Wikileaks, Ethics and Transparency

Remove all ads!

One of the best quotes I like about this issue is this:

My opinion on this matter is simple. Governments should be able to conduct these backroom dealings, spy on others and so forth. Governments are there to best represent their national interests and if this means dealing like this, so be it. However, governments are, first and foremost, answerable to the people they represent. There needs to be ways that governments CAN be held accountable for their actions that they take while representing their citizens. Due to the fact that governments need to conduct these backroom dealings, it is through leaks like these that governments are able to be held accountable for their actions. But, with that in mind, I must admit that I'm unsure if I think that these events should lead to big changes. Like I said, governments need to be able to conduct these dealings. As long as they are occassionally opened up to the fresh air and given a good beat down, such as what Assange has done here, I would hope that it would keep the worst away. I mean what did the Pentagon have to gain by lying about death tolls, other than pure political gains? It did nothing for the nation or the citizens. What does the State department have to gain by spying on these top UN diplomants? Again, I cannot see anything.

Regarding these rape charges, I do not know. He could have very well done it, maybe the people who are making the claim were merely spurred to come out due to the amount of media attention he is getting, or maybe they were encouraged by the CIA like the article suggests, or prehaps just looking for some media attention of their own. In the end of the day, it does not matter. Whether Assange is a complete ******* set on the destruction of the USA, or whether he be a saint of the digital age, what he has done is definitely something that we should be raising our glasses to and cheering on. Governments need to be held accountable. Like Murray said in the blog I linked above, it is these sort of actions that bring to light where the Administration has been misleading the public - like the the WoMD in Iraq - and because of this, we should be cheering on these actions, even if not the man himself.

 

It is my understanding that the documents in question were not obtained legally. If that is the case, then to me it is simple -- he is a criminal, as is anyone who aided / abetted him. Perhaps I am hasty in forming such opinions, but I myself see little need to complicate simple issues. From what I have read, nothing he has published uncovers an earth-shattering secret. He can talk forever about how he thinks it's a blow for freedom that we should applaud, but I think that if you're going to break a law, you should have a much better reason for doing it.

I know many will say that bad laws need to be broken, but I don't see laws that classify sensitive communications as bad laws. In any event, going down that road (where you pick and choose the laws you follow based on your own feelings) is likely to take you to a place you don't want to be, as who knows what laws others will break that will infringe upon your rights?

I think now of another person who I have expressed my contempt for -- Perez Hilton. He cheerfully outed many homosexuals because HE felt it was time for the "truth" to be known. Many of those people (whose privacy he infringed upon) were really upset at this invasion of their private lives. Now, Perez hid behind the "truth" shield, but I didn't buy it for a second. He wasn't out to do any public service, he was merely seeking publicity and a wider readership. It's despicable behaviour, whether in the entertainment industry or the political sphere.

Perhaps I'm an overly simplistic person. But I don't think so. I think that the evidence so far supports my position. Maybe new evidence will surface and he'll be proved to be a good man with good intentions. But right now, to me his intentions are highly, highly suspect.

 

I saw that from a couple of sources, but I don't remember which now. I think Daily Mail was one, and the other may have quoted them, I'm not sure. Anyway, as I read it, the 'poison pill' contains many files that either have already been released or are planned to be released, but they were put together in the pill before they were censored for identities (which takes some time).

His first big break was, IMO, a legitimate release. The war documents revealed some things that the American public needed to know, but didn't. The secure cables, not so much. I can see some arguement for them, but not really. The list of sites critical to American security in other nations... really, really not 'need to know'. Aside from the terrorists and our defenders, who cares how important the antivenom producer in Australia is. That indicates to me a motive of simple spite. He's got plenty he can release for attention if he wants it, but he goes for something that's not important to most, mildly interesting to some, and increadibly fascinating to those willing to sacrifice innocent lives to hurt the American people (and probably some others, I imagine some of those are critical to a lot of people). That just shows a mean streak.

I found this article, which seems to indicate there's no real question as to whether he did it or not, but rather whether it rises to anything criminal and whether the ladies in question (or the lawyers in question) received any 'encouragement' in pressing charges.

To surmise, if the article is accurate, he's charged with breaking one condom during consentual sex (actually, probably charged with sabotaging the condom, but good luck proving that), and refusing to wear a condom for consentual sex. Oh, and sleeping with one woman, and then sleeping with another just a few days later, and not telling either about the other.

Now, if he really did sabotage the first condom (I guess it's possible), then I think he's guilty of something bad. Not rape bad, maybe not even criminal, but I imagine you could at least get a civil suit out of it. The other instance, I don't see any room to complain. As far as I can tell, the rape charges (or whatever they technically are) are pure and utter . Whether the CIA or anyone else was involved, I don't know. At least one of the women appears to be a radical femenist, so she may have just done it for the hell of it. Especially after being scorned (or whatever).

 

Differentiation

#1 As for obtained illegally: Yes.

For the guy who gave him the stuff it definitely wasn't legal. Manning broke secrecy laws and will be punished accordingly, and will be punished severely.

#2 As for published illegally: No.

As for Assange, he isn't a US citizen, and has not signed US confidentiality and secrecy agreements. US law doesn't apply to what a foreigner in a foreign country does with US documents.

If that was so all the newspapers who published them would have committed crimes under US law as well. I would be breaking US law by publishing excerpts from the documents. No one is seriously considering charging them, or me. That his publication of the documents happened on the internet doesn't give the US jurisdiction either.

Besides, it should be kept in mind that Assange even asked the US in aiding him to minimise harm for individuals from the documents, in particular editing the documents to protect individual identities. WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. They are hardly the 'information anarchists' they have been portrayed as.

NOG,
I also find the 'sabotaging the condom' part pretty unpersuasive.

 

While interesting, this has nothing to do with either the legality or the morality of doing so. I can ask for your help in looting your house, so as to minimize the damage to what's left behind, possibly including your family. That doesn't make me anything more legitimate than a thug committing a home invasion.

Still, you're right that, AFAIK, Assange had no legal obligation to keep those posts secret.

 

That much is obvious - in that Swedish law apparently is very different than US law as it pertains to sex crimes. What follows in the story is a bit more confusing to me:

All I have to ask is why is whether or not he wore a condom central to the case? This is the first obvious example of how US law and Swedish law differ. Either the sex was consensual or it was not. If it was, then it doesn't matter if he did use a condom, and it is equally irrelevant whether it broke or was sabatoged. (Incidently, condoms CAN break, so I don't know why they are suggesting sabotage on the part of Assange.) If the sex was not consensual, then wearing a condom doesn't get you off the hook of a rape charge.

To summarize, in the first case, if the condom had not broken, "Sarah" would not have a case of sexual molestration. In the second case, if he had worn a condom, "Jessica" would not have a case of rape. What strange laws they have in Sweeden regarding sex - I always considered them a fairly liberal nation - what gives here? In both cases, in seems the sex was consensual, so why is condom use (and the possibility of one breaking) the focal point?

I agree with the chief prosecutor in the case:

IMO, all three of them look pretty bad here. Assange looks like cad - but not a criminal - and the two women look angry and vindictive.

 

My legal advice:
If you date a Swedish hardcore feminist, and it comes to intimacies - be reasonable - don't forget your consent form that comprehensively lists the acts during sex that are carried by consent in a comprehensive check list, and naturally with a non-liability clause. Maybe there is a way to integrate filling out the form into foreplay.

There are things where law, criminal or contractual, have no place. Consensual sex is one of them. This case strongly underlines that.

 

Fisrt off, none of us know the real facts of the case; we are merely interpreting events based off hearsay. And I read something different: Yes, the sex was consesnual (as you keep claiming) UNTIL the issue of protection came up during the event. It seems to have came down to "NO" without a condom but he continued anyway, at least in the one instance. Sorry, but "NO" means just that, I don't care what country it is. When a woman says that the male partner did not understand the meaning of the word "NO" that pretty much cuts it for me, unless of course, she really is lying about the events. For now it seems to be a "he said, she said" story that has yet to play out under closer scrutiny.

 

I totally get your point.

And as for lying, she is a lawyer. Lawyers make a living off ambiguity. And there are things during encounters such as Assange's with Miss Ardin that work, very well, on a tacit level And in some cases women may just not in a position to know, so to speak. Not to mention perhaps being distracted. A no after the fact does not have retroactive effect. And we better end here before the mods banish us to the MUG.

 

If using a condom is part of the deal (as in "I will not engage in this act unless you use a condom") then for the fellow to proceed without using one is, IMHO, a sexual assault. However, if he puts one on, and in the course of the encounter the condom breaks, then that is not a sexual assault. If it could somehow be proved that he deliberately sabotaged the condom,then that's assault, but how in the name of all that's reasonable can that be proven? I'm seeing the entire CSI cast running the used condom through some fancy machine, but I'm afraid no machine exists, and I would hazard the condom is in a landfill now.

ION, Mastercard made a business decision to no longer do business with Wikileaks. Perhaps in so doing they violated a contract they had with the organization, in which case Wikileaks should have sued them. But what did supporters do? They launched a cyber attack against Mastercard. I am not amused. Cyber attacks may be legal, but this thread also mentioned ethics, and I find such cyber attacks to be highly unethical.

It brings to mind the attacks launched against the Scientologists a few years back. I am firmly opposed to Scientology and their extrememly illegal and unethical behaviours, but I do not condone vigilanteism(sic) whether it be physical violence or computer attacks. Whatever your political stripe, this is wrong and should be condemned.

 

I agree. However, in this case - at least if we are to believe the contents of the article - there is circumstantial evidence that leads one away from such an interpretation of events. Specifically:

So Jessica had breakfast with him, asked him to stay in touch, and bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. Do those sound like the actions of a woman who has just been raped by that guy? Hardly, IMO.

 

Yup. Odd.

Add to that Miss Ardin's 'legal revenge' stuff and it becomes even odder.

 

I have recently been thinking about the concept of respect. I feel that Assange and whistle blowers in general do not show proper respect for the society that has given them so much. I know that they feel that they are Robin Hoods of the Digital Age, uncovering corruption and all, but (and call me right wing if you will) I feel that if they really wanted to target true corruption and vileness they would target much more deserving countries. It's easy to target someone who you know will not take drastic, unethical actions against you. It takes someone with real courage to criticize true tyrants.

Because of this perceived lack of respect, I in turn lose respect for them. Which is why I am sometimes so vociferous in my attacks against people like Assange. It's not just a matter of left or right -- to use another example, I hate Greenpeace with a passion, but if someone publicized their confidential documents, I would be just as unimpressed.

 

What are you talking about? What do you mean by "given them so much?" Whistle blowers report wrong doing. In fact, it's good to know that some people, like whistle blowers still have principles.

Fine "society" you have there, LKD.

I don't know if Assange is a "whistle blower," or not; there's something about him that seems shady.

Besides, as Jon Stewart points out, he hasn't really reported anything that most of us didn't already know or suspect about our government and the Wars. So in that sense he is not a whistle blower, but an opportunist. He's no Lowell Bergman, or for that matter, Jeffery Wingand.

Assange, as an investigative jourtnalist, seems nothing more than an imitation of the real thing.

God Bless people like Jeffery Wigand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Wigand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

 

Very important link I found today, I guess it speaks for itself: http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/

 

Don't forget to click below. It gets into a loop pretty fast though. I am most grateful for the evil ACTA draft leaks. Things like that have much more longterm effects than some random smallscale war crimes.

 

I saw the same things recurring too, but it's not a loop. It just shows a random entry for each view.

 

Sure, it's not a loop, but the random pool is shallow (or I was unlucky or it's not truly random).

Anyone tried comparing the situation to Watergate?

 

From my reading of articles regarding the 'Anonymous' group's attack of the likes of Mastercard and Paypal, it was done largely as a reaction to 'The Jester' and other hackers initial attack on Wikileaks. These initial attacks on Wikileaks have caused them to have to move shop at least once, when their hosters have said that the number of DDOS attacks have caused stability problems for their other customers. Does that make it better? Definitely not - but it does show that it is not only one side doing the attacking.

Furthermore, keep in mind that this is no more Wikileaks attacking than it was the US government attacking in the first instant. These are merely support groups of the two. It's something that has been mislead a fair bit in the media. Right now I open BBC website to see the headline "Wikileaks Revenge attacks hit Mastercard". Check the articles out and you see that the attacks are by a loose knit group of hackers from 4chan, who generally tend to act against censorship in general.

This whole thing has been very poorly handled. With the US government writting to various companies requesting they stop business with wikileaks; the arrest of whats-his-face regarding the whole rape issues; paypal, Amazon, this Swiss bank and who knows who else ending their contracts with him/freezing his funds - it all works just to create more and more media attention for him. Not to mention that it does start to portray these leaks as an action against 'the Man', fighting for the common folk against the big governments/corporations.

 

It's one thing to report serious wrongdoing -- I've even encouraged people do do that in the past. I'm talking about whistleblowers (and perhaps I'm using the term poorly) who simply want to stir up trouble -- opportunists, as you termed them, Chandos. That's how I saw Assange from day one.