Wikileaks is a journalistic organization that publishes confidential or secret information (documents, internal memos, videos, etc.) that is leaked to them from whistleblowers around the world. Their goal is to expose abusive or corrupt individuals from state and corporate entities.
Here is a pretty good overview of what wikileaks is by CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/12/22/101.wikileaks.revealed.cnn?iref=allsearch
They have garnered global attention in the last 6 months because of their release of classified US military documents regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and more recently hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables from dozens of countries around the world.
Although personally I endorse wikileaks and what they do (for the most part) and in this post I will provide my own analysis, the reader should decide for their own if wikileaks has a harmful or beneficial impact on society.
Julian Assange
It is safe to say that Julian Assange has become a global public figure and that most people have at least heard of his name. Julian is the cofounder and acting CEO of wikileaks, and as a result is the face of wikileaks. He is 39 years old and was born in Australia.
Here is Julian on TED earlier this year:
http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html
During his youth, he was a well known (within some circles) hacker who went by the name of Mendax. He was a coauthor of the book entitled “Underground” written by Suelette Dreyfus which is a quasi fictional recall of the history of an Australian hacker group.
I have not read the book, but it is available here in .pdf format: http://jakevoytko.com/Underground.pdf
Assange cofounded wikileaks in 2006 with Jimmy Whales. Jimmy Whales has since left wikileaks to form his own whistle blower website. Whales left wikileaks over a dispute with Assange on what type of information to publish. He said,
"The issue that I have with WikiLeaks is they have a tendency to just want to publish absolutely everything, and I think that can be very, very dangerous.”
“The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.”
Fri 13 Apr 2007 : Kurt Vonnegut dies
Tue 12 Dec 2006 : Calibration of feeling
Sun 19 Nov 2006 : Strangers on a train
Sat 23 Sep 2006 : William James Sidis
Here is a link to a web archived copy of his blog:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/
The leaks
Although wikileaks has been active for the past four years, they have only gained international attention since they published hundreds of thousands of US military war documents from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. More recently, in late November, wikileaks began publishing 250,000 diplomatic cables from dozens of countries around the world. In total they have published over a million classified documents that have been leaked to them from governments and corporations around the world. It is rumored that they are going to release highly incriminating internal memos and documents from a major US bank sometime in early 2011. Also, there are rumors that they are planning a release of Isreali documents relating to the gaza strip within 6 months.
It would be impossible to cover all of the released information, so instead I am going to write about two released documents: The 2007 Apache helicopter attack on two Reuters journalists, and a 2003 case where the CIA wrongfully kidnapped and tortured a German citizen.
The Apache Helicopter Attack
Full video:
I HIGHLY recommend watching this video, and the video of the US marine posted below.
A document that was released in August 2010 contained a video that showed a US Apache helicopter killing two Reuters employees and about ten others in Iraq on July 2007. From the video, its clear that the Apache pilot and gunner mistakenly identified the two Reuters employees as insurgents because the cameras that they were carrying appeared as RPGs (rocket propelled grenades). As a result, they attacked and killed about a dozen innocent people. This situation taken in a vacuum, although tragic, is in my opinion, justified, because in war if you second guess attacking the enemy, you or your allies could lose their lives.
However, the dialogue between the gunner and the pilot of the Apache helicopter is very disturbing as they attack and kill all eight wrongfully identified insurgents on the ground. From the above video, here is the exchange between the pilot and gunner of the Apache helicopter.
At the 5:19 mark, after attacking the group of eight reporters:
“All right, hahaha, I hit em…”
“Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards”
“Nice”
Furthermore, about twenty minutes after their initial attack, a van shows up to help remove the wounded. The van was driven by a man who was driving his two young children to school. The gunner and pilot then ask for permission to engage again
At the 9:37 mark, requesting permission to engage the van:
“Come on, let us shoot!”
Several more minutes later, US marines show up in Humvees and a Bradley troop transport. The Bradley drives over some of the dead bodies and the gunner and pilot notice it.
At the 12:53 mark, after the ground soldiers arrive to investigate:
“I think they just drove over a body”
“Really?”
“Haha yeah”
At the 15:29 mark, when they see a US marine carrying a wounded child:
They show a total lack of empathy in their words and tone that they use. They just killed the father of those two children, and they do not show an ounce of sympathy or remorse at that fact. I am not a solider. I do not know what its like to take the life of a human being. But that behavior seems sociopathic and completely desensitised to the horror and chaos that they created on the ground. I have no other way to describe it.“Well its their fault for bringing their kids into a battle”“That’s right”
The video depicts a US marine carrying the children to the Bradley. That marine is Ethan McCord, who is no longer an active soldier. He gave an interview with BBC news where he recalled the events that he saw. He talked about his experience, and the emotional impact it had on him, from his interview:
“I was running water through her hair trying to wash out the blood and glass from her hair too, and the whole time I'm fighting back tears.”
“I had to clean the blood of the children off of my uniform. I started piecing it together, and I realized it was the Apaches that did that.”
“Things from that day changed for me, I no longer felt that I was doing good in Iraq…it became more along the lines of I am just here to make it home to my kids now, there is no point in me being here, I just want to make it home.”
Link to the interview and article from BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9136984.stm
One has to assume that in a war, this type of violence happens on a daily basis - whether its justified or not. The loss of military and civilian life is not only unavoidable but expected. So when a war is started on arguably false pretenses (like the Iraq war) and horrific events like this happen, it should give any moral person pause. One then has to consider what justice is. If justice being served is always a good thing, dont we then have to prosecute not only those who committed the atrocities, but also those who lead us into an unjust war and let it happen in the first place?
I don't know the right answers, because those are very tough questions. But questions that everybody should at least consider and ask themselves.
I want to be as open and fair as possible about this topic, after writing this I found an interview with an American reporter, Pulitzer-winning Washington Post staff writer David Finkel who was present in Iraq that day, and he provides additional context about the engagement. He claims that before this incident took place, there was a week long time of heavy insurgent RPG attacks, and so the US soldiers were especially on edge. This helps to support the idea that war is hell, and that good people can do horrific things. It also stresses the point that those who lead us into war under under false pretenses should be held accountable.
David Finkel link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/04/06/DI2010040600750.html
Wrongfully accused and tortured German citizen
Link to the article:
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831
Link to the diplomatic cable:
http://213.251.145.96.nyud.net/cable/2007/02/07BERLIN242.html
In 2003, the CIA kidnapped and tortured a German citizen, Khaled El-Masri, because his name was very similar to a known terrorist, Al-Masri. El-Masri pleaded with the CIA that they had the wrong man. The CIA did not pay attention to him and proceeded to torture and hold him in detention for several months.
From the article-
“He was beaten, stripped naked, shot full of drugs, given an enema and a diaper, and flown first to Baghdad and then to the notorious “salt pit,” the CIA’s secret interrogation facility in Afghanistan. At the salt pit, he was repeatedly beaten, drugged, and subjected to a strange food regime that he supposed was part of an experiment that his captors were performing on him. After three months of being tortured – including a small dirty cell, poor diet, water boarding, and repeated sodomy, the CIA realized that they did in fact have the wrong man.”
To me, this appears as though the US government is acting like a mafia boss. Pressuring the German government into preventing El-Masri from taking legal action against the CIA because they won’t like what happens if he does.
El-Masri recounted his story in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-elmasri3mar03,0,3766980.story
Political and media backlash to wikileaks
There has been a massive back lash to wikileaks from US politicians (both democrat and republican) who are for the most part strongly against wikileaks. Here are some of the most noteworthy quotes:
Hilary Clinton had the following to say:
Source:"There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations," - Hilary Clinton
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/29/131668950/white-house-aims-to-limit-wikileaks-damage
Sarah Palin compared Julian Assange to a terrorist on her facebook page:
'Assange is not a "journalist," any more than the "editor" of al Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a "journalist."Source:
'He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands.
'Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?’
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=465212788434
Keep in mind, that in the four years that wikileaks has been operating, there have been no reports of any leaked information putting any lives in danger. The pentagon has even said that nobody has been put at risk because of wikileaks.
“Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.”Source:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html
Joe Liebermann has also shared his thoughts on wikileaks,
“I also urge the Obama Administration -- both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world -- to use all legal means necessary to shut down Wikileaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables.”And Joe Lieberman on Amazon hosting wikileaks for several days,
“Wikileaks’ illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials. I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.”Source:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/amazon-severs-ties-with-wikileaks
I found there to be a disconnect between what President Obama has previously said about having an open, transparent government, and how he views wikileaks, and how is current administration is trying to extradite Assange to and charge him with espionage.
"The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears" - President Barrack ObamaAlso, the US federal government is encouraging ALL federal employees, including members of the military to not read the released cabled, with the threat of being fired.
Source:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/us-military-in-iraq-tries-to-intimidate-soldiers-into-not-reading-wikileaks.php
I cannot help but to think that these politicians just want to appear “tough” on any perceived enemy so that during an election year, they can come back and quote themselves to illustrate how much they care about national security.
In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only politician who is embracing the opportunity that wikileaks has to make our government accountable and transparent. On the senate flooe he has said the following,
“But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.”Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0
Corporate response
Following the release of the diplomatic cables, the wikileaks server became under attack by massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks from IP addresses in India. As a result they were dropped by their host, EveryDNS. Wikileaks then employed Amazon to host their website using their cloud hosting services. However, after pressure from the US federal government and Joe Liebermann, Amazon announced that they would no longer provide services to wikileaks. Furthermore, credit card and banking companies (Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America) were also pressured to block any donations to wikileaks from private individuals.
The US federal government is bullying private corporations in an attempt to squash wikileaks.
Conclusions
For better or for worse, wikileaks exists. Now that it has gained global attention, the idea of wikileaks, of a journalistic body that is not afraid to publish confidential information, is never going to go away. Similar to the atomic bomb, it is a force that you cannot un-invent. Wikileaks is another step similiar to the creation of the internet, peer to peer file sharing, bit torrent, and even social networks that is merely another step into the information age.
The rules of the game have changed. If you are going to operate a state government or a corporation, you need to account for this new found involuntary transparency. The recording industry was badly damaged by the free and easy access to music from file sharing networks. The invention of Napster started a change in culture. Instead of adapting to this paradigm shift, the recording industry stubbornly fought it, and as a result they are on their death bed, while innovative business models such as the iTunes stores are thriving.
If state governments want to retain their power and ability govern, they need to change their business model. If they resist this new paradigm, we could be facing a new age of censorship akin to future Orwell proposed in 1984. And that is a future that no member of a free society should hope for.
Even if you could stop wikileaks, which would be very difficult because they have dozens of server locations spread across dozens of countries, there would be countless copy cat organizations. It would be like playing a whack a mole with tens of thousands of moles. And in every country or corporation, there will always be a disgruntled or moral dissenter who will be more than willing to leak damaging information.
In conclusion, I hope that wikileaks continues to operate. I hope that countries and corporations take motivation from this and will work with wikileaks, to ensure that information that is released does not put any solider, informant, or diplomat in harms way. I hope that the major powers in the world can embrace this opportunity for transparency and help to usher in a new age of trust, prosperity and peace.
More wikileaks and Julian Assange resources
Wikileak documentary (12/11/2010):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvmfOaZ34Pk
Recent Julian Assange MSNBC interview (12/22/2010)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZCPmTJM0Hc
Main wikileaks website:
http://213.251.145.96/
The reddit community is a great resource for links to wikileaks related articles:
http://www.reddit.com/search?q=wikileaks
New York Times analysis of leaks:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/wikileaks/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html
No comments:
Post a Comment