The Berkeley City Council plays a handy role in contemporary American politics: If you want to know what your opinion should be regarding any particular event, note carefully what the Berkeley City Council has voted on that week, and whatever they’re for, that’s what you should be against. In this instance, Berkeley is voting to give Bradley Manning — the traitorous ex-soldier who was the original source of all the “Wikileaks” documents — an award for heroism.

Berkeley’s sickening municipal resolution has received a smattering of media coverage here and there, but it hasn’t aroused the national outrage it deserves, for the simple reason that most Americans still don’t know who Bradley Manning even is. Bradley who? Shouldn’t Berkeley be giving an award to Julian Assange, just as so many other leftists have lavished praise on Wikileaks’ Australian-born head honcho?

Well, no. Say what you want about Berkeley, but they got it right this time, in their own sick way: If you’re going to praise the America-hating traitor responsible for this incident, your award should go to Manning, who actually leaked the secret government files, rather than Assange, who merely put them on his Web site.

The very fact that this incident is usually dubbed “the Wikileaks case” by the media is absurd; it’s not about Wikileaks. It should be called “The Manning Incident” or “The Manning Files.”

Julian Assange is a bit player in this case. His crime, if any, is minor. I can’t fathom why there has been so much media attention focused on him as opposed to Manning, who after all is the one who stole the secret documents.

The focus should be on the leaker, not the leakee. When the Rosenbergs “leaked” nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, did we put Stalin on trial for treason? Of course not. He was simply the recipient of the leak. Even though Stalin benefited from the treachery, it was neither his fault, nor was he under US jurisdiction, so he could not be (nor should he have been) prosecuted. Instead, the law and the nation’s attention were correctly directed at the people who actually did commit treason and who were under United States jurisdiction: the Rosenbergs.

Antiquated Espionage Laws Inadequate to Handle Stateless Anti-American Sentiment

Just as our honor-based rules of war are not equipped to handle our interactions with stateless amoral opponents in an age of terrorism, so too are our laws against treason and espionage not equipped to deal with stateless opposition in the Internet era.

Despite the much-mocked phrase “war on terror,” we’ve never officially declared war on anyone since 9/11, because you can’t declare war on an individual, an ideology or a tactic. And now it’s becoming clear that it may be difficult to prosecute someone like Bradley Manning as a traitor or a spy because there is no foreign government to which he has betrayed his nation.

In an age of non-state players, “leaking” government secrets to the Web plays the same role that traditional espionage played in the Cold War.

If Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had lived in the 21st century, they would have given atom-bomb secrets to Julian Assange, not the Soviet Union.

Fury is now being directed at Assange due to the lack of a tangible nation-state opponent in this case. Someone has to fill the role of “bad guy.” But the public’s anger is misdirected. Julian Assange is not the source of the leaks; he is simply the mechanism through which they have been publicized. Bradley Manning is the real villain here, since he is the one who violated his oath to protect and serve his country, and to guard national secrets. Assange has never sworn to protect the United States; not only is he not in the U.S. military, but he was never given access to classified documents, and he’s not even an American citizen. Consequently, he has no allegiance to the United States, nor should we expect him to respect our laws or defend our national interest.

Nihilism Is Not a Crime

It’s not that I like Julian Assange or have sympathy for him; in my opinion, he’s an anti-American political nihilist who takes adolescent pleasure in tearing everything down just for the fun of it. But that doesn’t mean I think he’s committed a crime. Is he malicious? Certainly. Unethical? Probably. But criminal? Not so much.

As much as I hate his politics, I can’t bring myself to zero in on Assange as the supervillain here. He is simply a name we have affixed to a tactic — the tactic of disseminating information on the Internet. As you may know, by now there are innumerable “mirrors” of the Wikileaks files — identical duplicates put online and hosted by sympathetic anarchists and hackers all over the world. Even if Julian Assange and Wikileaks had never existed, the same information would have been available on the Internet; all Assange provided was a brand name and publicity. If it had not been Assange putting the leaked documents online, it would have been someone else. Once the information is leaked, it has been leaked — the horse is out of the barn. There’s no point in chasing it around the field, because you’ll never be able to catch it; nor will you be able to build a new enclosure fast enough and big enough to capture it. Nor do you curse the field for playing host to the horse. Just assume that once the horse is out, it’s gone. Instead, try to find out who left the barn door open in the first place, to make sure it doesn’t happen again. And (if the news reports are true), that person is Bradley Manning.

To borrow a phrase from Bob Dylan: Julian Assange is the Wicked Messenger, the man who takes glee in bringing bad news. Yet despite his ill-intent, his sanctimonious attitude, and his undeserved attention, he is in the final analysis just a messenger. We may hate him and hate his message and hate the pleasure he derives from delivering it, but he did not create the message. He should be dismissed from the stage and quickly forgotten.

49 Responses to “Don’t blame Julian Assange for the security breach; Bradley Manning is the real villain”

  1. 1Matt on Dec 9, 2010 at 12:02 pm:

    You’ve made an excellent point here. I wondered where the information came from that Assange was sharing. As a 5-year veteran of the USMC, this kind of betrayal really doesn’t sit well with me. We have a military intelligence system that requires access for many people, low and high ranking members that must sift through and analyze the information to create a clear picture for the decision makers. If we cannot trust those that are in such positions, where can the future of this nation lie?

      

  2. 2Hotdoug on Dec 9, 2010 at 1:07 pm:

    Another Marine chiming in….

    Crimial or not, I can still see Mr. Assange experinecing some sort of untimely demise in the near future.

    “Watch out for those bananna peals in your path Assange!”

      

  3. 3ET on Dec 9, 2010 at 2:51 pm:

    I’m a retired Army intelligence analyst – the same job the idiot Manning had. I spent 21.8 (1995-2006) years as an analyst (96B4S00GM – for those in the know, now 96B is a different identifier) and held the necessary clearance and access to various special programs. I am ticked at this idiot. He completely betrayed the trust of his fellow soldiers all because of…well who really knows – blame it on his childhood, blame it on the way he was treated by others. But who really cares. Nothing justifies what he did. Hopefully some accident will meet Manning AND Assange.

    Now, I’m a history teacher and I read a really good blog article from a fellow history teacher about Wikileaks and looking at it from a historical perspective. Imagine if Wikileaks had been around during Thermopylae with the Spartans, or during the American Revolution and the Sons of Liberty, or World War II before Normandy, or a number of other events. It was an interesting article.

    Additionally, I think it’s high time that someone hacks into Wikileaks and publishes their own information that they really don’t want to be aired.

      

  4. 4tenfed1861 on Dec 9, 2010 at 8:29 pm:

    How come when I see nihilist,I always think of “The Big Lebowski”
    “Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
    Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of.
    Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter?
    Walter Sobchak: No, Donny. These men are cowards.”

      

  5. 5Guy Average on Dec 9, 2010 at 11:58 pm:

    Pvt. Manning is openly homosexual.

    Since the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate is raging, I suspect that the lack of publicity for Manning has more to do with Political Correctness than anything else.

    He is in the brig though. I’m thinking that he won’t end up at Gitmo…

      

  6. 6germaninspain on Dec 10, 2010 at 3:10 am:

    We love betrayal but not the traitor, don´t we? Where´s the scandal? Where´s the problem?

    As a citizen I know that my government is doing right now similar things that the USA are doing, and that´s for what they are paid for and what I expect them to do. Did you really thought diplomacy was clean and honourable? Please, it´s a dirty business as any other.

    Personally I approve Wikileaks and anyone who supports them, in fact the filtrations are published daily by major newspapers (besides the mentioned anarchists, but who reads them besides themselves) and commented as the information is evaluated by professional journalists. Also, even some legal steps have been taken against corrupt politicians or state employees, so there is a clear benefit for any affected state. It´s just very interesting to read who was put under pressure by the US concerning this or that matter and how the influence did work.

    Bad press for the US? Your reputation is where it is, for the left and muslims you are the big enemy, the conservative / liberal and capitalist fractions don´t object to the US taking influence. So where´s the damage? Nothing has changed. Or has any country broken relations with the USA or declared war?

    For compensation, I just hope that Wikileaks publishes more reports, it would be ideal if the next time it wasn´t against the USA. Anyway, a major leak about a bank has been announced as next.

    @ET: I don´t see your point concerning betrayal. Betrayal simply is a legitimate way of warfare and politics, it´s our hipocrisy that makes it good (we win) or bad (we loose), but you can be sure that since the beginning of time betrayal has been a danger and possibility to any person or government in charge, in both directions, to benefit from betrayal and to prevent betrayal.
    Think about it, the thermopylae were lost because a greek showed the persians an alternative route to get to the back of the spartans. The american revolution: Arnold and surely many more did betray the revolution. Normandy? Please, so many deceptions on the allied side, from german agents made double agents to send false reports and even to throwing a corpse with a false identity and faked invasion plans into the sea near Gibraltar to be found by the spanish who informed the germans making them believe the landing would be at Caen and that Normandy was a deception.
    Betrayal is just part of a game we have been playing for some thousand of years.

      

  7. 7eots on Dec 10, 2010 at 8:25 am:

    Zombie, it’s a very good point. Assange is not an American citizen, so how can he commit treason? He’s a nasty character, but I don’t think he committed any crime.

      

  8. 8Michael Haltman on Dec 10, 2010 at 9:05 am:

    I debated the co-founder of CodePink about this traitor and the City of Berkeley. It is a disgrace.

    The link to the debate is http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-wikileaks-berkeley-debate-on-russia.html

      

  9. 9Doctor Jeff on Dec 10, 2010 at 9:19 am:

    Excellent posting zombie. So typical anti establishment attitudes. Can’t believe they would considering honoring someone accused of high treason before all of the facts of the indictment are even adjudicated. Typical craziness which seems to foster so well in Berkely. I love your analysis of Assange as an anti-American sanctimonius nihilist – right on!

      

  10. 10Salamander Drake on Dec 10, 2010 at 10:29 am:

    Manning is likely a traitor. Try him and, if guilty, shoot him. But Assange …

    Well, Assange isn’t a citizen and our laws don’t really apply to him. On the other hand, he has committed hostilities against the United States and our allies. I would therefore class him as an enemy combatant and treat his sorry ass accordingly.

    Then again, rumor has it that he’s got some intel on Russia that Wikileaks is supposedly getting ready to release. If this is true and he follows through, then it’s a good bet Assange’ll be sleeping with the fishes (or worse; polonium-210 can truly ruin your weekend) within a fortnight.

      

  11. 11len on Dec 10, 2010 at 1:33 pm:

    lol. if you believe soome low level soldier was able to steal and download all of those classified documents you people are very naive.
    this is way bigger than some low level soldier being made to take the fall.

      

  12. 12len on Dec 10, 2010 at 1:37 pm:

    AmericanConservative is more on the mark:

    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12/09/the-conservative-case-for-wikileaks/

    “No one questions that governments must maintain a certain level of secrecy, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Time that “Secrecy is important for many things … [but it] shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.” The entire premise of Assange’s whistleblower organization is this: To what degree is government secrecy justified? And when particular secrets could be damaging to the other partner in the United States government’s relationship — the American people — should these secrets be revealed in the name of protecting the public?

    How often does our government use “national security” simply as an excuse to cover up questionable dealings? Reports Time: “in the past few years, governments have designated so much information secret that you wonder whether they intend the time of day to be classified. The number of new secrets designated as such by the U.S. government has risen 75% … . At the same time, the number of documents and other communications created using those secrets has skyrocketed nearly 10 times…”

      

  13. 13len on Dec 10, 2010 at 1:44 pm:

    Assange is a useful idiot of george soros and other globalists. as far as hating assange goes, why? assange is merely exposing what Americans have the right to know. we fund this govt and therefore are responsible for its actions; foreign and domestic.
    –or would you rather live in a police state?

      

  14. 14len on Dec 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm:

    more from http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12/09/the-conservative-case-for-wikileaks/

    To say that government must keep secrets is not to say that all government secrets must be kept.

    As admitted even by Pentagon officials and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, none of WikiLeaks’ revelations do anything to compromise national security or endanger American lives — but they have wreaked havoc on political life in Washington, D.C. Americans are not supposed to know, for example, that their government bullied and threatened individuals and other governments that might have undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. The federal government attempting to squelch anyone who might undermine global-warming dogma? Do WikiLeaks’ conservative critics believe revealing this is a “national security” risk?

      

  15. 15eots on Dec 10, 2010 at 4:12 pm:

    len,
    “or would you rather live in a police state?” False choice.
    I’m not sure to what extent “American Conservative” represents American conservatives and why it’s making a “conservative” case for WIkiLeaks. It’s a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan who was kicked out of the conservative movement by Bill Buckley. Buchanan is a notoriously anti-Semitic isolationist who is against American foreign policy.
    Information leaked by WikiLeaks did put the lives of our allies in danger. Fewer will be willing to collaborate with us. Manning is a traitor, Assange is… what the first 3 letters of his name suggest.

      

  16. 16len on Dec 11, 2010 at 12:48 pm:

    what you wrote about putting lives at stake is simply untrue, eots. i know whom Buchanan is and ad hominem attacks against him doesn’t help.
    the american people should know about our govts coercive actions at Copenhagen climate summit and what’s going on at the UN, etc… Neocons are upset about wikileaks leaks, but true conservatives need to look deeper.

      

  17. 17len on Dec 11, 2010 at 12:52 pm:

    as far as Manning goes, there is no possible way he could’ve gotten classified information on his own. no way. he’s just the patsy and will take the fall for higher ups. wikileaks is more than likely a govt psy ops campaign. nothng entirely shocking has been revealed, just enough to give the govt reason to shut down the internet at their whim.

      

  18. 18Bakunin on Dec 11, 2010 at 2:06 pm:

  19. 19eots on Dec 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm:

    That Buckley kicked Buchanan out of the conservative movement is not an ad hom, but a statement of fact. That Buchanan is an isolationist is not an ad hom, but a statement of fact. That Buchanan is bigot is not an ad hom, but a well-known fact. You might not like hearing it, but this doesn’t make it an ad hom.
    Re endangered lives see here, for instance:
    http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/12/meet-wikileaks-likely-first-victim.html
    Manning release names of people who collaborate with our troupes.
    Given how you have no evidence that Manning is a patsy, you are pushing a conspiracy.

      

  20. 20Bakunin on Dec 11, 2010 at 8:30 pm:

    Given how you have no evidence that Manning is a patsy, you are pushing a conspiracy.

    Welcome to the modern right.

      

  21. 21Scott on Dec 12, 2010 at 8:07 am:

    [Welcome to the modern right.] Bakunin, you need to stop bomb throwing here. I have no doubt you believe conservatives are all wild-eyed fascist conspiracy theorists, but you’ve offered nothing to support it. And for every potential scenario you can dream up, I can counter with the same from the left. That statement is simply a non-starter. You WANT to believe that so you can feel superior to conservatives, but it is a world of illusion. There are too many crazed, half wit leftists in this world to even lend a little merit to your statement…and you consistently ignore it. Maybe you ought to stick with the HuffPo.

    Oh, and by the way, I found this recent headline particularly delicious: Columbia professor is charged with incest, accused of bedding young relative for 3 yearsAnd here I thought all conservatives were inbred trailer park rednecks who slept with their cousins…heh. Seems Ivy league leftist Professors who blog on the HuffPo sleep with their relatives too! Go over there and enjoy company with your bretheren!

      

  22. 22eots on Dec 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm:

    Bakunin,
    Please see my posts above re: whatever that “len” character is championing not belonging to conservative movement.

      

  23. 23Bakunin on Dec 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm:

    Eots,
    The problem is that what Len is championing is a part of the conservative movement, like it or not. I mean, it’s an article of faith in the conservative movement to blame any left wing happening on George Soros like some Jewish boogy-man.

    Here’s Rand Paul on “New World Order” conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jone’s show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxerCZhNGbg His father, Ron Paul,going to be chair on the committee on the federal reserve, on the same show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSZE4vbXtQ and yet these two figures are increasingly popular in the tea party GOP. John Birch Society an official host of CPAC. Missouri House of Representatives majority leader, Timothy W. Jones, elected unanimously to the position by the new Republican caucus, is an unapologetic Birther.

    You should read The Paranoid Style in American Politics. In times like these, conspiracy theories and extremism prevail.

      

  24. 24danr. on Dec 13, 2010 at 5:14 pm:

    Bakunin,

    Just to jump in here, say Patrick Buchanan considers himself a conservative. What does it matter? Leon Czolgosz was an anarchist, does that make all anarchists assassins? If we’re painting with such broad strokes, you can project just about any evil onto any system of beliefs if you single out its most dubious practitioners and hold them up as exemplars of the faith. The question you should be asking is, “Is Pat Buchanan a mainstream conservative,” and I would say No. If personal banishment from the movement by Buckley, its modern architect, is any indication, I would say he is not and if you are charitable, you would too.

    Also, if you are on this site, you should be aware that much of today’s anti-Semitism is coming from the left. It’s thin ice you’re on suggesting that Soros is somehow being persecuted like or as a Jewish bogeyman considering this, and as how he is not Jewish to begin with.

    “American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing.”
    – Richard Hofstadter, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”

    The byzantine mechanisms of 9/11 Trutherdom and the wild lashing of left-wing outrage during the Bush II years should give anyone pause before pinning the paranoid style as a sole characteristic the right, as you seem to want to do. Jesse Jackson, just to name an example, is one of the most paranoid minds in American political life. Just to speculate, maybe it is that “angry minds” do tend more toward conservatism, as they see something concrete, which is dear to them – tradition, the family, the American way of life – threatened by outside forces. Progressives tend to fail the reality test differently, when they do, but I would say more catastrophically, because they are trying to introduce new evils instead of maintaining present ones.

      

  25. 25Bakunin on Dec 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm:

    danr,

    If I where pointing too Pat Buchanan as mainstream, you’d be right. But I’m not. I’m point to Rand Paul on 9/11 Truther Alex Jones radio show. I’m pointing to the John Birch Society at CPAC. I’m pointing to how many “birther bills” being pushed at state legislative. It would be like if Pat Buchanan, who we bolth agree is outside of “mainstream conservatism” being included within “mainstream conservative” circles, at least at arms length.

    I am acutely aware of the anti-semitism of the left. As someone who identifies with the left, that is what brought me to this site in the first place. Still, while George Soros may be not be a religious Jew, he is ethnically Jewish, because in the Jewish tradition “Jewishness” is passed from the mother. More over the kind of anti-Soros rants by conservatives largely play on a anti-semetic trope of “evil jewish banker”.

    Other then that, I totally agree with the rest of your post. Irrationality is not beholden to any one ideological ideal. Maybe such extremism and paranoia arises when and is heightened when such a group is out of power at any given time (the left during the GW Bush era, the right during now). But I would think it hypocritical to call out the left for such behavior during GW Bushes presidency and not during the Obama presidency.

      

  26. 26eots on Dec 13, 2010 at 9:54 pm:

    danr, well done!

    Bakunin, here is an essay on paranoid style on the left:
    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/05/political-paranoia-of-left-parts-i-and.html
    And, yes, I read “Paranoid Style”. Pipes’ “Conspiracy” is a more illuminating read, imo.

    Soros spent WW2 collaborating with the Nazis, and admitted feeling no remorse. After the war he changed his name. To be ethnically Jewish he’d have to participate in Jewish culture. See here:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic

      

  27. 27len on Dec 14, 2010 at 12:31 am:

    bakunin,

    the fact that you are denying that a new world order, globalist agenda is being pushed by Neocons & Democrats is evidence that your opinion is uneducated. you’re merely repeating mainstream media talking points.

    Cap & Trade/Climate Change legislation, Bailouts of European Banks, Healthcare mandates, the MIAC report, Internet ‘Kill Switch’ legislation and not to mention the fact that almost every UN Head and world leaders has called for a transition toward global government—this just shows how out of touch you are. it’s not a conspiracy–it’s fact which can’t be refuted which is why you choose to ignore it, but your ignorance doesn’t change facts.

    there is no doubt what is going on and so what if Rand Paul goes on Jones show. Jones has been proven right despite smears from the mainstream media.

    As for Buchanan, at this point it doesn’t matter what Buckley said/did. Ideas are stronger that political parties. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the conjecture raised in the AM Conservative piece. It’s certainly more intelligent than the pundits calling for Assange to face the death penalty; meanwhile con-woman Nancy Pelosi or conman Michael Chertoff with his naked body scanner deals gets to make billions by pushing fake terror threats—gtfoh.

      

  28. 28len on Dec 14, 2010 at 12:47 am:

    and don’t forget the calls by the UN for a global currency–which is being taken quite seriously by China & Russia.
    what conspiracy? this is all out in the open for anyone who wants to see; the nwo writings on the wall.

    The New Push for a Global Currency
    http://mises.org/daily/4620

    China, Russia quit dollar
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-11/24/content_11599087.htm

      

  29. 29eots on Dec 14, 2010 at 9:18 am:

    Never thought I’d see a Buchanaite troll on… Zombie’s blog. I guess some people are confused.

      

  30. 30len on Dec 14, 2010 at 10:16 am:

    eots said: “I guess some people are confused.”

    yeah eots, namely you.

      

  31. 31danr. on Dec 14, 2010 at 3:31 pm:

    eots, thank you for your kind words… and that is a *magnificent* link (“paranoid style on the left”).

      

  32. 32Scott on Dec 14, 2010 at 6:17 pm:

    I just don’t get this: [More over the kind of anti-Soros rants by conservatives largely play on a anti-semetic trope of “evil jewish banker”.] George Soros is evil. He is well schooled in Finance, and has a degree from the London School of Economics. He writes for the Financial Times. It is pretty clear he wants to destroy America as it is today.

    He nearly destroyed Great Britain, and succeeded in destroying the largest bank there nearly 30 years ago. He funds Media Matters and Moveon.org. He throws buckets of money out to defeat conservative political candidates. He spent tens of millions to defeat GW Bush in 2004. He is a bad dude who preys on entire countries (Thailand, for example)and their currencies. But opposing him…how does that make a conservative detractor an antisemite? I’m not sure it is clear what George Soros’ religious belief is…I’ve seen some material that states he is an athiest. Is he an ethnic Jew? So what if he is? You gotta separate his extreme liberal totalitarianism from his ethnicity.

    Evil, yes. Jewish, questionable, irrelevant. Banker, not really. More like investor. Brilliant? Sure. Dangerous? Absolutely. The left should be afraid too. But they love uncle George, because they embrace the philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Little do members of the left understand that the best friend they could have is a reasoned conservative.

      

  33. 33Bakunin on Dec 14, 2010 at 6:18 pm:

    eots,

    Yeah, I recognize that paranoia is not beholden on any particular ideology. Like I stated earlier, I think that the rise in the “Paranoid Style” happens most when such party/ideology is out of power. It’s interesting to note that the link/essay you provided was written in 2006, during the Bush administration (although probably during the lagging days of his presidency). The writer even admits, “The conservative right wing of American politics may once have been the predominant users of the paranoid style in the 60′s”. That day is now.

    As for Soros, yes he collaborated during WW2. Allot of people did. Those where frightening days. As ADL spokesman Abe Foxman pointed out, “To hold a young boy responsible for what was going on around him during the Holocaust as part of a larger effort to denigrate the man is repugnant. The Holocaust was a horrific time, and many people had to make excruciating choices to ensure their survival. George Soros has been forthright about his childhood experiences and his family’s history, and there the matter should rest”.

    In the Jewish tradition, the Halakha defines who is a Jew. mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to, or even formal conversion to another faith, does not make one lose one’s Jewish status (the 613 Mitzvot). Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all their female descendants. Soros mother was Jewish. He may not be a religious Jew, but according to the Halakha he is a Jew. The fact that the right would even try and deny that fact is somewhat telling.

      

  34. 34eots on Dec 14, 2010 at 10:00 pm:

    danr, you are welcome. :)

    Bakunin, I’m not a rabbi, but… Ironically, matrilineage was a Roman tradition. Reform (and Conservative?) brunches recognize either Jewish parent. But really, who is a Jew? According to Nazis anyone with a Jewish grandparent, Halakha be damned. Rabbinical definition helps to figure out who needs to be converted. State of Israel has a different definition, for obvious reasons. Soros, I assume, has 4 Jewish grandparents. So? If he doesn’t want to be Jewish, no rabbi will turn him into a Jew… though the state of Israel will offer him shelter.

    Yes, I realize, the link was from the Bush years. You can point at Obama birthers as an example of contemporary right wing conspiracy. Obama birthers, though disturbingly numerous, are marginalized. 9/11 truthers are even more numerous – and central to the left. Conservatives know how to smack down a conservative crazy (and that includes Buchanan).

      

  35. 35Bakunin on Dec 15, 2010 at 8:01 am:

    Eots,

    I guess you failed to comprehend what I wrote. Within the Jewish tradition, non-participation in the Jewish religious practice does not stop you being Jewish. That is what being “ethnically Jewish” is about. It’s people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds due to the fact that genealogy largely defines who is “Jewish”. “Ethnic Jew” is sometimes used to distinguish non-practicing from practicing (religious) Jews. Other terms include “non-observant Jew,” “non-religious Jew,” “non-practicing Jew,” and “secular Jew”.

    I figure you are quick to deny his Jewishness as a way of trying to downplay the anti-Semitic nature of Soros conspiracy theories as pushed by a large part of even the mainstream conservative movement.

    I wouldn’t say that 9/11 truthers are “central to the left”. The far left maybe, but they are inconsequential to the broader progressive movement. Find me one sitting democratic congress person or senator (state or federal) that exposes those beliefs. I can find numerous “Birther Bills” being brought up at state legislature. The “fact” that Obama is a socialist is an unquestionable article of faith to the right and is completely false. That is the paranoid style, that some minor tweak of health care will turn America into the soviet union.

    Also remember that 9/11 truth isn’t solely a left wing cause. Alex Jones defines himself as “paleoconservative”. Fox Business Anchor Andrew Napolitano is a 9/11 Truther (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR6DAjn8cew).

      

  36. 36eots on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:37 am:

    Bakunin,

    Not that it has anything to do with the topic of the thread…

    People who drop out of Jewish life entirely are not Jewish.

    More to the point, wikileaks employs a well-known Holocaust denier:
    http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/14/the-assange-employees

    “Central to the left” is perhaps poorly worded. “Right, front and center” is better.

      

  37. 37len on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:54 am:

    bakukin,

    Spare everyone your lib talking points. Obama’s rhetoric is ‘socialistic’ which one would expect after being raised by a communist mother and having communist Frank Marshall Davis as his mentor. How could being exposed to those beliefs not shape Obama’s world view? The fact that you want to pretend there is no basis for calling Obama a socialist just shows how uneducated or intellectually dishonest you are.

    Now it appears Obama is a corporatist and believes in state capitalism based on his bailouts of banks, cap & trade, auto industry and the health insurance mandates, etc…at any rate the Obama agenda is further destroying this country and people that disagree have a right to speak out against it.

    you can post whatever you want about ‘paranoia’ and whatever else, but the truth is evident.
    As for George Soros, he’s never expressed any belief in Judaism. I do know he has funnled his money toward very dangerous ends, as Scott detailed in the above post.

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/ae9a144081bcdb7e/b82b5d6678049527?lnk=raot

    “Soros did not wear a Nazi uniform, but he might as well have, because
    he aided in the persecution of the Jews of Europe, without compassion,
    without guilt and without regret. Various excuses have been made for
    his actions, and none of them hold the least bit of water.

    Yes Soros was only a teenager at the time. So was my father, who
    nevertheless escaped to join the partisans, rather than accompanying a
    Nazi officer in his search for Jewish property he could loot. He had
    no choice? He certainly had a choice. Even in the worst of times,
    people still can and do make moral choices. And the choice for
    everyone, for Jews, Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, Frenchmen and so on
    down the line– was to collaborate with evil, or to do the right
    thing.”

    George Soros made the wrong choice then. As he has made the wrong
    choice over and over again. And he has never regretted any of them.
    And the one thing that clearly emerges from that, is that he has no
    understanding that evil is wrong. That participating in the
    persecution and murder of Jews is wrong. He didn’t know it back then,
    while the Holocaust was going on. He doesn’t know it today, when he
    helps set up and fund organizations like J Street, whose sole purpose
    is to help the Muslim terrorists who are murdering Jews today.

      

  38. 38danr. on Dec 15, 2010 at 4:51 pm:

    Pin-the-tail-on-the-antisemite. Recriminations and counter-recriminations are not useful. It does not matter whether or not Soros is a practicing or an atheist Jew. Ethnically he is, and to an anti-Semitic paranoid that would be enough to go on — Lenin, after all, was an athiest Jew. However, to say any criticism of Soros is necessarily anti-Semitic, one would also have to be ready to defend oneself of the same charge when criticizing Henry Kissinger. Right? Soros and Kissinger are certainly both controversial enough without bringing their ethnicity into it. But aha you say, Soros is not only Jewish but a banker, and you know how the right feel about Jewish bankers…

    That is my point of departure. It’s not the 1950s anymore, and the JBS only has a few hundred members. The right *love* Israel. Falwell, Pat Robertson, all those guys, think the Jews are the chosen people of God and that the land outlined in Genesis is the Holy Land. Historically, antisemitism has come from the right, that’s true, but right-wing anti-semitism is now largely the domain of (quite marginalized) Christian Identity groups. When people talk about George Soros and ACT, I think they’re talking about ACT — and not ZOG with dog whistles.

    Likewise one can be rightfully critical of Bradley Manning’s actions without being homophobic. I prefer to table questions of identity, because when you run down this rabbit hole, who knows where you’ll come back out. It’s best to analyze the substance of an argument and accept or reject it, and biases when you know what to look for are easy enough to detect.

    What I want to know is, and the question I ask you Bakunin, whether one can support Bradley Manning and not be anti-American. The Bradley Manning Support Network has about 4,000 Facebook supporters.

      

  39. 39Scott on Dec 15, 2010 at 6:15 pm:

    You know, Bakunin is positive that Obama is not a socialist. So, rather than be a paranoid conspiracy theorist conservative (who would point to any number of pieces of evidence to the contrary, such as Obama’s Joe the Plumber moment) let’s hear you, sir, explain specifically how Obama is NOT a socialist? But first, to be fair, we need to establish what socialism is and what it isn’t. So please, help us understand Bakunin, what is Barack Obama, politically speaking?

    Here is an excerpt from “Prairie Fire” to get us all in the mood:

    Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.”
    “The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”

      

  40. 40Dan in Georgia. on Dec 19, 2010 at 5:32 am:

    Sounds like Assange can be prosecuted under US law — after all, we don’t ignore prosecuting foreigners for drug crimes. Shoot, we even invaded Panama to bring ol’ pineapple-face to trial.

    But a quickie search yielded me a bit of Title 18, USC love:

    Title 18, US Code, part I, chapter 37, § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

    (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;…

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

      

  41. 41Xpltivdletd on Dec 20, 2010 at 7:07 pm:

    Good grief. Thanks to Dan in Georgia’s rudely taking this lively debate back on-topic, we have the law before us!

    Many years ago when I served in the Canoe-club, I had a job with a SECRET Clearance, for a time. I still remember the training required (including signing our names that we had each “…read-&-understood” all that stuff) before the clearance was granted. Here are a couple of points on that. SECRET Clearance doesn’t entitle you to access to jack, unless you also have “The Need-to-know.” Think of a Clearance as one key; NTK as the other; unless you have both, you don’t get in. Unless you have both, *for* the particular material, you don’t get to view it or physically to pick it up & carry it anywhere.

    The notion that Bradley Manning had access to more Classified materials than one Enlisted-man’s job-description required–just doesn’t cut it. Might be the stuff of some B-movie, shown late at night on TV, but unless much has changed since 1989, Manning just could not be the sole source. He might be on his way to becoming a conspicuous example, and the actual case for his prosecution may be bulletproof. But the damage the whole CWO4 John Walker Treason-ring did (“spies” they were not), they took years doing, a piece at a time; a team-effort. If WE settle for a Bradley Manning, twisting in the wind, even if he bought & paid for that swing, shame on us. A nice, stout ridgepole and many lengths of rope are in order.

    Assange’s technical, lawful culpability, I leave to those academically qualified to discuss it. I doubt he’s lost much sleep over whose laws he may have violated by receiving info with which he now plays. The higher above the law one elevates self, the more kinetic energy may go into the math if (by chance) one falls. RKBA! Best regards, all.

      

  42. 42Scott on Dec 22, 2010 at 5:19 pm:

    Hey, Mikie Moore disagrees with most everyone here: “Poor Bradley Manning…He Should Be Rewarded, Not Be in Prison”
    Ouch!

      

  43. 43Joanna on Dec 23, 2010 at 3:40 am:

    I absolutely support Bradley Manning. He has revealed war crimes. War crimes belong in the public domain. This is an indisputable fact.
    That he’s being held in solitary confinement and that most people in America don’t have a clue, demonstrates very clearly what kind of “democracy” the U.S upholds.

      

  44. 44Pious Agnostic on Dec 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm:

    What war crimes have Bradley Manning revealed?

      

  45. 45len on Dec 29, 2010 at 9:46 pm:

    Wikileaks: a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job

    http://deadlinelive.info/2010/12/29/wikileaks-a-big-dangerous-us-government-con-job/

    “Most important, the 250,000 cables are not “top secret” as we might have thought. Between two and three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of “secret” document, and some 500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret. Another 40% were the lowest level, “confidential”, while the rest were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret. [2 ]

    Most of the revelations so far have been unspectacular. In Germany the revelations led to the removal of a prominent young FDP politician close to Guido Westerwelle who apparently liked to talk too much to his counterpart at the US Embassy. The revelations about Russian politics, that a US Embassy official refers to Putin and Medvedev as “Batman and Robin,” tells more about the cultural level of current US State Department personnel than it does about internal Russian politics.

    But for anyone who has studied the craft of intelligence and of disinformation, a clear pattern emerges in the Wikileaks drama. The focus is put on select US geopolitical targets, appearing as Hillary Clinton put it “to justify US sanctions against Iran.” They claim North Korea with China’s granting of free passage to Korean ships despite US State Department pleas, send dangerous missiles to Iran. Saudi Arabia’s ailing King Abdullah reportedly called Iran’s President a Hitler.

    Excuse to police the Internet?

    What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken. What is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet. Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken.”

      

  46. 46منتديات on Jan 8, 2011 at 2:32 am:

    The Beastie Boys should play this

      

  47. 47t. yamamoto on Feb 5, 2011 at 7:24 am:

    I think the real reason most people in America aren’t that outraged by the Berkeley City Counsels resolution is the fact it’s Berkeley. I think by this point American just expects this kind of thing from them and just doesn’t have the energy or time to care. Next week they will do something else crazy or stupid and there is no point in caring. You’re probably only encouraging them if you pay attention to their latest little idiocy.

    Seriously every single headline talking about Berkeley looks like this:

    “Berkeley (city counsel/students/people) do/start (inert something crazy/treasonous/stupid here).”

      

  48. 48Timothy (TRiG) on May 7, 2011 at 3:32 pm:

    What, exactly, is the correct action to take when you discover a crime? Bradley Manning is a whistleblower, not a traitor. He was absolutely right to expose the callous disregard for life that perpetuates US military culture, and which can lead, among other things, to the murder of children, journalists, and bystanders. He’s a hero.

    TRiG.

    Joanna: I absolutely support Bradley Manning. He has revealed war crimes. War crimes belong in the public domain. This is an indisputable fact.
    That he’s being held in solitary confinement and that most people in America don’t have a clue, demonstrates very clearly what kind of “democracy” the U.S upholds.

      

Trackbacks / Pingbacks:

  1. Don’t blame Julian Assange for the security breach; Bradley Manning is the real villain · zomblog | Western Outlaw

    Pingback on Dec 10, 2010 at 8:00 am

Leave a Reply

Name Email Website URI