Targeted for Termination: Wikileaks and Julian

In an age where the flow of information is more powerful and fluid than ever, there must be vanguards against those who would attempt to stifle and pollute these currents, whether the powers that be like or not. The unfortunate reality for these protectors is that they are on the receiving ends of character assassination attempts, campaigns of disinformation, and plots that ultimately undermine their credibility. How unlikely is it that Julian Assange, a man who in a few short years has punctured numerous holes in the United States' veil of secrecy surrounding illegal military operations overseas and at home, would be the most current target?

The United States government has made no question of their intent in the pursuit of Assange. Senator Mitch McConnell stated that Julian Assange was a "high-tech terrorist". "He's done an enormous damage to our country, and I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Sen. McConnell said. "And if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law. I think it's done enormous damage to our country and to our relationships with our allies around the world." This statement alone leads to a dangerous path of the government being able to retroactively prosecute individuals under laws that did not exist at the time of the so-called crime being committed. The fact that Senators Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown and John Ensign have put forth legislation that would make Julian's actions illegal (after the fact, of course), when coupled with McConnell's statements are really what draw the line. Newt Gingrich blatantly calling Julian Assange an 'enemy combatant' highlights further that those in power are actively trying to do anything within their power to discredit Assange and brand him in the most wicked of light.

And there are few things more wicked than the act of rape, a charge leveled squarely at Julian Assange in August of 2010 by two women in Sweden. Since the moment of accusation, Mr. Assange has adamantly denied these allegations which were dropped shortly later, the Swedish police citing a 'lack of evidence'. Several months later the case was mysteriously reopened with a new fervor, this time landing Assange on Interpol's Most Wanted List. Rapists walk free every day, yet Assange is wanted by one of the world's most renowned law enforcement branches for a rape case the was once dismissed over a lack of evidence? And what new evidence did Interpol have?

Was it the fact that one accuser, Anna Ardin, had written a '7 Steps to Legal Revenge' including the line, 'For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.'? Was it the fact that Anna Ardin had boasted about sleeping with Assange the day following the 'rape'? Was it the fact that Anna Ardin only felt it was rape once she realized Assange had also had sex with Sofia Wilen, a friend of hers? Or perhaps it was the fact that the women only went to the police calling it 'rape' after speaking to each other at length about the time line of events and planning their next move. Now, no one is contesting that this wasn't a bit of a dick move on Julian's part, but it most certainly was not rape if they consented to sex.

The issue that rears its head is Sweden's murky-at-best rape laws that constitute everything from 'unlawful coercion' to 'surprise sex'. The grim reality is though Julian Assange may have done absolutely nothing that would even be entertained as rape in the rest of the civilized world, that may not be the case when he has two scorned harpies who want to see him suffer.

Speaking of trumped-up charges, the United States government has made the attempted capture and detainment of Julian Assange a priority through numerous channels. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that Justice Department will seek to prosecute Julian Assange and members of Wikileaks through a probe of the leaks that show a violation of United States law, despite the fact that publishing classified documents that they, themselves, did not steal is not illegal under United States law as previously established by the Pentagon Papers, New York Times vs. United States Government case, which itself has been cited numerous times during this convoluted mess by members of the media.

Offering Bradley Manning, the US soldier who initially leaked the menagerie of documents to Wikileaks, a plea deal if he named Julian Assange as a co-conspirator by the US authorities also has dire implications. Conveniently ignore that no evidence exists that such a relationship ever existed between Manning and Assange, and this would seem like a sticking argument. The problem that arises is that other governments around the world are not as blood-thirsty as the Americans are when it comes to detaining Assange. His home country of Australia concluded that he did not break Australian law by releasing United States documents, much to the chagrin of the United States. Russian Prime Minister and All-Around Man's Man Vladimir Putin suggested that Julian Assange should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and that his arrest is undemocratic.

Undemocratic is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot these days, but few things are more undemocratic than the intimidation of private citizens and businesses by the powers that be for information, especially when the availability of private information is what the government is so furious about. Take Columbia University for example. A State Department official "recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter" in reference to the leaked diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. Now, in fairness, the State Department did eventually back-pedal, prompting SIPA Dean John Coatsworth to say the students "have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena...without fear of adverse consequences." What's said was said, however. The State Department made their intentions clear with a blatant warning to University students in the 'freest country on Earth'.

And what would freedom be without bullying private businesses? The case of Amazon is a prime example. Amazon hosted WikiLeaks from its servers for a period of time, but once the heat was turned up on the hunt for Assange, Amazon dropped WikiLeaks from their hosting servers. Amazon said that claiming the United States government had some involvement in the dropping of WikiLeaks from Amazon servers was 'inaccurate', but that WikiLeaks had 'violated terms of service' because Amazon requires content "will not cause injury to any person or entity." In related news, The Anarchist Cookbook is still avaiable on Amazon for $17.12 instead of the usual $29.95. And please, take no mind to the fact that no lives have been put in danger to date by the leaks as conceded by the United States government.

PayPal, most famous for butchering eBay orders, was also a part of the blockade against WikiLeaks, also claiming that WikiLeaks was violating their terms of service. PayPal froze the account of a website accepting donations on the behalf of WikiLeaks, stating PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity". Again, the definition of what WikiLeaks has done that would constitute 'illegal activity' is left open to interpretation, but I am most certain that it is far worse than the Ku Klux Klan, who you can still donate to via PayPal. It's worth mentioning that Mastercard, Visa, and Bank of America all acted in a similar fashion, but the irony of PayPal's statements regarding the reasoning and subject were hypocritical to the highest degree and most certainly imply a government hand.

But not every business intimidated by the government gave in. Twitter had a pair. The government issued a confidential order to the social networking site of Twitter, demanding Twitter hand over information on four WikiLeaks supporters. The information demanded included private messages, contact information and the credit card information of Julian Assange, among others. Twitter, instead of bowing out like children, fought the request and was able to rebuke a gag order that the government had placed about the request. It is theorized that similar demands were made of Facebook and Google, but these rumors have not been verified by anyone possibly due to similar gag orders.


But despite how hard the government tries, you can't put a gag order on the whole internet. People the world over have shown throughout this whole incident that they refuse to turn away from a man and an organization that are doing everything in their far-reaching power to show the cruelty and malice this government would hide from it's own people and the rest of the world behind a facade of well-wishing and do-gooding while refueling it's bombers and reloading it's rifles with the delusion that everyone is out to get it. And though 'The Man' may try again and again and again, people will always find a way to make sure the truth is heard.