The ongoing WikiLeaks saga is captivating, in part, because its hugeness extends in so many directions; breadth, depth, duration. Like the roiling, inky geyser of the BP oil spill, WikiLeaks' revelations keep squirting their way into the world, defying the most powerful governments and technologies. A growing consensus lauds the leaks as a triumph for the left, a new model for openness. That may be. But within the folds of interlocking stories - the leaks, the cables, the hack attacks, the travails of founder Julian Assange - there are multiple threads that should give progressives and lefties pause. Here's three:
1. Information without representation
October's Iraq War document dump was far more redacted than previous leaks. According to CNN, WikiLeaks removed more data from the documents than the Pentagon did from the originals. It'd be one thing if the whistleblower website lived up to its reputation and placed everything online. That WikiLeaks censors anything at all shows a basic agreement with the United States' position; there are lives (military and civilian) in the balance, and the disclosure of their identities - even inadvertently - could endanger those lives. Except now we have an unelected, unaccountable entity making these decisions. Am I the only one who sees this as an inherently undemocratic setup?
The American military is bureaucratic, change-adverse, and designed (to quote Rush Limbaugh) to kill people and break things. It's also controlled by civilians, a truth reaffirmed in June by general McChrystal's dismissal. I didn't get a say in McChrystal's command in Afghanistan, and I didn't get a say in his successor. But if I don't like Petraeus's conduct, there are plenty of elected representatives I can beef to. If my cause is organized and passionate enough, it may build enough momentum to force leaders on the executive level to take notice. Yes, the odds are astronomical against my affecting any change. So what? That's life in a representative democracy. You get, at least, the opportunity to air grievances.
Where's the complaint box for Assange?
2. "Trust me" syndrome
After July's Afghan War documents leak, Amnesty, Reporters Without Borders, and four other NGOs expressed concern for the safety of Afghans named in the 75,000 documents. Assange offered assurances - widely accepted - that no Afghans had been killed due to leaked info.
Ponder this for a moment. Why should we believe him? Assange has every motive in the world for denying collateral damage. Also; how the hell would he know? Also; how would anyone know? If mystery murders are still on the books from Katrina, how could any westerner ever know what goes down in rural Afghanistan? It all has the suspiciously self-serving ring of BP CEO Tony Hayward's many gulf spill bloopers. Except Hayward only had 11 deaths and several hundred miles of coastline to worry about.
3. Viral Misogyny
It's not fair to discuss Operation Payback in the same breath as Wikileaks. But it's not entirely unfair, either; Assange and Wikileaks have thus far refused to disown last week's DDoS retaliations done in their name. Among other foes, the attack targeted the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the body prosecuting Julian Assange for rape charges. It's a quick step from the SPA to the plaintiff's lawyers, who've also been hammered from online. This is pretty much the same deal as Keep America Safe's attack on Gitmo lawyers (and, by extension, the rule of law itself), with one notable exception; Liz Cheney had the balls to sign her name.
The real targets are the accusers. Both women have been globally vilified, their names, faces, addresses and phone numbers posted online. One of the accusers may or may not have tried to withdraw her claims, depending on which news site you read. Most distressingly, much of the flak comes from the left; Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Naomi Wolf. And where Interpol's timing and handling of Assange is suspicious in the extreme, no one really knows the full story between Assange and his accusers. Regardless of the details of this particular case, to have rape accusations so thoroughly and shamefully discredited sends a chilling message to women worldwide.
Operation Payback's hairy id keeps peeking out. Beneath those computer geek trappings - the "low orbit ion cannon," the D&D appeal to "chaotic good," the twinkly Tron anonymity - beat the hearts of a million frat boys. It's a triumph of misogyny hiding in plain sight. Meanwhile, last Friday's ANON OPS press release explained why the group's assault on Amazon was aborted; "Simply put, attacking a major retailer when people are buying presents for their loved ones would be in bad taste."
Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women 'unfair and ...
Special Report: STD fears sparked case against WikiLeaks boss ...
Assange rape case spotlights Sweden's liberal laws | Full Page
Julian Assange is a hero.
On the third point, yes, this is very troubling, but the outpourings of disgusting - and frequently right-wing, it should be noted - hatred against Assange's accusers is more a product of the anonymous and vitriolic internet age we are living in, than in the actions of Wikileaks (which is the product of a different side of the internet, I would say). Wikileaks, as a devoutly anarchist (in structure) organisation, is surely less responsible than, say, the rigidly structured Fox News would be for the actions of its regularly acknowledged viewers/followers (which, of course, it is only 'responsible' for in the most indirect way). So, yes, some truth in the arguments, but not too much.
More information please. Lots of it.
Wikileaks is a strange new hybrid of a media outlet, one which has been criticized heavily for at least potentially putting people in harm's way. They claim to have learned from this and so to have put measures in place to avoid this happening again (I have certainly read a lot of reputable sources that insist that Wikileaks' actions have not led to any deaths - but time will tell on that one). This sounds to me like a good way to advance - redact where lives on the ground may be in danger. This Wikileaks reaction over this issue also means, in effect, there is some basic form of representation (in much the same way public outrage / official condemnation can sometimes temper a private companies actions). When comparing Wikileaks to the US military, the author might do well to remember the basic but key point that the former has not started or executed any wars so far as I have noticed and so cannot be judged on the same scale of threat to human life.
Obviously some of those criticisms land a blow: but then again, media outlets / news gathering organisations are not democratic or representative either (as is the case with any private organisation / company). The author ought to remember that. Obviously most media outlets operate, for the most part, within the law: but so far the only law Wikileaks is accused of violating is an arcane US espionage law from 1917 (I think it is), which Assange - as a non-US citizen - has no reason to heed that law in the first place.
In fact, Assange's name has been associated with the word "rape" though no charges have been filed. Given that he was accused of sexual crimes while Wikileaks was giving out U.S. military documents; then the charges were dropped. Then Sweden wants to question him. Given these circumstances, it's good to see feminists like Naomi Wolf say that when real rapists aren't prosecuted and rarely convicted while Assange is imprisoned smacks of unfair treatment.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6171375275571061709
God bless SusanLindauerSibelEdmondsManningEllsbergAssangeStockwellWebbRuppertTatumHeller, and MLK, peoplewho are committed to truthandjustice.
CIAagent, JohnStockwell:
"It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate and fear, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms."
"Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn."
In 1980, Stockwell said,
"if the Soviet Union were to disappear off the face of the map, the United States would quickly seek out new enemies to justify its own military-industrial complex.
All this is to say that free access to information is important and overzealous protection of it can be dangerous. However, it's hard to know who one could trust to moderate what information is, or isn't, outside these bounds. I don't doubt some information really is though...
Hey Sam, I think you're using it. Anonymously on the web, and in private, are the only places left where real free speech occurs. That's kind of the point of WikiLeaks. If you have something to say to Julian I think you just said it. Unfortunately, Julian is no longer acting anonymously, and for that reason many of us are very concerned about his safety. It's dangerous to expose the US political machine as the coercive, deceitful, war-mongering apparatus it has become.
Those of us who value truth and free speech are ready to hear it, no matter whom or what is exposed. We want to know the truth, not what some government has concocted for us to consume. Let all of the paper tigers burn with one glorious roar. Possibly a phoenix of peace, prosperity and openness can rise from their ashes.
Many, many more Afghans, Iraqis and coalition soldiers have died as a result of lies and dishonesty then will ever be killed as a result of someone telling the truth. And that too is the point of WikiLeaks — a point that Sam McPheeters seems to have missed.
I think you may want to consider a statement from Women Against Rape organization.
Women question the unusual zeal in pursuing Julian Assange for rape allegations
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/inthemedia/women-question-unusual-zeal-pursuing-julian-assang
2. There is yet to be any proof offered that the Pentagon Papers caused any physical harm to anyone despite the same charge being leveled when Ellsberg acted then. Please provide evidence that someone has been killed by WikiLeaks (and don't use the US government as a source--it cannot be trusted). And if someone has, then explain why anyone in collusion with the criminal activities of the US government should expect not to pay a price for their complicity.
3. I don't know anything about the women who've filed charges against Assange, and like you, I wasn't a witness to what they allege. But I wholeheartedly support an investigation into these charges. Assange doesn't strike me as a particularly likable character, but stop protesting so much and admit that the timing of these charges is especially suspect. Maybe he's guilty of some crime under Swedish law, maybe not, but I'm no frat boy and I don't trust that this investigation is honest.
Either you defend democracy, transparency and individual rights or you don't. Me? I support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and (especially) domestic.
I see it too Sam McPheeters!
Great Article! If other people refuse to account for the need of law; so be it. I for one don't have to trust Julian Assange, nor should there be an obligation to. Julian Assange should be tried for espionage, and go to jail. I was surprised by Michael Moore's willingness to offer financial aid to Julian Assange. Moore would of been better served by thinking before he jumped with both feet into this one.
What? Anna Ardin was apparently pretty happy with Assange the day after she'd allegedly been "molested". Read her tweets (translated to English).
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'
If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them.
source: http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml
7 Steps to Legal Revenge
January 19, 2010:
I’ve been thinking about some revenge over the last few days and came across a very good side who inspired me to this seven-point revenge instruction in Swedish..
For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved..
Use your imagination!.
Figure out how you can systematically take revenge..
Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion.
And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer..
Tags: revenge , revenge , revenge lawful , avenge , reciprocate , punish.
http://nicholasmead.com/2010/08/21/how-to-smear-a-hero/
Finally, Assange has not been charged with any crimes whatsoever. None. He is only wanted for questioning and he has offered his cooperation every steep of the way. He even handed himself in on the same day an arrest warrant made its way to the british police. Yes the conspiracy theorist are all over this one and yes it does seem a bit farfetched that the CIA is behind the whole thing from day one. However, what does seem totally plausible is that two jealousy stricken women, that big headed Assange had one night stands with in a matter of a day and a half, decided to get even. That even though initially the Swedish prosecutor dismissed the charges, they were, for no apparent reason since real charges have not been brought up, later on revived and that the US government seems intent in finding a way to silence and discredit him. I find that curiously amusing since they are not contesting the cables, just Assanges credibility. He could be a war criminal for all I care, and Wikileaks information would still be valid.
Your piece falls in all the stereotypes and instead of focusing on the really relevant tries to hype the irrelevant. Please do not treat us like imbec*ls, and Sam, please go check your facts and write a better piece.