My mother just asked what i thought about WikiLeaks, and finally I had an answer. My gut reaction from the beginning has been to support WikiLeaks, but i haven't articulated that support till now:
1. There is nothing you can do about it.
The internet is designed to support anonymous dumping of masses of documents. You can "shut down" WikiLeaks, but it doesn't matter: there will be any number of ways anyone with documents they wish to leak will be able to do so, including reams of similar projects that will pop up all over the world, smarter and better than WikiLeaks. Trying to stop WikiLeaks is a pointless exercise, unless you wish to give the state the right to designate people or organizations illegal at will, with no due process.
2. If you shut WikiLeaks with law, you shut the free press.
If you say that the government can prosecute people for publishing information that the government doesn't want published - for "national security" or any other reason - then you no longer have a free press or free speech. If the government has the ability to outlaw public discussions on whatever topics they please, based on national security, the government then can control the speech of the press, private citizens, and any other kind of mixture of the two. This is what Lieberman's SHIELD law proposes.
So: there is no point in trying to stop WikiLeaks, and if you do, you have to criminalize activities that are fundamental to our understanding of Western Democracy. There's not really a middle road, as far as I can tell.
Follow Hugh McGuire on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hughmcguire
The image of the lonely Cowboys punching huge herds across hundreds of miles of open land is also forever romanticized. These were entrepreneurs creatively exploiting an unknown arena, and adapting to an open frontier. Some people earned a lot of money quickly, and most portrayed an exciting lifestyle that the more mundane people could experience vicariously through cultural adoption .
When the powers of Commerce and State collude things change. A public infrastructure is created in the railroad, but it's greatest rewards are only shared among the mightiest. There is human slaughter and tragedy. Wealth and control becomes stronger and more consolidated. Landscape disappears as fences appear. Natural Order is replaced with Laws constructed by Men.
The "Wild West" happened in roughly 2 decades only, but the mystique outlives that day unto this one.
History is fascinating to remind us of a time when things were philosophically simpler and better, History illustrates how exponentially more complicated the world is that we live in today.
History also teaches a lesson to remind us that relations between Men can become brutal and difficult. Once there were values so ideologically prejudicial and selfish, that they cannot even be morally considered as a course of action by people in our age.
We are fortunate people to participate in the Golden Age of the Internet. The "settling" of this newly discovered virtual frontier shares similarities with another of our nations formative Frontier Golden Ages:
In the time of Westward expansion of the United States, there once existed a "no man's land" of territory governed only by a Natural Order .
The people living in this territory witness an invasion of an incomprehensible magnitude by new settlers inhabiting the land. Values and beliefs collide.
Innovation occurs among the strong, the brave, and the free. Survival is assured for the native people who become superlative equestrians and marksmen. Survival is assured to those who keep pace along with the diminishing Bison herds, and who can prove to be formidable enemies to their foes. Survival is assured for the settlers who establish ranches, who provide food security for the growing Eastern Urban population. There are enormous fortunes made, supplying a newly formed habit having the rich nourishment of tasty tender red meat.
Forever romanticized is the image of proud, free roaming Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and all of their relations. People who follow the seasons and the food freely across the land. People who share freely what bounty they may harvest. Every person's entitlement is tempered by their respect for a place in their environment and their individual contribution to their people's cause.
Sure, but their intent is to discourage future leaks (both the leaking and the publishing), not so much to stop the Wikileaks organization per se. It's a serious matter. Chilling effects are real.
they're not sufficient.
they can't be; you can't suppress 2,000,000,000 people distributed across every nation of the globe; you just can't.
Censoring is already happening. The U.S. Air Force is blocking access on their network to any legitimate news agencies that are directly publishing the cables including The New York Times. Not only that, if you go to one of these sites on an Air Force computer you will instead get a 'notice' (warning) that you are being watched! How Orwellian is that for you?
And how lame. Let me count the ways:
- Air Force staff have computers at home, don't they?
- More sites daily are doing there own news stories based on the cables published by Wikileaks and their partners, linking to the cables instead of hosting them.
- It's bad publicity for such a formidable agency to appear to have such an epic fail. I mean, the Air Force is one of Americas first lines of defense (and attack) and to see it acting like 'keystone cops' or 'Spy vs. Spy' surely doesn't inspire the American public's confidence in them.
- Conversely, other world powers will interpret (correctly) that the Air Force's actions represent poor command judgment and are therefor a weakness.
- If the Air force does any more than harass it's own people then security and moral will suffer (if it hasn't already).
- These actions create just the sort of dissent among the ranks that could lead to more leaks like the ones the Air Force is trying to suppress.
Tacks on the runway... and the Air Force put them there themselves.
well, lots of them, actually.