link
In the link there is a video and a transcript, here is the transcript (there are some minor errors)
Thank you for restoring my faith in politicians. It is absolutely fitting that this came from a Republican. In many heated arguments with my right wing father, I've always said I'd join him if there were true liberalists on the right, well from here (admittedly, far awayWikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.
But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified do ents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these do ents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret do ents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.
Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.
Questions to consider:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time.) it looks like Paul deserves that le.
ps: i was going to highlight the good bits, but its all good, from his questions at the end to his observations about Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, occupation of the Middle East, neocons and the empire.
Last edited by diego; 12-15-2010 at 07:15 AM.
One of the Ron Paul things I agree with.
I'm absolutely sure that Ron Paul, if he were President, would pursue and prosecute Assange on trumped up charges.
He has the luxury of having positions for which he'll have no power or responsibility to implement.
The Presidency is the captive of the NatSec and MIC bureaucracies, which are both above the law.
otoh, Rand Paul is bat crazy.
Frp
fantasy role-playing?
functional refractory period?
He may be a republican, but that label doesn't suit him right. He is a conservative libertarian like myself.
I agree that some of this shouldn't be classified, but there are some things that at lease should have been kept private between state department officials. Our government moves like a snail to declassify anything that should be, but that's no excuse to do this.One of the Ron Paul things I agree with.
I'm absolutely sure that Ron Paul, if he were President, would pursue and prosecute Assange on trumped up charges.
He has the luxury of having positions for which he'll have no power or responsibility to implement.
The Presidency is the captive of the NatSec and MIC bureaucracies, which are both above the law.
otoh, Rand Paul is bat crazy.
Repug govt, eg heard, moved like lightening to reclassify millions of Presidential do ents going back 30 years that had been in the open.
Obama could fight government secrecy like he promised. Or he could continue to extend it in ways even his predecessor lacked the brazenness to declare. I guess we'll see.
Nice questions from Ron Paul. More and more I'm regretting not voting for him, even if he would've probably tried to push the gold standard so hard that it enfeebled the rest of his presidency. (And his silly idea that atheists are trying to get rid of Christmas didn't warm me over
Politics itself is significantly silly, but yeah. I thought so too.
Yep, I could really respect the man if he didn't a a few silly notions.Nice questions from Ron Paul. More and more I'm regretting not voting for him, even if he would've probably tried to push the gold standard so hard that it enfeebled the rest of his presidency. (And his silly idea that atheists are trying to get rid of Christmas didn't warm me over
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
