Here a Leak, There a Leak, Everywhere a Leak, Leak

Courtesy of Fabrice Coffrini/AFP Getty Images

Wikileaks...synonymous with freedom of speech? Or is it too far fetched to say that its recent practices just might do more harm than good? On one hand, there is some validity to the recently leaked docs being considered a byproduct of the Freedom of Information Act.  However, one could also make a similar argument that has been made regarding the constitutional rights of developers in New York to build a Mosque (or, more appropriately, a cultural and community center) near Ground Zero, and the, apparent, lack of "wisdom" in doing so; as President Obama so eloquently put it.  

A self-proclaimed Whistleblower web-site, Wikileaks is in the business of publishing and commenting on leaked corporate and government documents surrounding alleged misconduct within each organization. Since 2006 it has leaked more than 400,000 cables and documents, the most notable disclosure, having thrust its way onto the cyber domain back in July, is that of the 90,000 secret documents on the war in Afghanistan. It then released classified documents related to the Iraq War in October and, more recently, a rather controversial, compilation of more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables was published.

With closely-guarded, confidential sources and a small, yet, international group of technologically, astute operants, Wikileaks has been as much an enigma to those that have attempted to size it up, as its founder, Julian Assange, has been to global authorities who had been (until recently) searching for his whereabouts. It "protects" the information it leaks by using cryptographic information technologies and promises strict anonymity to sources of the leaked material. Due to the highly sensitive and publicly damaging nature of the information that it publishes, Wikileaks has been a journalistic magnet for lawsuits while, ironically, winning numerous awards like: The 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award and the 2009 Amnesty International U.K. Media Award. According to Time Magazine, "... it [Wikileaks] could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act."

With so much dissension and varying degrees of interest behind all of the information that is being divulged over the internet, its natural to wonder who is behind the Wikileaks brand and what is the intent.

   

Jilian Assange, a very strange character, in an even stranger tale, is a native of Townsville, Queensland, Australia. He founded Wikileaks in 2006 with the intent to "To radically shift regime behavior [. We] must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not." Assange claims his mission is to [protect] victims and has ".... tried to create a system which solves the problem of censorship of the press and censorship of whistle-blowers across the whole world."

In another ironic twist, as founder of Wikileaks, Assange strives for complete transparency wherever it concerns global governments, yet we know very little about him or his organization. Former Wikileaks’ spokesman, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, went only by the pseudonym "Schmitt".  Assange and any personal details regarding anything other than his past, are, by design, very sketchy. One of Assange's bank accounts, through Sweden's Postfinance, was closed on the grounds that he “provided false information regarding his place of residence” when opening the account.  Even Assange's cohort in the freedom of information fight, Bradley Manning, describes him as a person of extreme elusiveness and secrecy, "I don't know much more than what he tells me, which is very little," he said. "It took me four months to confirm that the person I was communicating [with] was in fact Assange." Assange publicly refuses to reveal his age; is always relocating from place to place; and as a champion of democratic justice, openness and transparency, he vehemently fights to perserve his "secrets" and has been quoted as saying he wanted to "keep the [expletive] guessing." 

On November 28, Wikileaks began releasing the classified Afghan war docs and since then, many conservative politicians and pundits have called for everything from the extradition of Jilian Assange, to his execution and everything in between. Amazon has ousted wikileaks.org from its servers; it has lost its PayPal, Mastercard and Visa revenue services and has faced condemnation and cyber attacks alike. Most recently, Julian Assange has been arrested in Sweden on charges related to a sex crime. The backfire against the organization has been great, but the decision to reveal the largest set of confidential documents on record, has been even greater.

Recently, several reputable news organizations have partnered with Wikileaks in efforts to determine how to disseminate the information and what information should be redacted from the cables. Each organization made suggestions as to what names and details were too sensitive to publish. Though the New York Times is denying being a "partner" of the whistleblower website, it does admit to having a working relationship with the organization.  New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says they have made suggestions to Wikileaks, but how they plan to disseminate the information, remains to be seen. "We have no way of knowing what WikiLeaks will do, no clear idea what they make of our redactions, but if this to any degree prevents WikiLeaks from carelessly getting someone killed, I'm happy to do it," he said. "I'd be interested to hear the arguments in favor of having WikiLeaks post its material unredacted."

Great Britain Prime Minister, David Cameron, points out that leaking unauthorized classified documents undermines the ability of governments to operate on a confidential basis. Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn't say whether he considers Wikileaks a traditional news organization that could hide behind the first amendment of free speech, and is currently launching a criminal investigation into the release of the cables. Holder believes the published information jeopardizes "...national security[and] diplomatic efforts" and damages U.S. relationships around the world.

The problem is not so much how the information is disseminated and the international aftermath, but how it is obtained, is in question. Assange appealed to the U.S. Ambassador in London by requesting that he aid Wikileaks in determining which cables needed to be redacted before publishing-the Ambassador's response was (as one might imagine), "hand over stolen property". Did Assange think that asking permission before-hand to help edit leaked classified U.S. documents, afforded him the privilege to publish cables the Ambassador referred to as “stolen”? Still, many people criticize the U.S., among other countries, for being so politically sensitive or overly reactive to the information that has been published by Wikileaks, but how much thought have we given to how many of these cables were acquired?    

Pfc. Bradley Manning is now facing a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for downloading the 250,000 diplomatic cables and military logs of incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq. He then sent those documents to Wikileaks and the rest, well….   Manning obtained and transmitted classified information without authorization. On one hand, many describe his actions as treason; on the other, many support and defend Manning’s efforts as heroic, strongly believing that because “he embodies the principles of democracy that would make our founding fathers proud” that “…we owe him our gratitude.”  

To be clear, there seems to be two separate issues in question. The first: the secrecy behind  many of the actions revealed in the war documents on the part of the U.S. government-which is obviously reprehensible, and the second: how that information is obtained.  Plainly, if Manning had permission to access and disseminate classified U.S. Department of State cables; there would not have been a need to secretly download these documents.

    

It would be naive to think that while David Cameron and Eric Holder and other leaders and officials speaking against the recent publishing of information, do not have an axe to grind against the Wikileaks organization; there is still something to be said about diplomatic secrecy.

No one is proposing that the involvement in any criminal activities by the U.S. government, corporate entities or any other government or regime be tolerated or overlooked because of that organization's power or influence.  By the same token, the answer is not to obtain information on criminal activity (or war crimes) through criminal means.

And what about Wikileaks role? Should those that engage in such practices of publishing sensitive, classified information solely on the basis of public knowledge or for any other reason, be heralded as heroes? Many believe so. Nevertheless, diplomatic secrecy is, many times, vital to our integrity as a nation and abroad, as well as to our national security. Which trumps the other?  

When can we agree that an organization like WikiLeaks has gone too far in its quest to free the human soul from the criminal mishaps on the international battlefield and beyond? Some argue that there is a fine line between revealing the truth and spreading global gossip over the internet. In many regards, the leaked cables have led more to embarrassment of domestic and foreign officials, than actual revelations. So what is the aftermath of publishing over 250,000 cables today from events that occured in 2007? That remains to be seen. But just as Wikileaks’ own founder argues, in the case of Julian Assange, Bradley Manning or any government or regime involved in war crimes, no matter who the perpetrator is, justice must, ultimately, be served. 

What do you think? Could Julian Assange be considered a virtual human rights activist?