The Paradox of Wiki-leaks

When I first heard of Wikileaks, I was intrigued at the concept of an organization dedicated to whistleblowers, supposedly with no ulterior motive beyond shining a light on the dirty secrets that companies would rather keep hidden. That was some years ago, before Julian Assange became a victim of his own demons. And I'm not talking about the strange case of the broken condom and consensual sex that may have become non-consensual, which I will address a little later. Rather I'm talking about his decision to thrust himself front and center into the spotlight and to attempt to bring the established order crashing down for reasons best known to himself.

Now it is not my position that the United States government is pure as driven snow or that all their decisions are made with the best of intentions for mankind. Neither are they the worst. If anything, Wikileaks' first dump of documents culled from the Pentagon, revealed a government that hid some information and occasionally lied about what they knew, but very interestingly revealed little of note. One could argue that the people behind Wikileaks did not know what they were revealing to the world, and even if they did, by their mission statement, could not decide to withhold it from publication, that once they received it they were bound to publish it. That is perhaps their only defense and it is a line that they have not adopted. Instead, Assange has boasted of his intent to embarrass the US government, of his wish to reveal their sordid secrets. Yet, the lack of explosive material which should have left him embarrassed, only seemed to stoke his desire to lay this nation low. He followed up the largely unexciting war documents with an even larger cache of diplomatic correspondence, and once again his core aim was unfulfilled. Far from revealing a nation scheming to dominate the world, the cables reveal a government seeking to figure out a course in a very complex and sometimes confusing world. Certainly they lie, as diplomats have done since the days when the first primitive stone-age man complimented his rival's grass skirt as becoming with an aim of gaining access to the other's grazing grounds. The fact is that the cables, and the lies they contain reveal nothing that truly embarrasses the Administration.

Paradoxically, the shrill response from many, both on the rightwing and within the government, actually gave Assange far more cover than he deserved, even as they screamed for his head in a manner reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts. Some have asked that he be tried for treason, a truly strange idea considering he isn't an American citizen. The government has sought to treat him as a terrorist, in fact lending credence to his claims of coverup and duplicity, when a more measured response may have revealed his anarchical desires for what they truly are. Which really brings me to my central question: does Assange and Wikileaks deserve support?

It is a difficult question, especially for a person on the liberal side of the political spectrum. Liberals have always been accused, mostly without any basis, of hating their own country. In this case, I cannot at least be accused of that, but I have at any rate adopted the US as my home and her interests are now mine. Assange seeks to hurt America, but I have long believed that a nation that is true to its principles can withstand an attack of this nature and emerge stronger if anything. Embarrassing as some of the diplomatic cables are, the real shame lies not with the authors or their bosses at Foggy Bottom, but with the subjects of those studies. If Gaddafi hangs out with a busty Ukrainian nurse while preaching the virtues of an austere lifestyle, or if Berlusconi is an unreliable ally, it is they who should hide their faces, not we. And for all the outrage over what the cables reveal about private American assessments of their leaders, those nations know that their own cables would make for equally titillating gossip, if dangled before the public eye. Perhaps in part that is why the diplomatic fallout has been limited.

Assange has fallen truly short in his attempts to hurt us, but we may yet grant him the success he craves in our shortsighted attempts to shutdown Wikileaks. Be it the US governments attempts to bring him to trial, or the convenient timing of the Swedish government's desire ot prosecute him for rape in a case that raises more questions than it answers, when an individual can rouse the establishment to such united action against him, it raises the inevitable question: why do they fear him? It cannot be the documents already revealed, for as I said earlier the US should easily ride out the fallout, and the sheer size of the leaked cache ensures that disinterest and newer stories will soon relegate them from our attention, not to mention the fact that Pakistan has already cast doubt on the accuracy of any published excerpts by making up their own documents to fit their narrative. Assange has shot his most powerful arrow at us and caused us discomfort not hurt, yet we give him as much importance as a real enemy like Osama bin Laden. Not just the government but now corporate America has joined the battle to shut down Wikileaks and that is why I cannot help but swing back to supporting them, and wonder if the campaign against him is driven by his past actions or his stated aim of revealing Bank of America documents related to the housing market.

I find Assange's hatred of America foolish, and his anarchist aims shortsighted. I also believe that watchfulness and a measured response will more than serve to frustrate him. We will assuredly not roll out the red carpet for him but surely we can deal with him without treating his organization as if it was the evil Trade Federation. A nose wrinkled in disgust, as at the handiwork of a puppy that has not been house trained should more than suffice. But Wikileaks serves an important role, and if corporate America succeeds in shutting them down, we will all be just a little bit worse off.