[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 162 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8278-H8279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LYING IS NOT PATRIOTIC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, WikiLeaks' release of classified information 
has generated a lot of attention worldwide in the past few weeks. The 
hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of 
killing the messenger for the bad news.
  Despite what is claimed, information so far released, though 
classified, has caused no known harm to any individual but it has 
caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing a grip on our 
empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
  There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a 
principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and this should set off 
alarm bills since we guarantee its sharia-run government. This 
emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 
9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did.
  It has been discharged by self-proclaimed experts that Julian 
Assange, the Internet publisher of this information, has committed a 
heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason, and execution or even 
assassination.
  But should we not at least ask how the U.S. Government can charge an 
Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information 
that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for 
publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the 
New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be 
prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
  The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not 
found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel 
Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these 
secret documents.
  The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional Record 
by Senator Mike Gravel with no charges being made of breaking any 
national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information 
was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam 
War and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained 
from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of 
Tonkin attack, which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our 
history.
  Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq war was based on lies. We were 
never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, 
though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information.
  Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war 
in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and supporters of 
these unnecessary wars.
  Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign 
policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. 
Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim 
countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth 
is highly resented by those in charge.
  Questions to consider:
  No. 1, do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the 
ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?

[[Page H8279]]

  No. 2, could a larger question be how could an Army private gain 
access to so much secret information?
  No. 3, why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the 
publisher, and not our government's failure to protect classified 
information?
  No. 4, are we getting our money's worth from the $80 billion per year 
we spend on intelligence gathering?
  No. 5, which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: Lying us 
into war or WikiLeaks' revelations or the release of the Pentagon 
Papers?
  If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information 
that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First 
Amendment and the independence of the Internet?
  No. 7, could it be that the real reason for the near universal 
attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously 
flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
  No. 8, is there not a huge difference between releasing secret 
information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is 
treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies 
that promote secret wars, death, and corruption.
  No. 9, was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our 
government when it's wrong?
  Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised, ``Let the eye of 
vigilance never be closed.''

                          ____________________