Ieri sera, letta l’ennesima surreale ed evasiva intervista a Julian Assange, ho scritto su Twitter che “mi convinco sempre di più che Wikileaks è una grande idea rovinata da un invasato”. Sono contento e anche un po’ sollevato di leggere che la stessa cosa è stata scritta e spiegata oggi da Christopher Hitchens, uno che certo non può essere accusato di indulgenza verso gli abusi e le ingiustizie perpetrate dai governi in generale e da quello statunitense in particolare. L’articolo merita di essere letto per intero.
If I had decided to shame the British authorities on Iraq in 1976, I would have accepted the challenge to see them in court or otherwise face the consequences. I couldn’t have expected to help myself to secret documents, make myself a private arbiter of foreign policy, and disappear or retire on the proceeds. All you need to know about Assange is contained in the profile of him by the great John F. Burns and in his shockingly thuggish response to it. The man is plainly a micro-megalomaniac with few if any scruples and an undisguised agenda. As I wrote before, when he says that his aim is “to end two wars,” one knows at once what he means by the “ending.” In his fantasies he is probably some kind of guerrilla warrior, but in the real world he is a middle man and peddler who resents the civilization that nurtured him. This Monday, in two separate news reports, the New York Times described his little cabal as an “anti-secrecy” and “whistle-blowing” outfit. Such mush-headed approval at least can be withheld from the delightful Julian, even as we all help ourselves to his mart of ill-gotten goods.