The Freedom Bulletin

Yesterday it was announced that Private Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking combat videos and documents to WikiLeaks, will have to face a court martial. He will be tried on 22 charges, including theft of public property or records, transmitting defense information, and aiding the enemy, which could result in life in prison. The decision was announced by Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington after a preliminary hearing in December. The materials that Manning allegedly leaked were what launched WikiLeaks to international fame and controversy: their “Collateral Murder” video, showing soldiers in a helicopter shooting and killing civilians, almost half a million battlefield reports, and a trove of 260,000 secret diplomatic cables. This amounts to the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history. Prosecutors claim that while serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, Manning used his security clearance to download this material and collaborated with Assange to release it to WikiLeaks. Manning’s defense lawyer, David Coombs, argued at the hearing that he should not have been given access to the secret materials to begin with, and that their release did little or no actual harm.

The judge and the trial date have yet to be determined.

“This administration owes all Americans an honest explanation for their extraordinary retaliation against Bradley Manning,” said Jeff Paterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network. Nathan Fuller also wrote a great article comparing Manning’s treatment with that of soldiers who have actually killed people. Pretty unjust if you ask me.

Also, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange headed to the British Supreme Court this week in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden in his sexual assault case. His lawyer, Dinah Rose, argued that the Swedish prosecutor who issued the European Arrest Warrant was not an impartial, independent judicial authority, and was therefore not qualified to issue the warrant. It would be “contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law,” she said, for a prosecutor, who would naturally be partial towards extraditing and convicting a defendant, to have responsibility for a decision with such serious implications for personal liberty. Additionally, she questioned whether it was proportionate to extradite Assange, who has offered to be interviewed by videoconference and has not been charged with any crime.

Arguments took place on Wednesday and Thursday before a panel of 7 judges, who will likely wait at least a few weeks before making a decision. Interestingly, this was the first of Assange’s court appearances where cameras were allowed. Videos can be seen here and here. You can also read outlines of the arguments made by the prosecution service and team Assange.

Despite the difficult road he faces, Assange does have a couple of cool things to look forward to. He will be featured on, believe it or not, the Simpsons, where he will be voicing a cartoon version of himself. He recorded his lines remotely from England, where he is living under what is essentially house arrest. The episode will air on February 19.

Additionally, Assange will be recording his very own TV show in which he interviews politicians, thinkers, activists, and revolutionaries from around the world, with a theme of “the world tomorrow.” It will consist of 10 half-hour episodes and will begin in March. It will be airing on RT (Russia Today), and possibly other channels as well. In a WikiLeaks press release, Julian says…

“Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it. Are we heading towards utopia, or dystopia and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.”

The idea of seeing Julian on the Simpsons is hilarious, and it will be great to see him as an interviewer and host. Although it can’t be fun living under house arrest and awaiting a decision on whether you will be sent to a foreign jail, I am glad that Assange is still able to voice his ideas in new ways and hopefully make a good amount of money for his legal bills and his organization.

Famous journalist, TV personality, and author Anne Sinclair officially started her new job today as editorial director of the French version of the Huffington Post. Sinclair, of course, also happens to be married to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was the world’s most well-known rape defendant until the charges against him were dismissed and continues to be a major news story as he faces additional scandals. At a press conference today, Sinclair said that her site will not have any particular political viewpoint but will “give people space to talk.” The site’s founder, Arianna Huffington, said that Sinclair’s triumph over adversity ”gives hope and courage to every other woman,” and that DSK might even become a guest blogger.

Sinclair has faced criticism from people who doubt her ability to be neutral and wonder how her site would cover news about her husband. One even said that Sinclair ”is no longer a journalist. Ever since she compared the DSK affair to the Dreyfus affair, she is an interested party.” This is an interesting question, but ultimately I don’t think that Sinclair’s support of Strauss-Kahn should disqualify her from a job in journalism. First of all, do her critics think that if she threw her husband under the bus, that would make her neutral about his case? That wouldn’t make sense; no matter how she chose to react to her husband’s scandals, the fact that she is his wife means that she is affected by his legal struggles to some extent. If Sinclair’s critics take their reasoning to its logical end, the only conclusion they could come to is that anyone who has any relationship with a person in the news, or has expressed an opinion about any event in the news, is disqualified from being a journalist. That would disqualify almost everyone in the world. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone who is partial about a particular subject in the news to have a career in journalism but simply avoid covering that particular subject. This is what, for example, WCBV TV reporter Gail Huff does with respect to her husband, Senator Scott Brown, and what Sinclair says she will do with her husband: “It goes without saying that we will cover all news topics that come up whatever they might be. I’m not saying I would write the article but it will be covered and in the most professional manner possible.”

Additionally, as she has since she decided to stick with DSK, Sinclair faces criticism from so-called feminists who are in reality not feminists at all. People have referred to her as “undignified,” “shockingly weak,” “very very sad,” a “doormat,” a “terrible role model,” “an embarrassment,” and a “depressed woman with no respect for herself” who is “under submission.” They speak constantly of DSK’s “victims,” and what he “has done to other women.” They describe the prostitutes that DSK allegedly slept with as “vulnerable young women run controlled [sic] by pimps.” Most offensively, some even write that Sinclair “needs an appointment with a psychiatrist.”

In addition to the fact that it is wrong to disrespect the presumption of innocence, hideously offensive to claim that someone is mentally ill for making different choices than you, and bizarre to call someone weak and cowardly for defending an unpopular individual against an attacking mob, these comments are simply anti-feminist. It is anti-feminist, for example, to demand that all woman have the same standards and value the same things in a husband. It is anti-feminist to assume that in rape cases, women always tell the truth and men always lie. It is anti-feminist to treat sex, unless proven to be non-consensual, as something that men “do to” women. It is anti-feminist to treat women as inherently vulnerable and in need of protection, to assume that prostitutes are controlled by pimps, and to assume that Sinclair is weak, submissive, and controlled by DSK instead of being an autonomous and independent person.

In actuality, Sinclair and DSK are a couple that feminists should approve of. Instead of her staying home and being financially dependent on him, she is the wealthier one, and both are intellectual equals who have their own identities, their own lives, and (until DSK’s was unjustly destroyed) their own highly successful careers. Anne Sinclair is brave, independent, strong, intelligent, and feminist. People who make comments like the ones above are sad, undignified, and weak.

Because of her courage and her very impressive resume, Sinclair more than deserves this job. Congratulations, Anne, and the best of luck in your new endeavor.

To mark her comeback, Sinclair gave an interview to the French version of Elle magazine, in which she explained a little bit more about her ordeal, her idea of feminism, and why she supports her husband. Some of the best quotes:

• “To be an object of speculation, of permanent harassment to know what is happening in my home, has something about it that is Orwellian, totalitarian.”
• “There are trashy newspapers in the U.S., like everywhere, and violations of privacy. But, in regard to the big media, the press is demanding, precise, and hardworking.”
• On her presidential ambitions, or lack thereof, for DSK: “I wasn’t keen on the idea of candidacy. Power? I’ve seen it too close up to find it fascinating. As for the role of First Lady, it doesn’t exist in France. All that leaves me totally cold.”
• On her new job: “It brings me great pleasure to resume my career, in the euphoria of participating in something new! … I think that I can still bring something to this field. What makes me nervous is the launch of a journal, that it wouldn’t be ready in time, the stress, all that. But my return to the spotlight, as you say, it already happened, no? … But it’s true that the professional spotlight is always more pleasant.”
• On people who say that she should leave DSK: “Well then, leave your husband if you want to want to leave him. That’s your problem.”
• On accusations that she is condoning violence against women: “It’s unacceptable because there was no violence. If there had been, the prosecutors would have pressed charges. They didn’t. Violence horrifies me – verbal violence too.”
• “I, too, felt a great violence when certain self-proclaimed feminists unleashed themselves on me. I am a feminist, I always have been; I always will be. I have been part of all of the battles, on abortion, on equality at work, on the dignity of women here and elsewhere, on the role of women in public life. I think I have done at least as much as packs of ‘feminists’ for the advancement of women in men’s fields.”
• “Unconditional support does not exist. One supports if one has decided to support. Nobody knows what happens in the intimacy of couples, and I deny anyone the right to judge mine. I feel free in my judgments, my actions, I decide about my life in all independence. I am neither a saint nor a victim; I am a free woman.”

Sources: Elle.fr, The Telegraph, Daily Beast

Julian Assange did a great interview with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone magazine in its issue to be released next month. He talks about his legal problems in Sweden and potentially the U.S., alleged WikiLeaks source Pvt. Bradley Manning, who recently had a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to court-marshal him, the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, crazy stalkers, and more.

My favorite part of the interview is when Assange was asked who his most important supporters are. He responded:

“John Pilger, the Australian journalist, has been the most impressive. And the other is Dan Ellsberg … Ron Paul did come out and make an impassioned and rational speech. It has not been the soft liberal left, the pseudo left that has defended us. In fact, they have run a mile. It has been strong activists who have a long record of fighting for what they believe in, both on the libertarian right and on the left.”

It’s great to see that these two defenders of liberty respect and support each other. And it’s great, after WikiLeaks has too often been lumped into the same category as Democrats and liberals, to see Assange associate himself with libertarianism. To read the rest of the interview, click here.

The other day, I found this great article by Celia Larkin at the Irish Independent, explaining why Anne Sinclair deserves respect:

“Shame on those who criticise the readers of Terrafemina for selecting Anne Sinclair, Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s wife, as France’s Woman of the Year. Shame on those — particularly women — who condemn her for staying with him.

It’s outrageous, this idea that if a woman, of her own free will, stays with someone widely regarded as a sexual philanderer, then she must have something deeply wrong with her. Anne Sinclair is a smart, decisive woman. Not a victim. She is not a person whose future career or financial security depends on the man in her life. She is truly an autonomous individual who has chosen to stay with the man accused of sexual misconduct. An affront to feminism? Not at all.”

Read the rest at the Independent.

I completely agree that self-proclaimed “feminists” are wrong to look down on Sinclair and that, in general, a lot of people who call themselves feminists have anti-feminist ideas about the DSK case. Some people argue that Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn’s replacement as boss of the IMF, should have won the Woman of the Year poll because she achieved success without relying on the men in her life. But the same thing is true of Sinclair. She was a highly successful journalist before she even met DSK, is more wealthy than he is, and was better-known than him for much of their 20-year marriage.

To be a feminist means to fight against stereotypes and social rules that treat men and women differently, such as the belief that women are weak and vulnerable and should be protected and doted on by men. To assume that any man who is accused of sexual assault is automatically guilty is anti-feminist (and wrong), because it is based on the assumption that women are inherently vulnerable to rape, and men are inherently predisposed to be sexual aggressors. On the other hand, for a woman to financially support her husband, help him with his career, and bravely fight on his behalf when almost everyone else condemns him, is exactly what feminists should respect and admire.

Guess who was recently in Beijing to give a speech on the European economy? None other than Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who chose today to make his return to the world of economics after his career and presidential hopes were derailed by (ultimately dismissed) sexual-assault accusations in May. In a 35-minute address at a business conference hosted by internet company NetEase, he said that European leaders are in denial about the severity of the financial crisis, that countries need to work together more, and that his former rival, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel don’t really understand each other. According to news reports, he received a warm welcome, and Chinese economist Li Daokui told him that many people in China love and support him. He looked and sounded just like his old self. Although DSK’s politics may be different than mine, I am so glad to see him back.

In related news, DSK’s wife, Anne Sinclair, was named France’s woman of the year on the same day by the magazine Terrafemina. The magazine cited her loyalty and courage and called her “both a heroine and a kind of anti-heroine.” I also was impressed by her support of a man who was hated and presumed guilty by so many. In my opinion, it is Sinclair, and not those who jumped to conclusions based on sexist and racist stereotypes, who was the true feminist throughout Strauss-Kahn’s ordeal. Although there have been rumors in the past month and a half that she might be thinking of leaving him, this seems to be false for now (knock on wood), as they were recently seen visiting Israel together and later celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary. As long as Sinclair doesn’t end up ditching her husband in the midst of his continuing legal and reputational struggles, I’d say she deserves this title for sure.

And finally, another surveillance video from the Sofitel hotel was published by French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur. It shows Brian Yearwood, the technical director of the hotel, following DSK around, perhaps a little suspiciously.

Sources: AFP, AP, Financial Times, IBN Live, News.com.au, RFI, Telegraph, Wall Street Journal