In the recent WikiLeaks saga of events, most of the media interest has been focussed on the material that has been revealed and the unfavourable light into which politicians have been thrust. Rudd, the current Foreign Affairs minister in the Gillard government, has been publicised as "a control freak", Gordon Brown as "wobbly" on economic matters, and the list goes on. But one of the unnamed victims of the onslaught by governmeents of various stripes against the revelations has been language. As politicians try to outdo each other in denouncing the website and its founder Julian Assange, exaggeration has been piled on exaggeration, until finally, Newt Gingrich reached for the "T" word, and labelled Assange "an information terrorist."
Now while the effect of the publication of some of the diplomatic cables might have caused embarassment, not one death nor even a flesh wound has been reported as a consequence. More than one pollie, or a pollie's aide, has called for Assange to be executed (presumably after some show trial) or assassinated (thereby avoiding the further embarassment a trial might cause). It's ironic that once the skirt of diplomatic newspeak has been lifted to reveal the more earthy expression of diplomatic exchange, then pollies here, there and everywhere are more than happy to drop any pretence of constitutional rights or due process as they lash out, heedless of the consequences.
Newt-speak now presumably sets the precedent for anyone to call for the assassination of anyone causing discomfort.
Presumably, given Newt Gingrich's example
