Mr. Banerjee - Assange evidence for decaying western civil liberties? It's the horse behind the waggon.

Submitted by Michel C. Zala (Switzerland), Dec 8, 2010 at 14:17

As outlined in my piece in defense of Turkey further below, the fact that the left wing liberal media and so many other kumbajahs are defending Assange and Wikileaks as doing the commmuity a favor, citing freedom of information and press, is precisely one other example, why we indeed may find ourselves in a period, where our culture may at present be in the process and during a period of regress and (moral) decline.

In a way you take a good example, but derive the wrong conclusions from it, as it is not deplorable, that some people call for bringing Assange to justice, but that so many among the Western population are quite actually defending this criminal, who takes some of our dear liberties, as for instance the Freedom of the press, and perverts and abuses them for some form of personal need for aggrandization and cheap scandal journalism, all the while endangering innocent people and even compromising national security, where secrecy in itself is not evil, but is a historically valuable and important tool of diplomacy, oftentimes geared to keep innocents safe.

Imagine Churchill, who had to allow for the bombing of Coventry in order to protect the secret of Enigma having been decoded and thus the greater good of winning the war. If WikiLeaks would have existed at the time, would it have been appropriate to publish that fact? Would such info truly have served the people or would it have resulted in many more sacrifices later?

To use a corresponding analogy:: Seperation of church and state makes a lot of sense and should always be one of our main principles. However, that does not mean to throwing every last cultural tradition and our own history overboard, like for instance removing crosses from the landscape in the US, bringing on lawsuits to remove the "under God" reference from the Pledge of Allegiance or the Dollar bill, or here in Europe banning "Merry Christmas" from greeting cards, just because all of the above at some point had a religious undertone.

The principle, the meaning of the unwritten law and the intent of our Founding Fathers was to prevent any undue influence by (any) religion upon the government. It never was the intent to foregoe the entire moral compass, the ideas of the 10 Commandments, the values in tradition of a Judeo-Christian culture - but that is precisely, what the people fo the American ACLU (Civil Liberties Union) to name just one organization in the US, does. By interpreting the liberty to the extreme, they perverted the intent of exactly the liberty in question.

In the case of Assange the very same symtom is clearly evident. Freedom of the press and Freedom of speech is taken to such an extreme that the intent (serving the people, protection against an overbearing government, whistleblowing, where a true service to a community can be achieved etc.) is no longer pursued, and it becomes nothing but a cheap service to the need of voyeurism.

I would even go further, as Wikileaks recently published an Intelligence Agency list of soft targets in the West, targets, which can be barely defended, but where a terror attack could have devastating effects. Even more criminal to my opinion is bringing the fact ,that soft target terrorism may be even more effective to undermine our society, to the attention of the likes of Al Kaeda.

So far, being blinded by their own gigantomania, always searching for the evermore spectacular target, has prevented them from adapting their strategy to the simple fact, that a few snipers, easily smuggled in, with minimal logistic planning and effort, by sheer indiscrimate shootings a la Beltway Sniper could literally paralyze entire states - thus achieving the true objective of terror: Terror.

I ask you now, what service this publication is to the community. Cui bono? Should such not be interpreted as aiding and abetting terrorism, let alone constitutes the act of espionage on the side of Assange and high treason by the people who delivered those documents to WikiLeaks? Should in fact a terror attack occur, one could at that point even argue conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. How will these people argue, when in fact one of those targets will be attacked? Ups, I am sorry?

Yes, Mr. Banerjee, our with so much sacrifice achieved liberties are presently in danger. In so far you are definitely correct, which is why I too see our western societies in the middle of a step back in their development. But in diammetral opposition to your conclusions, they are in danger of being blown out of any sensible proportion, perverted, undermined, eroded by left wing fanatics, who in utter negligence of common sense and the true meaning of such liberties will go to any length to use them for their utopian agenda. Dreamers, utterly neglecting any reality of present life.

The press, for instance, was never meant to make the News, but to report it, exercise a certain control of government as a service to the public, but certainly not blatantly handing elections to candidates of their choosing (e.g Obama). Oftentimes in the past. the serious and responsible journalist would hold back on a story, if lives were at stake (crime, hostage negotiations, or when an impact on national security was eminent). Nowadays however, such moral values do no longer matter and publishing a death list has become more important than the security of the people living near such targets.

Indeed, our culture seems to experience a certain regression at present, but not because of an effort to constraining our civil rights and liberties, but because of a distinct perversion of the latter and an extreme unrestrained interpretation of their actual meaning. Common sense has indeed left the building.

To use the analogy of medicine: too much of a good drug may be as dangerous as no such drug at all.

During a period, where murders get off due to "technicalities", prisons in Europe are 4 star hotels, mass murderers get off after 10 years (Swizerland), where anyone can slander anyone in the most nasty manner, citing Freedom of speech, where the media on a regular base distorts the reality (e.g. Tea Party members being worldwide depicted as right wing fanatic nutjobs), and where finally a by a Napoleon Complex plagued Assange can post a list of terror targets, citing the Freedom of the press, while endangering innocent people and abetting criminals, we may very well have reached the point, where we must take a moment to review and reflect upon our interpretation of our dear civil rights and liberties.

If our Founding Fathers who in fact did mean for separation of church and state, but nevertheless at all times and in all dealings promoted a behaviour according to the Judeo-Christian moral values and compass in America knew, to what extent their intents had been perverted, they would roll over in their graves.

There is no doubt in my mind that our own western societies are in a period of moral decay and degeneration, motivated by immediate gratification. If 80% of American students admit to having cheated at least once, if we consider the cancer of worldwide drug trade and millions of violent gang members throughout all western capitals, if we consider the growing absence of such (Christian) values of the likes of respect, politeness, fairness, tolerance, meritocracy, self responsibility, integrity and honesty, one can not help but ask, if in fact we have abandoned our own traditional values, our moral compass as intended by our own Founding Fathers.

Due to the fact, that movements like the American tea Party are on the rise, I am evidently not the only one who recognizes, that the pendulum has swung way too far towards the side of civil rights and abandonment of a Christian moral compass and exercising some self-restraint. Freedom in a democracy means that my own rights end, where the right of the other's begin. Freedom does however not mean that I am allowed to do whatever the heck I want. Just because I have a legal right to say whatever I like, does that mean I should not restrain myself and exercise good judgement, tolerance, politeness and respect?

Just because they have the legal right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, should they ignore the will of the people, lack any respect and consideration for the feelings of the victims of 9/11 and build nevertheless? Just because I can do something, does it free me from the obligation to consider the effect it has on others? I think not. The Founding Fathers wanted us to have those Freedoms, but also using them responsibly and considerately.

Many have come to understand, that our society must address these extremes and focus again on what made us strong in the first place.

To stay on topic, we must come back to the journalism of the Washington Post during Watergate and abandon the excesses of the likes of Wikileaks posting death lists, as we should never compromise on separation of church and state, but nevertheless must again raise our children according to the moral compass of our own Judeo-Christian culture without fear of being sued by left wing nutjobs, waving the flag of separation of church and state.

We should be proud of our history and origins, not afraid and run from it. To live and breathe, promote the moral compass of the Ten Commandments (after all the lowest common denominator of all religions) does by no means mean undue influence of Religion upon State, something the ACLU and similar leftist orgs want you to believe.

Isn't it time to reign in the excessive interpretations of our civil rights and focus on their actual meaning and intent again? If we did, we would not debate idiots like Assange or pat downs on airports. We would not have to debate burquas in France or Minarets in Switzerland, as it would be understood and accepted, that immigrants have to live and assimilate into a society with a clear structure and distinct traditions, exactly as I would never mind to take off my shoes in Japan or object to a western woman in Jemen having to wear a head scarf in respect of local tradition.

Celebrating our civil rights, holding them dear, defending them at all times must also be understood as defending them against any efforts to mis-ab-use and pervert them. At present our civil rights are in fact under siege - not by government oppression or censorship, but by utopian kumbajahs, mainly of the left kind, who prioritize on defending the vicimizers and perpetrators of crime rather and before acknowledging any victim's rights.

To name one appalling example here: Waterboarding 3 (T H R E E !!!) terrorists (thus gaining in the case of KSM valuable intelligence, leading to dozens of arrests of determined Djihaadists who would have never hesitated to kill any number of innocent victims) is being deplored of the front pages of the left wing dominated press as a violation of the civil rights of these monsters, while the atrocious actions of Islamists from Afghanistan to Indonesia in the meantime are perceived as nothing but white noise. The surrealism is reflected in the fact that perpetrators are being portrayed as the victims, whereas the US Government is depicted as using state terrorism. The attacker is defended and the victim villified and thus further victimized.

While doing so, they (ACLU, John Steward, MSNBC, Moveon, LA/NY Times to pretty much all European Media) pat themselves on their shoulders, congratulate themselves as being on the moral high ground, defending our civil rights - all the while utterly abandoning the victims and their right to live free, happy and safe from crime and violence. This way of perverting our civil rights has made us a "one-legged man in a butt kicking contest", it has weakened our strength and resolve to prevail against an enemy who does not know any limitation, convention, honor or ethics. The harsh reality we live in requires pragmatism and the will to prevail, not utopian ideology and dreams.

Islamism can not win by itself. Our ideology and political system is fundamentally too superior. Islamism however can win, if we ourself, on the home front, allow for degeneration and eroding of the principles and true meaning of human rights and civil liberties. In that sense all these utopian kumbajahs on the left, including Assange and the press become co-conspirators, a 7th column at home, weakening our fundament, resolve and will to prevail.

The next time, Mr. Banerjee, you see Assange as a victim, please first do a bit of research in regard to Mumbai, read about the victims and the aftermath, then put yourself into the shoes of those victims and ask yourself: Does my need for information override the right of those innocent people to live in safety? Do we really need to know all those secrets which keep us oftentimes safe? Where does my right to information end and someone else's right of safety or privacy begin? Where does serious journalism end and conspiracy to commit a crime begin? Where does my own Freedom of Speech end and someone's Right to be not violated begin?

Civil Rights are two-edged swords. It is time we in the West begin to understand that they cut indeed both ways.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".