Wikileaks has been around for 6 years now. On its website it says that "Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history."
Through a network of volunteers and informers, it has released
millions of leaked documents that governments and other organisations consider to be confidential. They range from secret files on prisoners detained in Guantánamo Bay, e-mails from the University of East Anglia (on "Climategate"), the contents of Sarah Palin's private Yahoo account, to footage of the US airstrike in Baghdad in July 2007 in which Iraqi journalists were killed. Many of the leaks have been
front page news items. |
| Aftermath of one of the many US Iraqi airstrikes |
Wikileaks without doubt attracts strong reactions either way. Many see it as "shining a light into the darkness" of government secrecy and authoritarianism. Many defenders of free speech and transparency are instinctively drawn to its aims. Others see it as recklessly endangering security and lives. Its founder, Julian Assange, has himself acknowledged it might end up with "
blood of its hands" through its activities. He said in an interview on Swedish TV in December 2010 that the potential to save lives outweighs the dangers to innocents. Whether it should be for an individual to make such a judgment over other people's life and death is a good question.
Shades of GreyMy own position on Wikileaks (apart from
hating its silly name because I know one day I'll type "Wikipedia" by accident and everyone will laugh at me) has always been of not taking a polarised view. I can support its general aims whilst realising the organisation has many obvious flaws. I am also very aware of the recklessness and potential danger of releasing unfiltered material. A key question for me is will the existence of Wikileaks
change governments' behaviour for the better, because they are fearful of their practices being brought "into the light"? I am actually genuinely yet to be convinced of that.
I do remember following Wikileaks on Twitter when I heard that anyone doing so could be liable to have their account details handed to the US authorities. Many others did too, in a show of Spartacus type indignation. I also recall the outrageous case of
Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir who was the subject of an attempt by the US justice department to obtain her private Twitter details. I felt complete instinctive repulsion at this.
Whatever your views on Wikileaks, throughout the discussion of Julian Assange's rape investigation, I have also reminded people that it is possible, and indeed important,
to separate the organisation from the man. You can support Wikileaks, whilst still believing that he should face investigation and due process (which includes a presumption of innocence) in Sweden. [I might add that you can also believe in the rule of law and not mix this up with conspiracy theories and hypothetical situations, but I'd either be preaching to the converted or to un-convertable...]
Wikileaks on TwitterThis week the whole issue of Assange's bail skipping and obtaining political asylum in the Ecuador Embassy has been the subject of fierce comment on Twitter. During this time I have been directed back to various tweets on the Wikileaks account. I have been really quite surprised at what I have seen.
Here is an organisation supposedly dedicated to bring transparency to government secrecy and objectively to bringing important news and information to the public. Instead the overwhelming bulk of its prodigious output has been
to defend Julian Assange personally. It deals not in facts, but puts out tweets aimed at feeding conspiracy theories such as "UK refuses to extradite "most-wanted pedophile" on human rights grounds, but still intent on extraditing Assange. Why?"
It speaks of a siege. Forgive me for questioning whether "siege" is an accurate term. Have 1 million civilians died as during the siege of Leningrad? Have armed hostage takers held 26 people against their will, such as during the Iranian Embassy siege?
Are people even prevented from entering and leaving the Ecuador embassy at all (other than one individual who has skipped bail and has an EAW outstanding against him)? Yes, it's semantics, but it is indicative of the exact completely non-objective language of melodrama and thriller novels I
noted in a previous post regarding supporters of Assange that I've recently come into contact with. Yes, the UK wants him "dead or alive": this is all just one big Bond movie or Dan Brown novel after all:
Then we have the sweeping statements and ongoing
hate campaign against the nation of Sweden, which has gone from being a place where Assange sought residency, a neutral country and one of the world's most developed democracies, to being a lawless servant of the US empire. Note the language "What people need to understand": 10/10 for patronising and losing your audience before you have started.
Further, we have the nomination for Comedy Gold in attempting to stir up anti-UK feeling with the "
Perfidious Albion" line that dates back to 18th century French propaganda. Note the link that that authoritative source, Wikipedia (did I get that right?!):
We have retweets of
George Galloway, who has been criticised by his own party for diminishing the seriousness of rape by dismissing the allegations against Assange as "bad etiquette". This type of rape denial is grotesque and has been widely condemned, yet here is Wikileaks retweeting the man on the very subject.
We have retweets of
Noam Chomsky who wins first prize
for proving Godwin's law by suggesting that Sweden cooperates with whoever is in power, as "shown" by collaboration with the Nazis in World War Two. Aside from the fact that Sweden was neutral, gave safe haven to Danish Jews, and its undoubted economic collaboration (with both sides) is preferable in my view to armed involvement, what does this have to do with anything? I might as well bring up the siege (yup, an actual siege) of Brno of 1645 during the 30 Years War to "prove" what dastardly cads the Swedes are. Ikea always miss out a bolt too, so that's another reason to hate them.
David Allen GreenPerhaps most remarkably, we have the Birmingham lawyer David Allen Green. He wrote a fact based, sourced article for the New Statesman recently entitled
Legal Myths about the Assange Extradition. It brought together some very good pieces from various members of the legal blogosphere, who remarkably seem to be speaking with one voice on this subject, and are desperate to keep the subject to facts, due process, the rule of law and not stray onto the many myths that people keep repeating.
Read the following tweets from the bottom up. It is easy to mock the fact that Wikileaks has accused his piece of being full of "basic errors" whilst spelling his name wrong, and to note the apparent lack of an ability to count all the way up to 3/3. However, what
exactly is this doing on the Wikileaks timeline at all?
It is the most personal of attacks which invites attacks on David from the 1.6 million supporters. He is denounced as an "
enemy". We know that everything has to be seen in the black and white terms of the "goodie" and the "baddie" in the world of thriller novels and movies. It didn't just stop with this one attack, it was followed up the following night with this:
It seems Assange's situation is so important that
everything else must be neglected, as if this is the most important thing in the world. It has gone from "shining a light into the world of government secrecy" to what occurs as the mouthpiece of a cult to defend the person of its leader. Someone has spoken out against him and must retract and repent. It just so happens that David Allen Green is far more capable of most of us of defending himself, but what has happened to Wikileaks? The organisation is clearly dedicated to protecting Assange, come what may of how people view this.
How Responsible Bodies Act
My view is that any responsible body would have
disassociated itself from Assange and asked him to step back whilst the serious sexual crime allegations are investigated and resolved one way or the other. He himself could have
resigned at any stage to allow Wiklieaks to fight its stated aims, without being tarnished by being associated with a highly controversial situation. I'm afraid that by the
blurring of the line between man and organisation, which Wikileaks has itself done, has made this extremely difficult.
There has been a clear politicisation of a criminal investigation by a body that claims to be anti-political. The longer Wikileaks digs in with the likes of George Galloway and denounces as "enemies" critics of its leader for writing rational, factual articles the further respect diminishes.
