Brennig Jones (and friends)

When anyone with a brain can work the truth out…

The ’90,000 item Wikileak dossier’ has got some sections of the internet huffing and puffing like a highly excited bunch of huffing and puffing things.

There are flaps of outrage and indignation from the US and UK governments which, when subjected to logical analysis, are shown to be incomprehensible and meaningless.

William Gibbs, the US President’s press secretary said (and I quote), ‘these documents [being in the public domain] pose a real and potential threat to national security’.

My response to William Gibbs is twofold.

Firstly, can you please learn to speak English? Because, William, until you do, everyone on this planet is going to ignore you from this point forward.

Let me explain.

Something can either be a real threat, or something can be a potential threat, but something can not be a real *and* a potential threat.

And secondly, William, you obviously haven’t noticed yet, so it falls to me to point out to you, that the situation in Afghanistan is an *international* one.

You are in no position to put American national security before the international security of *all of the states* who are caught up in the conflict. No legal position at all!

The truth must out, it is that simple. No matter how unpalatable to our political servants (and let’s just remember for a moment that the people in The White House and Downing Street are working *for us*) the truth is, it must be our default position.

That there are high-level elements in the Pakistan government who are actively backing and physically supporting al-Qaida is blindingly obvious to anyone with a functional brain.

But the US Government doesn’t want to be *saying* that publicly because:

• it would cause a PR shitstorm in the US heartlands amongst the voters whenever a new raft of coffins are repatriated
• it would upset elements of the Pakistan government
• it would (rightly) cause distrust amongst the forces on the ground
• it would make many people in many countries ask what the fuck is going on, and question the wisdom of our elected politicians

To underline my point I bring forward Frank Askin, Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law, Newark (USA, not the original Newark).

Professor Askin says (and again I quote):  ‘Transparency should be the government’s default approach to national security’.

The lack of transparency in this conflict is staggering. Under the sacred banner of ‘national security’ (which I have already demonstrated is a meaningless concept in this war), things are being unsaid, truths remain unspoken and massacres of innocents are being unreported.

All of these things are wrong.

What is the difference between 20 civilians being killed by the Americans, or 20 civilians being killed by the Pakistan-backed al-Qaida?

There is no difference.

Except in the former, the story is suppressed, whilst in the latter every single war reporter and every available photographer and film crew are ferried in to the area to record, in great detail, the once-human corpses, the blown-up cars, the dead livestock and the bullet-marked houses.

And come on, the only people who hadn’t figured out that the UK and US special forces have been operating under ‘locate and kill’ orders for the last couple of years, are sections of the UK and US public.

Does William Gibbs really think that members of al-Qaida have not worked these things out for themselves?

Of course they have.

I have downloaded my copy of the dossier and although I haven’t read it in detail yet, I have scanned most of it, and I have to say that all of the information I have seen so far would be known to the enemy!

All of it.

Yet the data has been withheld from the UK and US public.

The logical conclusion is that the governments of the UK and US see the public of the UK and US as the threat.

We are the enemy.

But perhaps we are not ‘the enemy’ within the context of this conflict in Afghanistan; just ‘the enemy of our elected representatives’ – by virtue of our power at the ballot box?

I’ll leave you with just one example of how the truth is being suppressed, and when it leaks out, corrupted.

When US intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, leaked a video that proved that US Apache helicopters fired on and killed two Reuters cameramen in Baghdad – information that, until that point, the US government had suppressed – who was charged with criminal offences?

Was it:

1. Bradley Manning for leaking the video, or
2. The Apache helicopter crews for murdering innocent civilians?

Ah, I can see from your wry smiles that you know the answer. The casualty is, once again, the truth.