Topic: WikiLeaks

[MG]

Lot's happening with regard to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks these days. Here in the US, supposedly responsible people are calling for his assassination. They want the CIA to "take him out", perhaps with one of the drones that have proven so effective at raining down murder from the skies in Afghanistan.  

And yet, among the people I correspond with in my daily life and on the internet, there seems to be almost universal support for what WikiLeaks has done and continues to do. Since so many of you are living outside the US, I am curious what your take is on Assange and WikiLeaks?    

And just to help the conversation to get started, here is an ariticle written by Julian and posted online yesterday:

Published on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 by The Australian

The Truth Will Always Win

by Julian Assange

In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain ‘s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US , with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay . Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

FYI: If you wish to make a donation to WikiLeaks (I already have done so), you may use this link:  https://xipwire.com/give/wl

[ImpishGrin]

Just a few thoughts for now, as I don't have at the moment time to elaborate.

1. I don't mind them publishing state documents/cables/whatever. I support an open government, where everything is (ideally) made available to the general public. If one feels that certain facts need to be hidden from the society, it means he's ashamed of those facts and probably shouldn't have made them happen.

2. So far I haven't encountered anything shocking or even new to me in those leaks they publish. It may be that the media doesn't report everything, but then - WikiLeaks publish so much, I won't be bothered to rummage through all of it; a media summary is essential.

3. I don't like the image Mr. Assange is creating of himself. I don't consider him to be a lone, persecuted crusader driven by a mission to bring freedom and justice. What he does is too much of show, and too little of actual go. Like I sadi, nothing groundbreaking in those cables.

4. Freedom is essential, but we have to be careful not to mistake anarchy for freedom. Not sure where the line is, but then these things are always blurred.

So, in general - yes, they have my support. But before they continue with making big effing media stars of themselves, I would like to actually see and hear something that substantiates claims to be "as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act".

[DeAutogids]

If I may comment on that. The killing of Reuters journalist by American soldiers was published - as far as I know - first on Wikileaks.
I believe that the documents from Americasn embassies published was never published before. There were some interesting insight in the documents provided. Unfortunately, it has snowed under due to the arrest.

PS) I agree on the PR-thing. They seem to play the PR thing exceptionally well.

[MG]

Both are excellent answers. Thanks for your input.   

[trobinett]

Just a few thoughts for now, as I don't have at the moment time to elaborate.

1. I don't mind them publishing state documents/cables/whatever. I support an open government, where everything is (ideally) made available to the general public. If one feels that certain facts need to be hidden from the society, it means he's ashamed of those facts and probably shouldn't have made them happen.

2. So far I haven't encountered anything shocking or even new to me in those leaks they publish. It may be that the media doesn't report everything, but then - WikiLeaks publish so much, I won't be bothered to rummage through all of it; a media summary is essential.

3. I don't like the image Mr. Assange is creating of himself. I don't consider him to be a lone, persecuted crusader driven by a mission to bring freedom and justice. What he does is too much of show, and too little of actual go. Like I sadi, nothing groundbreaking in those cables.

4. Freedom is essential, but we have to be careful not to mistake anarchy for freedom. Not sure where the line is, but then these things are always blurred.

So, in general - yes, they have my support. But before they continue with making big effing media stars of themselves, I would like to actually see and hear something that substantiates claims to be "as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act".

Well said, kinda the way I see it...........

[MG]

The only thing I would add is that that US gummint is working itself into a lather about how to charge Assange with some sort of criminal activity so they can extradite him to the US, with a possible stop in Egypt on the way for some, ahem, "questioning."   

If they are so all fired intent on punishing criminal activity, why don't they indict, Bush, Cheney et al for mass murder?   

Just sayin'........

[Amsterdam]

Governments all over the world are demanding more and more transparity of their citizens. In our daily lives we are been video taped, our calls are scanned and taped and all of our private information is stored in massive computer systems of which no one will or can confirm that this information is completely protected.

To me wikileaks is a logic response to these developments. Now it is turned around and the governments can't keep secrets anymore.
If they want to do something about it, I think they should not be focusing on wikileaks, but on who is leaking their secret information.
Bringing one man to ''justice'' is only going to encourage people to continue.

The way the situation is handled by the governments is the most shamefull to me.
Putting political pressure on companies to stop wikileaks was something that only
happend in countries like China, and this was always condemned by the western world. Now they are doing the same.
Even here in the Netherland is wikileaks off line on their own server and is only accessible through other media who are helping wikileaks to stay on line by putting it on their server.

To me wikileaks is a good development. It prevents that the authorities have a cart Blanche in their operations and it keeps them sharp on the information that really needs protection.
Besides is it an illusion to think that this development can be stopped in any way. Or they should shut down the complete internet

[DeAutogids]

Which is effectively what they want to do in the Netherlands.
The Dutch government has recently said they look seriously into DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) - I believe what the Australian government already is doing - supposedly to prevent children's abuse. Which is all fine and well as a reasoning, but just like airport securities are making you to proof you are innocent - something that goes against our civil rights - is not lawful. Unfortunately we are already in the situation that the governments of the world an certainly many internet companies like Facebook and Google know more about us then the Stasi did about their people.

[MG]

I am gratified to learn that people from a variety of countries are cognizant of the manner in which our governments continue to usurp the supposedly "self evident" rights of the people. 

we are already in the situation that the governments of the world an certainly many internet companies like Facebook and Google know more about us then the Stasi did about their people.

The digital age makes the collection, storage and analysis of massive amounts of information possible. Digital media are tools, like hammers and screwdrivers. They can create or they can maim or even kill. There seems little doubt to me that governments everywhere wish to enhance their power over the people. And will stop at nothing to do so. The world is in the grip of a wave of authoritarianism, whether it is in Myanmar, Iran, or Australia and America. The differences between the junta that runs Myanmar and the US government are only matters of degree. Both countries pursue similar objectives - add to their power and protect it from any and all challenges.

The internet COULD be the key that unlocks government coercion in countries around the world. But you can bet every last pfennig that governments everywhere will push back against that happening with every weapon at their disposal and will throw the rule of law into the trash bin in the name of "national security" if they have to.

George Orwell say this all clearly. But Aldous Huxley may have had an even clearer vision - that access to an unending stream of information would trivialize all information, resulting in a society that is so overstimulated with The Real Housewives of Bavaria and 24/7 sports programs that we are unable to discern what is important and filter it out from the background noise. An American author by the name of Neil Postman (a student of Marshall McLuhan) wrote a prescient book entitled "Amusing Ourselves To Death". For many, that is precisely what is happening. And while our attention is diverted, our liberty is being stolen from us.

The future of the internet will be the future of mankind. It can liberate us or further enslave us. Can we as individuals do anything to influence the outcome? Yes, if we have the courage to try.