Are we institutionalized yet?
The newspapers have finally, timidly spoken up for Julian Assange.
Yesterday, the New York Times published their "huh?" inspiring piece called Major News Outlets Urge U.S. to Drop Its Charges Against Assange. Who better to write it than State Department apologist stenographer Charlie Savage. From their own review of his book Power Wars:
His summary of the fight over whether the government is allowed to deliberately kill a United States citizen without a trial — an issue raised by the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, a major figure in Al Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate — is a model of lucidity.
In fact, the whole review reads like a CIA’splaining of despicable deeds the US has committed. No mention of al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son, who was also killed by a US drone two weeks after his father. Followed by this gem, which I nominate for the inside jacket of the 25th anniversary edition of Manufacturing Consent:
Take the question of so-called warrantless wiretapping. To simplify: Was the main problem the wiretapping part (that is, blanket surveillance involving an inherently inappropriate violation of citizens’ rights), or the warrantless part (that the bulk data collection was implemented without appropriate legal sanction)? If you take the first approach, the Obama administration’s continuation of the programs has been disgraceful. If you take the second, the Obama team’s success in putting them on firmer legal ground with stronger oversight is a significant accomplishment.
How about not simplifying it? How about clearly stating why it is Completely Fucking Unconstitutional? Bear in mind that Mr. Savage has co-taught a seminar on national security and the Constitution at Georgetown University. Fuck, even his bio reads like an Operation Mockingbird case study.
Naturally, the Times article on Julian Assange fails to mention even the simplest of facts. That he was targeted by the US for publishing details of some of its many crimes against humanity, especially the Chelsea Manning revelations. That he has been imprisoned for over 10 years now, and don’t tell me about his so called sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy. It’s not considered asylum when governments bug your apartment, listen in on protected conversations with your legal counsel, and analyze the DNA in your children’s diapers.
If you have been waiting for an explanation of the cover photo, it is this. While I first thought of the tragic Brooks (from The Shawshank Redemption) as a metaphor for what the US and it’s allies have done to Mr. Assange, I realize that this was wrong. Brooks was never an innocent subject of state-sponsored torture, only the garden variety torture of criminals in US jails. No, the real metaphor is for the New York Times and journalism itself. Virtually the entire main stream media in this country conspired to let Assange languish under full-blown brutal torture for the last 3 years at Belmarsh, most specifically because they were publicly humiliated that he had done THEIR job.
In this case, there can be no redemption. Only the epitaph:
The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, DER SPIEGEL, El Pais
WERE HERE