Thursday, December 16, 2010

Julian Assange the terrorist ~ By Phil Elmore

There are left-leaning people in the Media, Phil explains, that are calling Julian Assange and the "hacktivists"  some kind of crusaders for free speech, as he wrote below:
The wide-eyed adoration of criminals and agitators by left-wing pundits and "journalists" around the world should not surprise us. Such left-wing socio-political functionaries adore anything that repudiates American exceptionalism or otherwise diminishes American power and influence. This is why, predictably, a host of left-leaning public figures – Michael Moore included – are so quick to hold up Assange as some kind of crusader for free speech ... rather than the simple agent of espionage he is by definition.
In reality, however, as Phil concludes, Assange is nothing but a terrorist, and his supporters are terrorist sympathizers.

Online free speech doesn't exist ~ By Phil Elmore
Why we need cyber-warriors now ~ By Phil Elmore

UPDATE December 16, 2010:

Video uploaded yesterday that is relevant to this column:

The Julian Assange case in London: Bail and extradition hearings

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

I don't know... Maybe instead of "extradition," we should be talking about "extraordinary rendition." I'm just sayin'...

Julian Assange the terrorist

By Phil Elmore

December 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In last week's Technocracy, I wrote about the WikiLeaks controversy. More specifically, I wrote about the ways intimidation of a website owner's support and infrastructure services – services paid for by the website in question – can silence or impede the expression of free speech. I made no real attempt to evaluate the activities of WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, except to say that I consider Mr. Assange little better than a terrorist. Most of Mr. Assange's difficulties have, to this point, revolved around issues that were anything but an evaluation of whether he has committed a crime.

Recent news has made it easier to characterize WikiLeaks and Assange politically and socially. It has also underscored, starkly, the real war we fight in contemporary society. We fight this war regardless of our knowledge of it. We win or lose this war despite the widespread ignorance of it that often characterizes our governments, our allies and our citizenry.

In the summer of 2009, I first wrote of this war in "Why we need cyber-warriors now." In that column, I spoke of a "proxy war" even now "taking place behind the veil of modern technology." I will repeat now what I said then: Every minute of the day, external foes are mounting assaults on American infrastructure, civilian American assets and American military targets. Those enemies do this through the virtual world. Their foot soldiers are an army of disparate computer hackers, ranging from state-sponsored operatives to ordinary people in almost every nation on the planet:

The problems don't stop with the hostile governments of emerging military and technological threats like China. According to, it isn't just China's government that is attacking our cyber-infrastructure. It's also hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. ... The FBI can do little to prosecute hackers in foreign countries, least of all hostile nations like China (whose government turns a blind eye to simple copyright infringements, must less wholesale cyber war). The hackers are also becoming harder to monitor and track through conventional means.
The problem is that "hackers" are no longer "hackers." Slowly, popular culture is perverting the image of the Internet criminal, transforming him or her into a noble figure of free speech, dissent and speaking truth to power. This imagery is fiction, if for no other reason than it is not now, nor has it ever been, a noble act of freedom of expression to harass, silence or harm commercially an entity whose lawful activity you dislike. Yet this is precisely what has happened – and "hackers" are now "hacktivists," presumed by wretched propagandists like Michael Moore to be committing acts of "patriotism" rather than propagating wanton electronic vandalism, fraud, intimidation and theft.


Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!


  1. No matter the outrage at the content of thevWikiLeaks, there is such a thing in America as freedom of the Press. As long as Assange did not participatebin the theft if the data, he, the BBC, the New York Time, etc is free to publish.

  2. The government needs to be able to keep secrets in some cases, I don't think anybody disputes that.

    However, the classification of materials can also be abused. Nobody should dispute that either.

    That is why freedom of the press is important. We cannot compromise on the press' ability to report any truthful information if they can get their hands on it. Wikileaks didn't hack any government computer or steal anything, they only published information given to them.

    Calling Wikileaks terrorists is absurd, especially considering that they seem to be taking their responsibilities very seriously. They didn't just upload the cables to a server wholesale. Instead they enlisted some of the most reputable news organisations in the world to help go through every single cable one by one, a process that is still ongoing.

    They've made mistakes for sure. However I have to say that I sleep a little better at night knowing Wikileaks is out there. I can deal with terrorists. That's what the Second Amendment is for. But a lying, cheating, manipulative government is a scary prospect indeed. (And that's what the First Amendment is for. The Founders were pretty smart.)