Wikileaks, Ethics and Transparency

Remove all ads!

In light of the big document dump over the weekend, I've started thinking more about Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and his goal of changing government and corporate behavior by exposing their backroom dealings to the public. I'm sure some would argue that his behavior is unethical, as his revealing of government secrets can potentially put the lives or troops and intelligence operatives in immediate danger. But it can also be argued that since corporations and governments keep so many secrets from the public - secrets that often harm ordinary citizens - that Assange's effort is the very definition of ethical; that Assange is fulfilling the role of a journalist in the purest sense, no matter the greater cost. At this point I'm not sure which viewpoint I subscribe to.

Up to now I'd seen Assange as fairly harmless, since his previous document dumps have revealed little that wasn't already common knowledge (or obvious). But after this weekend's dump, my sense is that Wikileaks will be viewed far more negatively now, as it seems the purpose of the dump was, for the most part, merely to make the U.S. government look bad. I would view Assange's effort more favorably if it seemed to serve a purpose higher than (what appears to be) petty gossip-mongering and governmental exposure for its own sake.

But that's my snap take, and I thought I'd open it up for discussion.

 

I'm not sure where I stand on this either. What's the cliche I'm searching for? Perhaps, "The truth will set you free."

 

Really? While I can imagine the Wikileak project has at least some basis in the idea that government has not been accountable to the people, I do not think you can make the jump to "merely" making the US government look bad. Also, I'm not so sure the US government is the only one painted in negative light over the incident.

 

The documents say that our foreign minister Westerwelle is a pompous idiot. So they noticed They also say that our SecDef von und zu Guttenberg is a close friend of the US. Big news there as well.

I think it is more hype than substance, more gossip material than anything else. But it is definitely bad news for the US and their still ailing image. I read Assange purposely timed the publication to maximise publicity damage to the US. And he expects them to idly sit by, asking for more? Not to mention the other countries whose dirty laundry he has hung out; they too must be less than pleased.

I think Assange is an unsavoury character. Something about him just isn't right. Whatever, he is well advised to watch his back. He is setting himself up for mischief to happen to him. His site is under constant attack. And isn't he wanted under this rape charge in Sweden (which may even be founded)? Likely, he is bound to be made the problem, in an attempt to solve the problem with Wikileaks. He will find little sympathy from governments and that can make the world a very cold place.

 

They weren't, but I think we can all agree the U.S. bore the brunt. The idea of Wikileaks as a whole is a noble one - making governments accountable to the people - but so far it seems more interested in airing dirty laundry (as Ragusa aptly put it) than anything substantive. But I could me missing something.

 

^^.


I'm wondering why wikileaks goes so strongly vs the USA.
Wouldn't it be interesting as well to see private documents of China, Russia and so on revealed?
Or do they suddenly fear then, to find themselves poisoned with Plutonium one day?

 

I would say it's a simple fact of if they don't have it, they can't release it.

 

That would imply it is way more easy to get classified material from the USA than from other nations.
I highly doubt it. On the contrary. I think that big nations like China or Russia (just as an example) have enough enemies in their own ranks or simple people that are simply unhappy with their situation, that might deliver secret information, like this soldier (who is accused of treason) probably did with the now leaked material of the US.

On the other hand, Wikileaks just might bloat itself up as a leader of leaking material while it indeed has only material from this sole soldier who probably delivered all information.
Some kind of lucky event they took advantage of.
Who knows.

 

How would we be able to read those things then? I don't Assange knows either Russian or Chinese. and neither do we.

 

So we're back to "little that wasn't already common knowledge (or obvious)", eh? Oh, and that the US spies on it's allies. :GASP!!: It amazes me that people didn't get over that when we caught Russia spying. Not that they're exactly our allies, but that should have woken up any idiots left over that actually thought the international community was a big boy's club or something.

I do think Wikileak's targetting of the US indicates a personal bias. I'm sure he's got friends in China, Russia, India, maybe even Iran, who have provided him other resources. I remember a little after the last leak some news hit the fan that much of Assange's team was in protest over his apparent obsession with the US. Many said they were leaving, though I don't know what ended up happening.

 

Here be an article about this guy. The article is written by Canada's most right wing goofball, but I like him nonetheless.

If this Assange douche really is putting lives in danger with his juvenile "I'll tell your secrets" kind of <snip>, then I am in full agreement with the author, who appears to believe the guy should be taken out as a traitor.

That's a big if, though.

This article, by a liberal goofball, is also rather amusing.

 

I wonder, how many people did actually die as a result of a wikileak action? I have been told that there are actually editors working at wikileaks who clean the messages from names and other information that could be used to harm the innocent.

 

Well, apparently they didn't do a good enough job with the last one (the war documents). I don't know if anyone actually died because of them, but apparently some names, or at least enough details to identify particular individuals, were released. That was a large part of the media uproar over it at the time.

Apparently the next big release will be on a major American bank, which Assange has compared to Enron in a recent interview. Given the nature of banking secrets, the nature of the Enron fallout, and the fact that Assange said he expects at least a few major banks to go down because of what he has (whether that's creadible or just hype is another issue), I'm not sure if a release is more responsible than holding onto the info. Maybe just passing it on to investigators, and only releasing it if they do nothing. I don't know. What I do know is that both a major bank corruption-related colapse right now and another Enron type collapse in the near future would be bad. Very bad.

 

Afaik no one has died due to the leaks. I am in favour of all kinds of leaks, let the dirty laundry be seen by the public. Sadly it isnn't like they care anyway. However as for Assange himself he is coming off as more and more unsavory and yes there is a warrant for his arrest here in Sweden. At first I thought the rape charges were plants or maybe even a CIA conspiracy as they were handled very strange but there seems to be something to them now. I think the best thing Assange can do for his cause is to step back and let someone else be a spokesperson because whether it is character assassination or not I think he as a person has lost the battle of "hearts and minds".

 

I especially like this snippet:

 

This guy's opnion matters so little to me it's not even funny. He's not really a liberal in the true sense of the word, or even a professional political operative, (he's not even a hack), but another media hound, seeking to be a celeb, as are many these days, through the propaganist channels, whether right or left, it hardly matters:

So just 2 years ago the guy was playing the punk rock circuit? And we are suddenly supposed to take all this seriously? And I happen to be a fan of punk, but I wouldn't consider it professional journalism in any sense of the term. Great, LKD. Try again to tell us about "liberal goofs".

 

Assange doing the same shenanigans with Russians? He'd already be dead and his informants would be dead. Period. Just another unsavory reporter. Not a big loss in the grand scheme of things. Collateral damage.

With Chinese? Who'd give a damn? The Chinese government would keep it secret from their own people anyhow, and nobody else can do a thing about them, or would even want to go there.

Bias against The U.S.? Who's surprised here? It's the heart of the empire after all. A lot of dirty laundry there, and who'd be surprised about that either?

I'm not saying that Assange's crusade against America would be a good thing...CIA's doing good job at his character assassination. Assange is probably zealous enough that he does not see when he's being fed info that puts him into bad light if and when he publishes it...

 

Chandos, relax. He is the liberal counterpoint to the author of the other article, who is vociferously right wing and somewhat of a pain in the ass. They both write for the same chain, and Kinsella's involvement in a relatively right wing media chain is considered somewhat amusing by the Canadian public.

I am not a fan of the guy, but I do want to draw your attention to this from Wikipedia:

He is not "just a media hound", he was at one time a player on the Canadian political scene. For the Liberal party to boot. Now the Liberals are a party that by any metric would be considered liberal (no pun intended) so I'm wondering where all of your hostility comes from. I merely used the "goof" line as a counterpoint to the same line I used for Levant.

I hate punk music. But that doesn't mean that I think a practitioner thereof is too stupid to be a good journalist. There's more to him than his hobbying around in the music biz.

 

Dude, I am relaxed - I'm just chillin.

That I can understand.

Hostility? Whatever. It's just that I question his credentials as a serious counterpoint. If you think that is being hostile, feel free to believe that.

So he's a political professional who dropped out to become a Canadian punk rock star? Actually, if one considers that Sarah Palin was a governor and dropped out to become a host of a reality TV show, it makes a weird kind of sense. But consider that Palin is now a media hound seeking to exploit her celebrity, pop, notoriety. That should help you see where I'm coming from.

 

I would argue that after the Liberals lost power, he probably got an obscene golden handshake and decided to go back to his youth for fun, since he didn't have to worry about money for a few years. But it got boring, so he decided to write a column. If you read his stuff, it's quite funny and often insightful.

Again, I don't see someone's hobby as being a major blow to his / her credentials. I mean, all of us play fantasy games and even spend time talking to other players about it. Doesn't make our political positions / opinions any less credible than those of anyone else.