sake of discussion, assume the good that Assange did outweighs the bad . . . which I’m not saying I believe. How should we change things?”

“You asked the right question. The solution is not The What or The Who but The How. The How implies using science . . . specifically, scientific methodology . . . to solve our problems. We need to capitalize on Assange’s challenge, right or wrong, by analyzing scientifically what we Americans are doing then by correcting scientifically our mistakes. It’s not that complicated (www.inescapableconsequences.com).”

“Science? Sounds okay, but I doubt that many people will know what you’re talking about . . . complicated or not.”

“You’re right, and therein lies a great misfortune. The consequence of people’s deficit in learning about the scientific principles that govern their own behavior likely will be the end of us . . . as a species. Think about Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.”

“Jesus, man, you’re going to scare people, including me.”

“Better scared and learning than ignorant and dying.”

The man contemplated the message. As Julian rose to leave, the man asked, “What’s your name, Stranger?”

“I’m tempted to say, ‘The Lone Ranger’.”

“May I suggest Don Quixote?”

note i have not uttered a word about dr sen

why simply change one for the other

any logic?