Julian Assange isn't a hero, but an attention seeker who is now setting himself up as a martyr. I do however think that the Australian government's reaction is indicative of the sycophantic behaviour towards the US government that became prevalent in the Howard/Bush years. I even agree with Assange's accurate, if crudely put, comment:
This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen - does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties.
One Congressman in the US wants Wikileaks to be declared a terrorist organisation. A laughable demand, but typical of a government that doesn't like to have its authority questioned. Bill O'Reilly is calling for the execution of the person who leaked the information while Glenn Beck has tied Assange to George Soros, presumably as part of his ongoing conspiracy theory. Not credible voices, but ones that are loud enough to be heard by the public. Meanwhile, Republican Ron Paul has come out in support of Assange.
Then we have the decisions of Amazon and PayPal to pull any support for the site even though they have not previously taken issue with Wikileaks' terms of use violations.
I have been a fan of Wikileaks for quite some time. But the sheer glut of information they are releasing at the moment seems counterproductive. I'm with Leslie Cannold when she says:
There is a legitimate role for editorial judgment and a need to protect individual privacy in media and corporate dealings, not to mention sometimes a requirement for secrecy in military operations, intelligence gathering and diplomatic negotiations. The arbiter for disclosure is the public interest.
It is vital that WikiLeaks not become about leaking for leaking's sake. It must not abandon its fight against corruption in defence of the public interest to favour what the Federation of American Scientists calls "an assault on secrecy".
Instead, WikiLeaks must ensure it continues to grab headlines with the same stories that have won it awards from Amnesty and made its name. These include images of the Baghdad air strike and documents about extra- judicial killings and disappearances in Kenya. WikiLeaks is a game-changer, providing the raw data that can be used to shine light into the dark corners of corrupt corporate and civil institutions. It can be expected to change the way governments and businesses operate. In the future, openness may be the default and arguments made about why something should stay secret. This profound and important paradigm shift is largely down to WikiLeaks.
This is why I hope the organisation will move to protect is own legacy, and the public support required for its continuing influence, by sticking to the task of whistleblowing, not just divulging secrets because they're interesting or because it can.
(My emphasis.)
There is no doubt that some of the information provided contains information people should know. The torture of Khaled El-Masri was a despicable act, made worse by the Bush government pressuring the Germans to not prosecute those who were involved. The authoritarian attitude of the US government is well-known so sadly this information comes as no surprise. Yet being made aware of Clinton ordering diplomats to spy is hardly groundbreaking stuff - anyone with an ounce of sense would expect this from not just Clinton, but any Secretary of State (or their equivalent).
But do we really need to know the details of a wedding just because Ramzan Kadyrov attended as a political move?
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the cables released and the subsequent uproar about security violations we will only hear about a few things: 1) Assange's arrest warrants; 2) the outrage from governments around the world; and, 3) the childish name-calling.
What I think we need to remember is that while there are things that need to be made public, some information needs to be kept confidential to protect not only governments but individuals who try to make the world a better place.
Overall, my reaction is a giant "meh". It's not that I don't understand what is at stake for FOI and freedom of speech, it's just that I don't have the energy to get riled up about it. There are so many things to be outraged about in the world, and I think I've already used up my rage for the year. I also find it difficult to get worked up about something that is not a black and white issue, not when the lives of people like USAID workers and government whistleblowers (from all over the world) are put at additional risk.
One final thing. If the US government does pursue Assange for making the documents available, they better do something about the people involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity, otherwise another point in the hypocrisy column will be added.
Further reading:
The Nation: Did US Special Forces Want to 'Target' Refugee Camps in Pakistan?
The Monthly: The Man Who Fell to Earth
Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins
The Economist: In defense of Wikileaks; Missing the point of Wikileaks; Releasing, Reporting or Dumping?
The Guardian: The US embassy cables
7 opinionated souls:
Perfect. Exactly what I was thinking.
Great post.
Nice recital of what the US media tells you: its putting lives at risk. The pentagon has admitted no harm has come to anyone from 4 years of Wikileaks releases - there are proven lives lost from US actions. Complicit in tortue - a war crime for one. Spying on UN leaders, persuading Spanish and german courts not to peruse the US for war crimes.
You write a long post, but I think you should spend less time spewing thoughts from your brain and more time informing yourself.
@spock Thanks
@anon Get the fuck over yourself and stop assuming I only listen to what the government tells me. And maybe actually read what I fucking wrote.
Anonymous also needs to spell-check.
Just saying.
Enjoyed your post, Michelle, food for thought.
My gripes are:
1. The excessive focus on Assange himself, when the information in the leaks are explosive and fucking awful. People should be very concerned about THAT. The issues related to Assange and the info within the leaks are two separate elements, IMO. It's shitting me that people are talking about the leaks and Assange in the same breath: he is merely a conduit for this info, which I am thankful for. His legal woes are another element, separate from the leaks.
2. As you point out, the fluff they have decided to release detracts from the bigger picture. It shits me.
Overall, I am thankful for the leaks... if "thankful" is the right word. It's necessary. Reactions from govts across the world is very telling.
But we need to separate Assange from the details, and the fluff details from the important details.
Yeah. I also think that if we assume the intent behind releasing the information is to make people aware of what their governments actually do in the name of national security, then it is a good thing.
But if it is merely an unprincipled act, then it is a massive problem.
I can't help but consider the impact on informants and innocents. The collateral damage, if you will.
The problem for me is that if we only condone for 'principled' leaking, then basically no leaking would ever occur. I've leaked things myself (not on Wikileaks!), and for me, there were a range of motivations - some to do with informing the public about stuff I thought was important, some to do with settling scores. I suspect a lot of leaking is like that - not entirely principled, but better in the public domain than not.
Good call, Michelle.
I do have the energy to care, particularly the fact that our PM is basically hanging a citizen out to dry, and that apparently it's perfectly okay to advocate for the murder of someone. Shouldn't half the Fox pundits be charged with inciting violence?
I completely agree about the selection process. It seems to be that because of the sheer amount of information being obtained the process for selection is getting slacker and slacker. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff, because a lot of the worthwhile stuff is getting lost in there.
But yes, Assange comes across as a total wanker. It just shouldn't matter, though.
Post a Comment