Ron Paul's Fight for Transparency

[Jenn! 918]

December 13, 2010 John Nichols is the Washington correspondent for The Nation. He is also the associate editor of the Capital Times, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin.

The Obama administration condemns WikiLeaks in the most extreme terms, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs referring to the people involved in the leaking and distribution of diplomatic cables as "criminals," and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describing the latest WikiLeaks revelations as an " attack on America's foreign policy interests." Attorney General Eric Holder talks of using the Espionage Act and other tools to go after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Democrats in Congress echo the criticisms — with Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair John Kerry ripping Assange for having done "real damage" to U.S. interests — or simply remain silent. Some are openly working with neoconservative Republicans to come up with new laws to restrict the flow of information about U.S. foreign policy,

Is anyone in official Washington standing up for transparency? Is anyone saying that we should be more concerned about the revelations of wrongdoing than killing the messenger?

Yes, if you count Texas Congressman Ron Paul as a resident of official Washington.

The Texas Republican who has long been the sternest critic in Congress of the imperial ambitions of presidents of both parties, rejects the notion that WikiLeaks is the problem.

"Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets we should focus on our delusional foreign policy," argues Paul, who has run for the presidency as both the Libetarian nominee and a Republican primary candidate. "We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement."

"Don't Blame WikiLeaks!" argues Paul, in a statement that begins: "We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the Wikileaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media. At its core, the Wikileaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both parties, insists on asking the wrong questions. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead the media focuses on how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information. Unfortunately no one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public! This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does."

Calling out the critics of WikiLeaks, Paul says, "The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teachings of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion or civic and social institutions rather than an all-powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves, namely their great protector — the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to Wikileaks revelations is so predictable. They say, 'See, we told you, the world is a dangerous place,' so goes their claim. 'We must prosecute or even assassinate those responsible for publishing the leaks. Then we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better with no more leaks,' so they say."

Paul does not buy that line.

Instead, he says, "We should view the Wikileaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy."

The congressman is right to make that point, as he is when he argues that:

"State secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name? In a free society we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling and outright military intervention in the post–World War II era has made us less secure, not more, and we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often it's the official government lies that have given us endless and illegal wars resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and casualties."

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132021734/the-nation-ron-paul-s-stand-for-transparency

[Captain Oates 911]

There has always been a line between exposing government hypocrisy/lies and preserving the national interest

The trouble is that the governments draw the line and always err on their side and draw the line too far in their own favor

They then compound that by not grading the accusations and penalties but going straight in with big boots and threaten to use draconian legislation. This is then made worse by various nuts feeding off that and saying the leaker should be imprisoned for life in dark hole, naked and with no contact and no parole hearing - or simply murdered by agents of the State (newt gingivitis)

What a reasonable person would want (me), is for the line to be drawn in a reasonable place and the transgressors punished in an appropriate way - not too harshly for reporting that fred blogs said hillary's bottom was too large - but severely where lives were endangered directly and knowingly and maliciously

I think the 1st amendment is interpreted too literally so that nazis can scream hate outside people's houses in the US - but I also think it's wrong for leakers to wreck the nation's game plan just for fun and where no big lies are in evidence

In other words I advocate a middle course - that is a shocking and new and radical idea for the US and an idea before it's time.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Alan the Red

[mawilson 2,133]

I think Jenn has a soft spot for Ron Paul

[mawilson 2,133]

"State secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name? In a free society we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling and outright military intervention in the post–World War II era has made us less secure, not more, and we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often it's the official government lies that have given us endless and illegal wars resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and casualties."

Excellent quote.

[Jenn! 918]

I think Jenn has a soft spot for Ron Paul

He's not so bad. He IS in all likelihood our next president after all.

[Captain Oates 911]

He's not so bad. He IS in all likelihood our next president after all.

stop press ! - Sarah about to change her name by deed to 'Ron Paul' and get her willy shortened

[mawilson 2,133]

He's not so bad. He IS in all likelihood our next president after all.

He is? That would be awesome. Intrade estimates the chances of his nomination in 2012 to be slightly above 2 percent.

Maybe I should buy some Ron Paul futures?

[luckytxn 2,265]

He's not so bad. He IS in all likelihood our next president after all.

Don't hold your breath.

[Kevin and 10]

Don't hold your breath.

Exactly. The RNC doesn't have much love for RP, after all they did shut him out of the convention in 2008.

[Captain Oates 911]

Exactly. The RNC doesn't have much love for RP, after all they did shut him out of the convention in 2008.

His son Rand (named after the south african currency) says he wants restaurant owners to be able to refuse entry to black people or just anyone they want

Presumably he wants to repeal the civil rights act

I wonder if Ron thinks that...

sounds like a vote winner in SC and TX

Edited December 13, 2010 by Alan the Red

[mawilson 2,133]

His son Rand (named after the south african currency)

Named after Ayn Rand, though Wikipedia claims otherwise.

[Captain Oates 911]

Named after Ayn Rand, though Wikipedia claims otherwise.

ah that's just a cover story

He was born during the apartheid years in South Africa which the Pauls' would no doubt applaud - people choosing who could use their gas station toilet - and he was named after their symbol of supremacy - the Kruger Rand

It doesn't matter whether they are racist themselves - what they are proposing delivers racism - owners of public drinking fountains can decide who uses them etc. This is just another instance of the US Constitution being bent and perverted to suit the purposes of the reactionaries, grave side hate mongers, white supremacist marchers etc. The Constitution was supposed to be a force for good and not a cover story for the bad.

Who decides ? The same people who decide if wikileaks is good

[luckytxn 2,265]

Exactly. The RNC doesn't have much love for RP, after all they did shut him out of the convention in 2008.

Exactly and the national and state GOP always tried to run someone in his primary here and funds the opponent well. That favorite of theirs always loses badly too. I have to register for the GOP primaries just to go vote for him. The Socialists just gave up trying many vote cycles ago as it was a waste of money.

[luckytxn 2,265]

ah that's just a cover story

He was born during the apartheid years in South Africa which the Pauls' would no doubt applaud - people choosing who could use their gas station toilet - and he was named after their symbol of supremacy - the Kruger Rand

It doesn't matter whether they are racist themselves - what they are proposing delivers racism - owners of public drinking fountains can decide who uses them etc. This is just another instance of the US Constitution being bent and perverted to suit the purposes of the reactionaries, grave side hate mongers, white supremacist marchers etc. The Constitution was supposed to be a force for good and not a cover story for the bad.

Who decides ? The same people who decide if wikileaks is good

It is always nice for the government to be able to say who you can serve and when and what and anything. The more the government interferes than the more that business can make money. May as well just start entering our homes and tell us what we can do who with. It was understandable when the Feds said that it was anyone that got state or fed funds had to open their establishments or whatever business had to allow anyone in but to step in and say that any business has to do as we say or you are out of business is another thing. The best thing is to let businesses see how it was in their best economic interest to let in anyone. Their business would have maybe lost some customers but the increase in business overall would have been better. Of course Socialists want to engineer the society to their Utopian ideas and damn what everyone else thinks.

[Captain Oates 911]

Its solid extreme right wing here and the Reptilicans stand unapposed and demoncarts can be hunted from October 1st with a $50 permit from the NRA - no rifles under 30 caliber to be used

The good news is anyone can vote in primaries and they dont have to declare a party when they register.

As I am right off O, I think I will vote for a total cloud cuckoo dingbat publican for a laugh and as a spoiler

Anybody with mad professor hair will do

Edited December 13, 2010 by Alan the Red