A hostile intelligence service is one which endangers national security. A non state hostile intelligence service may be based on a terrorist network or simply be an extension of organised crime. Varoufakis says 'every self-respecting news outlet' ought to be hostile not just to a particular administration but to the state itself. It should seek to undermine national security and contribute to the military defeat or economic sabotage of the country.



Is this a reasonable view? No. The qualities which make the independence of the Fourth Estate worth preserving are linked to objectivity, impartiality and respect for the law. The US is no slouch when it comes to upholding First Amendment Rights. It may well be that these don't extend to Assange precisely because he did not act in a responsible, impartial and objective manner. Indeed, Varoufakis himself provides ammunition for this view.



It may be that Assange is found to have acted properly w.r.t Wikileaks by a Court of Law. At any rate, he may be given the benefit of the doubt or be released on a technicality. However, his behavior has brought shame upon the profession of journalism. If he is typical, they are not courageous and have no sense of civic virtue. They are incapable of protecting Democracy because they are poltroons. It may be that, following Clarence Thomas, the bench will overturn Sullivan vs NYT because of this type of idiocy.



Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky are not doing anything illegal. If they were, they may be prosecuted. It is nonsense to say that a law abiding person who fails to oppose a criminal's extradition will become a criminal and therefore run the risk of being sent to prison. America has a President who says 'lock her up' about Hilary Clinton. Why is she not locked up? The answer is that she has not broken the law.



Varoufakis may not understand that under the Rule of Law, you actually have to do something wrong to go to jail. It was because the Rule of Law was undermined in Nazi Germany that Niemoller's apophthegm gained traction. The truth however was more like 'First they came for the S.A and the scoundrel Schleicher. We did nothing because it was a case of good riddance to bad rubbish. However, we should have stopped Blomberg when he made the Army give their oath of loyalty to Hitler. That's when people should have started running.



Varoufakis has a similarly bizarre view about women. He thinks 'No woman, in Sweden or elsewhere, will get justice' if the Law takes its course with Assange. No doubt, he has reached this amazing conclusion on the basis of his researches in Game Theory. Is he correct?



Of course, he is. Suppose a hoodlum snatches a little old lady's purse and she beats him with her umbrella and hands him over to the Police. In Court, he says 'Varoufakis wrote an article claiming that no woman can get justice because of what has happened to Assange. Kindly dismiss this old woman's complaint. Otherwise, Varoufakis will look a fool.' Will the Magistrates be swayed? Of course they will. They will immediately order the arrest of all police officers and demand the release of dangerous convicts. Why? Because in this way they can 'embarrass Western powers' even more substantially than Assange has done. To fail to act in this manner, by Varoufakis's logic, would be to hand 'a gift to liberalism's greatest foes.' Greece must be so proud.