Ok, moving it to the Discussion list: I'm frankly mystified to see this as a divisive issue among libertarians. I would expect to see everyone cheering Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning. So far, I've observed two kinds of opposition: (a) Opposition to Starchild's statement was lodged on procedural grounds (or venue--not a local issue). That blunts the conflict (which is what procedural rules appear to be for), but leaves the motivation opaque. (b) Personal attacks ("publicity seeker," etc.) similarly leave the actual position obscure. The closest I've seen in any commentary was Marcy's comment that she wouldn't want her personal e-mails made public. That would apply to the personal lives of government officials, but not to their official business (diplomatic negotiations, killing people, etc.). So I would be interested if those who don't support Assange and Manning would explain what they see as unlibertarian about their activities.
Hi Mike A.,
Thank you for moving this to the Discussion List now that it appears that activists' decision might be moot regarding the specific resolution in question.
You said, "I would be interested if those who don't support Assange and Manning would explain what they see as unlibertarian about their activities." My personal answer would be "nothing." The objections I listed were to specific statements on a specific resolution.
Now, as new questions, which might be less general, Do I "support" Assange and Manning's posting the cables on WikiLeaks? Sure, go right ahead! Do I "support" the freedom of those who might want to bring civil or criminal charges against them under applicable laws? Sure, why would I not? Would I support an LPSF resolution calling for WikiLeaks to remain open? Sure! All information venues should be open -- and if the venues break a specific applicable law, they should take the applicable lump on the head!!
Marcy
Thanks, Marcy! Sorry if I misread you. Despite my fervent support for Assange and Manning, I do take a generally skeptical view of resolutions and protests. In this case I think the value would accrue not to much to Assange and Manning as to the LPSF; I think the LP needs to be seen participating in antiwar activities, from which we have too often been absent. (I think also of the silence of the national LP on this issue.)
Mike,
I sent my sample resolution language to members of the Libertarian National Committee. So far, two responses. Carl Vassar (alternate for Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island) wrote,
"This is an excellent resolution. I'd like to see the National LP issue a version of it. Can we do it?
Assange has performed a great service. He deserves the thanks and support of all who value truth and liberty. If anyone or any thing should be condemned, it's Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman, and U.S. interventionism - not Assange."
Carl is one of the more solidly libertarian members of the committee, though unfortunately not a full voting member.
Andy Wolf (alternate for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio) asked, "What's your sense on how the national LP membership would receive a resolution like this?"
No response from anyone else thus far. We really need better representation on the LNC.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))