Over recent weeks, WikiLeaks, the highly controversial whistle-blower organization, has endured tremendous international pressure on multiple fronts. The website has endured near continuous denial-of-service attacks from various origins that left the page nearly inaccessible and required a plea for mirroring. The group has also had their funds frozen, and then had their ability to collect any additional donations diminished, first by a service revocation by PayPal, and then a declination of charges by Visa and MasterCard.
Outside of direct action, American leaders have applied what pressure they can, with Republican Peter King of New York calling for the organization to be declared a terrorist group. American Attorney General Eric Holder has been encouraged to pursue legal action against the group for violating the Espionage Act, and he has gone on record as saying that the actions of the website have broken the law and put American lives in danger. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that the recent leaks are, in her estimation, a direct attack on American and international security, conjuring visions of military action.
Julian Assange has also been under attack, even outside of his arrest on unrelated sexual charges. In late November, a former Canadian advisor, Tom Flanagan, expressed bluntly that Assange should be assassinated. An editorial in the Washington Times in December argued that Assange should be treated equivalent to any other terrorist, a sentiment that is shared by other members of the media, including Fox News analyst Kathleen Troia. Even former FBI service member and Richard Nixon aide, George Libby, has suggested that Assange should be killed without trial.
With the deluge of oppositional criticism and vitriol that has burned freely toward Assange and WikiLeaks, I have wondered if and when supporters of the group would emerge and begin making their own arguments. Perhaps fear of reprisal has encouraged silence. Or perhaps some felt that the group was not in need of vocal support, as they were clearly succeeding in their intended goals. But when Assange surrendered to London authorities and a media storm began pondering whether he could see extradition to America or another country for crimes unrelated to the Swedish arrest warrant, I wondered when the supporters would make themselves known.
Article comments
1 - Alan Kurtz
Bryan, who is the man identified in your third paragraph as "former FBI service member and Richard Nixon aide, George Libby?"
For one thing, since FBI is not a branch of the military service, its officers are called agents, not service members. For another thing, your description suggests former FBI agent and Bureau Supervisor, and later head Nixon Watergate plumber, Gordon Liddy.
I realize it's only a blog. But even so, it might be nice to get his name right. On another BC thread today (comment #101), someone referred to "Juan Assange." Are names really that hard to keep straight?
2 - Bryan Healey
Alan: You are correct, I misspelled his last name. I apologize; George Gordon Liddy...
3 - Ruvy
Nice to see the efforts to "pay back" the wunderkinder trying so hard to bury Wikileaks. you would think that it was Hussein ibn Osama Assange, not Julian, and that he was bombing the poor American imperialists in their criminal regime and killing them instead of embarrassing the hell out of them and showing them for the liars and scum they truly are!
At least the Australians are doing the right thing.... At least with respect to their own citizens....