My question on WikiLeaks is this: who died and made Julian Assange God? Yep, there are some nefarious dealings in the shady world of global diplomacy, but what gives WikiLeaks the right to go ahead and post this information for all the world to see? Interestingly, newspapers around the world (Like Canada's Globe and Mail) offer editorials criticizing Assange and WikiLeaks for flouting the rules that govern things like, oh, how about national security, yet those same newspapers go ahead and post the leaked data for all the world to see.

From its own website, WikiLeaks claims that it has "combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles."

What eithical principles. Nowhere on their site does WikiLeaks explain what those eithical principles are. The lack of black and white policy and procedure allows even the most simple among us to draw the conclusion that WikiLeaks is "making it up as they go." By whose standards are they deciding which information to reveal to the world media? Which tools are they using to decide which information to redact? Is it Assange calling the shots? You see, we don't really know how WikiLeaks operates other than an ongoing assertion on Assange's part that "the world must know the truth". Assange has wrapped himself snugly inside a cloak of self-defined truth and a smug sense of righteous indignation, a sense of indignation that he himself as decided to express on behalf of a world that didn't ask him to do it in the first place.

Now I'm mindful that we need whistleblowers to sometime cast a light on the way our institutions work, but here's the rub: it's the private soldier in the US army who leaked information to Assange's organization who has been found out. That soldier now faces a fifty-two year prison term for breaching security protocols that he agreed to uphold when he joined up. It won't be Assange who winds up spending decades in prison for "exposing the truth" - it'll be his feeders, those private citizens who leak the information that pay the price for WikiLeaks supposed "greater good".

I will know eagerly anticipate WikiLeaks to vigorously pursue online fund raising initiatives to bankroll the legal expenses of the very people who have made Assange a household name around the world: the people who gave him the leaked information in the first place.

Somehow, I suspect hell will freeze over first.

As a writer, I must admit to thinking, first, how similar this story was to any number of mass-market thrillers on the market, including THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. The irony comes when you think of the orgiginal title to that book, MEN WHO HATE WOMEN.

Now, like Rob, I must be suspicious of these charges. In fact, this part of the story, in particular, reads like a pulp thriller. But, while I do take your comments about who the real victims are in all of this - ie. the soldier who leaked the info - I must play my 'freedom of speech' card regarding the whole affair.

Politicians are perhaps my least favourite collective in the world, marginally higher than bankers. They make lying and cheating a way of life, as Rob suggests. In fact, their whole careers have historically revolved around such. Any individual who draws attention to this fact is therefore to be applauded, in my opinion, as a faint glimmer of hope that civil liberties still exist, that the individual can stand up against the state and force some real change (as opposed to the type that politicans constantly proffer).

(I'll go and sit down now).

:D

Respectfully, Wayne - I'm going to quote Alan Moore by posing a question that speaks to the heart of my concern over WikiLeaks:

Who watches the watchmen?

Sean, another good point. And very well made, sir (I'm a HUGE Watchmen fan and Moore's Swamp Thing series is mind-blowingly good. Fine taste you have. But I digress).

As a fellow Alan Moore fan, I would perhaps issue a simple answer to your question:

We do

I think the responsibility for evaluating the motivations or context or credibility behind any information we receive must fall upon ourselves. And, in my eyes, so it should.

Well done chaps. Some excellent points.

My sympathies tend to lie with the WikiLeaks people I suppose. My take on who gives them the right is that the politician's legitimacy comes from the fact we vote for them, but we don't vote for them to lie to us. Democracy doesn't work without good transparency so I see the WikiLeaks revelations as making us better informed as voters. It's good for democracy. I agree there needs to be care taken in what's leaked, but the people we elect to do that job for us are the ones who choose to cover it up forever more. So we get amateurs stepping in and doing it for them. If governments didn't abuse the notion of national security the only things left to leak would be genuine defence secrets and not blunders and deception. And I'd be just as cross if they did that as you, Sean.

Leaking details of corrupt government officials doing something illegal is one thing, but that's not what WikiLeaks are doing. Posting things like the personal opinions of diplomats or lists of potential terror targets is just anarchism and vandalism - making trouble for the sake of it (or, more likely, for the sake of their own egos).

Press freedom is one thing, but that doesn't equate to an unfettered right to publish anything you feel like just because you think it will titillate the public and sell a few more newspapers. People have to be allowed to have secrets (eg. medical records, personal correspondence, commercial secrets, private holiday snaps of celebrities, manuscripts for forthcoming books, or whatever) and that right has to be protected.

Rolf, of course I take your point, but Wayne and I happen to have chatted about anarchism and aren't as dead set against as you might think. Not sure why you think WikiLeaks aren't leaking details of corrupt government officials. I thought they were. And it does seem strange to me that 'egotism' would be the motivation for an almost completely anonymous group to do something. When they start publishing my medical records, I'm on your side, but look at what they *have* actually published. Aren't we all better informed about important matters now? I feel like I am.

Hey Rolf, how's it going?

Great point you make. For me, however, the difference between both scenarios you mention is important to draw out: if I contract with a company or health care provider re: a service, then confidentiality would indeed be part of that deal. Our contract with the government, however, is built more on transparency - and when they say one thing to us (their customers) and then do another, it's something we should know about. In any other voluntary transaction, it would probably lead to us taking our business elsewhere.

Probably why I would see anarchism in a different light, as Rob has said. For me, it's not about chaos or violence, but more about personal and community responsibility. More transparency and less secrets and lies.

If WikiLeaks reveal details of actual wrongdoing (like with the Iraqi war archives, killing unarmed reporters and so on) then absolutely, I'm all for it, they're doing a good job holding our governments to account. That's not what they're doing at the moment though. Maybe other material will come out but at the moment they mainly seem to be leaking confidential assessments made by US diplomats about other governments. For example, revealing that China is getting exasperated with the regime in North Korea and might support reunification in future. If as a result the North Korean leadership feels even more paranoid and insecure, and acts even more irrationally or repressive to its own people, how can a leak like that possibly be thought to be in anyone's interest??

Rolf, for my part I see maintaining the option to say one thing and believe another as a luxury and a temporary thing. You shouldn't stake your future on your ability to deceive people. And I wonder if a world in which one's ability to be two-faced is hampered is really one in which peace and diplomacy will be more difficult to achieve. I'm just not sure I believe that. I'll admit it's a dangerous game, but keeping billions of people in the dark about what's really happening in the world just doesn't seem like democracy in action. I want some real democracy; not a system where the person who tells the best lies wins. I feel like airing all this dirty laundry makes that more likely.

I've just stumbled on this thread and, although I'd vowed to have said my last word on Wikileaks, feel moved to add a comment.

The reason for my having said my last word is my despairing in the face of the near total herd response of people in general, and people I know who I once considered intelligent and sociopolitically aware. I say this not to be confrontational, but as a statement of fact as I see it.

In a nutshell, there is more to the Wikileaks issue than meets the eye, and a distressing amount of people are failing, or refusing, to see it.

Before I came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time, I wrote several posts that included links to what I considered excellent research and analysis sources, which contained some important information on the subject. Please check them out (especially the links) at:

centreofthepsyclone.wordpress.com

Again, without wanting to sound sensationalist, it's vitally important that this information be considered, and shared.

I've just stumbled on this thread and, although I'd vowed to have said my last word on Wikileaks, feel moved to add a comment.

The reason for my having said my last word is my despairing in the face of the near total herd response of people in general, and people I know who I once considered intelligent and sociopolitically aware. I say this not to be confrontational, but as a statement of fact as I see it.

In a nutshell, there is more to the Wikileaks issue than meets the eye, and a distressing amount of people are failing, or refusing, to see it.

Before I came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time, I wrote several posts that included links to what I considered excellent research and analysis sources, which contained some important information on the subject. Please check them out (especially the links) at:

centreofthepsyclone.wordpress.com

Again, without wanting to sound sensationalist, it's vitally important that this information be considered, and shared.