c. David Grim (taken 11/21/10)
I've been a bit dissociated from the national media (especially over the Thanksgiving Holiday), so it's quite possible that everyone else knows a lot more about WikiLeaks than me. But the snippets of analysis I've caught on NPR have been fascinating so far. Evidently this online entity was launched in 2006, so it's strange that it hasn't really been in my consciousness until now. After all, I was paying attention up until the 2008 presidential election. if WikiLeaks had played a major role in public affairs back then, I think I would have heard about it.
Anyway, it does make sense that the public understanding of this odd organization is nebulous. The site itself expresses its purpose as "Exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East", and adds the following: "but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations." Surely in a post 9-11 environment, this can cause chagrin to administrations throughout the world who are involved in delicate maneuverings concerning the internal and external security of various nations. It's no surprise that those involved with making Wikileaks work want to keep a low profile.
Surely this applies to Julian Assange, the Australian most often cited as the founder of WikiLeaks. After all, Interpol has added Assange to its "Most Wanted" list. However, its allegations against the putative face of Wikileaks are not specifically related to any whistle blowing. Instead Assange is being sought for questioning regarding the alleged rape and molestation of two separate women (he denies any involvement). Others associated with the site complain of "continuing harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organizations, including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, “covert following and hidden photography". Meanwhile authorities across the globe (including those in the US) are trying to figure out how to prosecute Assange for espionage and related charges.
What has WikiLeaks actually done? Well... they started out by posting the reputed hit list of a Mideastern Sheikh, exposed atrocities and corruption in Kenya, shared secrets of Scientology, posted Sarah Palin's e-mail, published an Afghan War Diary, revealed Iraq War logs, and (most recently) released a huge amount of United States diplomatic cables which could prove both embarrassing and inconvenient for the State Department. The reaction has been vehement condemnation, including a suggestion by US Congressman Peter King (chairman of the Homeland Security Committee) that WikiLeaks should be listed as a foreign terrorist organization.
I've been a bit dissociated from the national media (especially over the Thanksgiving Holiday), so it's quite possible that everyone else knows a lot more about WikiLeaks than me. But the snippets of analysis I've caught on NPR have been fascinating so far. Evidently this online entity was launched in 2006, so it's strange that it hasn't really been in my consciousness until now. After all, I was paying attention up until the 2008 presidential election. if WikiLeaks had played a major role in public affairs back then, I think I would have heard about it.
Anyway, it does make sense that the public understanding of this odd organization is nebulous. The site itself expresses its purpose as "Exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East", and adds the following: "but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations." Surely in a post 9-11 environment, this can cause chagrin to administrations throughout the world who are involved in delicate maneuverings concerning the internal and external security of various nations. It's no surprise that those involved with making Wikileaks work want to keep a low profile.
Surely this applies to Julian Assange, the Australian most often cited as the founder of WikiLeaks. After all, Interpol has added Assange to its "Most Wanted" list. However, its allegations against the putative face of Wikileaks are not specifically related to any whistle blowing. Instead Assange is being sought for questioning regarding the alleged rape and molestation of two separate women (he denies any involvement). Others associated with the site complain of "continuing harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organizations, including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, “covert following and hidden photography". Meanwhile authorities across the globe (including those in the US) are trying to figure out how to prosecute Assange for espionage and related charges.
What has WikiLeaks actually done? Well... they started out by posting the reputed hit list of a Mideastern Sheikh, exposed atrocities and corruption in Kenya, shared secrets of Scientology, posted Sarah Palin's e-mail, published an Afghan War Diary, revealed Iraq War logs, and (most recently) released a huge amount of United States diplomatic cables which could prove both embarrassing and inconvenient for the State Department. The reaction has been vehement condemnation, including a suggestion by US Congressman Peter King (chairman of the Homeland Security Committee) that WikiLeaks should be listed as a foreign terrorist organization.
Even for the most ardent supporters of free speech, WikiLeaks can be problematic. There is no way the validity of the information it publishes can be verified, and the editorial process of the organization is not transparent. Additionally, many governments claim that the lives of their operatives and military personnel can be put at risk by WikiLeaks activity. In fact there is some reason to believe that major world events with incalculable consequences could be provoked by reactions to the released information. For the near future Assange has promised the leaking of material regarding the private sector, which he insinuates could shake the international economic system. For this reason, I'll probably be paying more attention.
"Even for the most ardent supporters of free speech, WikiLeaks can be problematic." The real potential danger in this arena is that it may result in a clampdown of Internet accessibility and usage. That is, out of the perceived AND real need to stifle letting out all the secrets, actions will be put into place either through law or administratively (using laws already on the books) to limit free speech, both on the Internet AND the airwaves. I suppose it's about a line in the sand, and who will feel empowered to move the line. Is it me, or is it odd that this may come from the social liberals? I suspect the world is about to take some crazy turns.
ReplyDeleteThat would be an unfortunate consequence, and one that is rather likely, I fear. I'm not sure what you mean about coming from social liberals, though.
ReplyDeleteThe following definition of social liberalism is one I am using..."embraces several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters." The source is not important, only that it's this definition I embraced when commenting. Individual liberties, the right to question and dissent, and the defense of free speech seem to be in direct contradiction to any movement to limit, control or shut down any sites or parts of the Internet or the media because it's perceived to be harming their causes. Any clearer?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that the movement to stifle free speech on the internet is coming from social liberals?
ReplyDeleteI am suggesting that it is my take that the potential stifling of free speech on certain media and threats to shut down select internet channels that are opposed to perceived interests are indeed emanating from folks who would consider themselves as social liberals, yes.
ReplyDeleteI've honestly not followed the issue closely enough to know who is seeking that type of response. Who are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteYou haven't heard that certain liberal Democratic politicians have called for the stifling of certain media types who are constantly criticizing the left, to the point of invoking existing and/or new regs and laws to do so? That is, tighter yet selective controls on the public airwaves? You haven't heard that the administration is considering shutting down selected internet channels to protect against leaks of reports they consider crucial to remain secrets, and saying they have the means to do so?
ReplyDeleteWell... I'm not surprised that the president would try to protect the national security. In fact, if he didn't he'd be criticized even more than he is now. There would be calls for impeachment. Oh yeah... wait...
ReplyDelete