Wikileaks

Now that one phase of the war against Bradley Manning has started in court, we've started to see the other phase begin; the PR war to sway opinions and condemn him as a traitor who does not deserve a trial, let alone a fair one. Today Hilary Clinton accused Manning of something he is actually guilty of, although it's not a bad thing.

Hilary Clinton is one of many politicians around the world from all parties and ideologies who are part of the problem, not the solution. The other day she called the Iranian government hypocrites for supporting the Egyptian people in their protests under the excuse "it's an Islamic revolution" then clamping down on Iranian protests in their usual fascist state tried and trusted ways. It turns out that Hillary Clinton does know the word hypocrite after all.

We've seen the various departments of the US government use and abuse their powers to target Wikileaks and those connected to it, all of whom claim to be acting in the best interests of the US; but are they?

The term "national interest" is thrown around a lot as a term for "the interests of the people" when in fact it's all about "the commercial interests of the wealthy people and corporations" who have people permanently stationed in government circles to pull the strings of their politician puppets, and shield those politicians from the riff-raff who will always seek balance.

There's a lot of people using the word "traitor" in conjunction with Pte Bradley Manning, and "anti-American" in conjunction with both Wikileaks and it's public face and founder Jullian Assange. This post is about whether that's fair or not; it's about the motivations of whistleblowers.

While listening to the latest episode of Dan Carlin's Common Sense audiocast about it being a good thing that governments fearing their own people it struck me that the example he uses about the King beating caught on tape, LAPD acquittals sparking the LA riots is a US domestic one, it also applies to the US governments relationship with other countries too.