Et tu, Holder?
by digby
Meanwhile, here in the states:
"Well the investigation that we have with regard to the WikiLeaks matter is something that is ongoing it's an active very serious investigation," Holder said in response to a question about the possible prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for violating the Espionage Act.
Because it is an ongoing investigation, Holder would not discuss specifics, saying only the main stream media that published much of the same information is not as culpable as WikiLeaks.
"They acted, I think, in a responsible way so I think that is at least one of the distinctions," he said.
It is misleading, to say the least, that he didn't make the distinctions between the early releases and this latest one that's caused so much furor, since on these Wikileaks has worked in concert, every step of the way, with the mainstream media and have acted in every way as responsibly as any of the papers. Why this fact is being widely ignored by officials and the media even at this late date can only be attributed to a desire to hide the truth.(The example of TIME Magazine's egregious "he said/she said" approach to this is one for the books.)
Now, perhaps Holder is talking about the fact that the NY Times has been running its stories past the White House for approval, which is rather unusual. However, it should be remembered that Wikileaks asked the government to help them redact documents and the government refused. (They don't negotiate with terrorists dontcha know.)
It's very, very disappointing to see the Attorney General of the United States distort reality this way by implying that Wikileaks is doing something that the papers are not. He sounds like those right wing politicians of yesteryear who insisted that the activists and civil rights workers of the day were all communists. It was bullshit, but it served its purpose at the time. History has not been kind to them, however.
And I cannot for the life of me understand why so many journalists are so complaisant about these threats against Wikileaks. Do they honestly think it can't happen to them? Why?
In other Wikileaks news:
The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.
Requests for information from the 2009 Murphy commission into sexual and physical abuse by clergy "offended many in the Vatican" who felt that the Irish government had "failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations", a cable says.
First of all, let's contemplate secrets for a moment shall we? The kinds of secrets that powerful institutions keep to protect themselves from being exposed as the hypocritical, corrupt and depraved institutions they are. It sure seems as we've seen an awful lot of this lately, doesn't it? Perhaps we should think a little bit less about how dangerous it is that these secrets are being revealed and a little bit more about how dangerous it is if they aren't.
Second of all, can someone please explain to me why the catholic Church still has "sovereignty"? I realize that there was a time a few centuries back when this made some sense. But this just seems like a pedophile protection racket at this point. Why should anyone recognize a particular church's "sovereignty" in this day and age?
.