On this independence day weekend, please take a moment to think about a couple patriots who are being denied their freedoms. Pfc. Bradley Manning, facing trial for leaking classified information regarding the systemic abuses that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of U.S. Citizens. Pfc. Manning was in solitary confinement in Quantico from July 29th, 2010 until April 20th, 2013 in what UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Think also of Edward Snowden, his passport has been revoked, he is stuck (purportedly) in a Moscow airport awaiting word from a number of countries he has asked for asylum. Snowden alerted the world to things many knew already; the US government had a large network of information gathering and compiling from emails, phone calls, and GPS data from cell phones of US citizens, and citizens of many other countries.
This country is supposed to protect whistle-blowers, yet we have continually balked at that charge. People celebrate the release of the Pentagon Papers, yet seem unable to make connections to the current releases of information.
"The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate." - Thomas Jefferson
We as citizens need to live by these words, or we risk losing what is so precious and defining about democracy: people.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tucson Shooting
So it's been a little while since my last post. but yet again, the same thing happened to me yesterday that was the cause of this blog to begin with. I was posting a comment on facebook and thought, damn there just isn't enough space here for a serious discussion of these issues. so here we go.
Here is the post I made to someone else's post regarding the sanity of the shooter and a comparison of the right's political rhetoric.
"I have been very disturbed to see this shooter labeled as crazy, and the acts he undertook as unimaginable. Watch Rachel Maddow's comment about the shootings, she goes through a list of mass murders in this country from the past 18 years, and there are a lot of them. This is not inconceivable, political assassinations happen all the time.
Here is the post I made to someone else's post regarding the sanity of the shooter and a comparison of the right's political rhetoric.
"I have been very disturbed to see this shooter labeled as crazy, and the acts he undertook as unimaginable. Watch Rachel Maddow's comment about the shootings, she goes through a list of mass murders in this country from the past 18 years, and there are a lot of them. This is not inconceivable, political assassinations happen all the time.
My problem with the crazy label, is that is allows for a space where the citizens of the U.S. don't have to be reflective about what has led us here as a citizenry, and white washes the context of the killings and the political environment that is alive in this country. 86 people a day are killed by handguns in this country, THAT is crazy, the fact that we pay attention to just one of those shootings every few months or years... THAT is crazy! The idea that a man felt so disenfranchised by his system of governance that he chose violence over democratic discourse, that's not crazy. that's history."
Now this post was a bit less academically rigorous then I would have preferred for my first public foray into this debate, but it was facebook so the ranty tone seemed to fit the venue.
To follow up on this thought I feel that I should first state for the record, that I do not condone the actions of the shooter. I do however empathize with the feelings of disenfranchisement with our government that so many on both the "left" and the "right" have expressed. I do however argue with how that disenfranchisement plays out in public discourse. As I was ranting last night to some friends it occurred to me that the blame being placed on the polarizing political discourse in this country perhaps isn't the reason but a symptom. Literacy rates have been steadily dropping in this country for some time now, at least 5 years, but possibly 10. With this comes a distinct lack of critical thinking capacity, the ability to discern motives behind the information we receive and of course, most bluntly the manner in which people access information.Very few people read anymore in this country, %95 of United Statians do not read more than one book a year. This has a profound effect on a populace, the implications of which are largely lost on anyone other than perhaps members of the academy or the media. With this in mind I would like to posit that perhaps the polarizing discourse isn't so much the problem as the notion that the US citizenry thinks that polarized discourse is a productive and sophisticated style of speech and an acceptable form of debate. This sidesteps the free speech issue, its not about what we say and whether or not we can say it. The issue is about what we say and whether it is appropriate to the situations that we find ourselves faced with on a daily basis.
Using the First Amendment as a shield for my actions I can scream countless profanities at whomever I choose so as long as I do not directly threaten that person. Is that to say that when I am in a checkout line at the grocery store that it would be appropriate to curse at the cashier or the other people standing in line? Is that a productive use of speech? Does anyone benefit from that act? I feel that this is a tangential yet useful allegory in reference to political rhetoric in this country. hat is added to the political debate by calling Obama a socialist or Hitler? Very little if anything in my opinion. These exclamatories could have been used to generate a discussion on socialism, or the legacy of Adolf Hitler, but they weren't. They became throw away catch phrases, sound bites that were used and perceived uncritically. Individually as statements this is not necessarily a cause for concern, in the heat of the moment when tensions flare it is difficult to remain critical while expressing one's self. Additionally it would seem to be counter to the American ethos that we police all speech and rate it as acceptably critical or not. The problem as I see it is that this method of speech has become pervasive to the degree in which it has become the norm, which means that what now passes for incendiary rhetoric is appalling and borders on seditious and perhaps also qualifies as hate speech. On the flip side of the coin we have what had passed for "usual" rhetoric: partially educated, cogent statements based on at least some facts and utilized with a clear goal in mind, this too has become deviant from the norm and is now "elitist" speech, which, given the political environment has become a very class based discursive struggle.
To switch topics for a moment I would like to speak a bit more about the idea that Mr Loughton was "crazy". This is a very problematic conjecture on the part of the pundits and journalists. not just for the reasons I outlined above but also because the definition of the oft used term "crazy" is very subjective. If one approaches this definition from "the experts" opinion, that is, the APA (American Psychological Association) then one could assert that having a mental disorder would in the common parlance establish an individual as crazy. Curiously enough, approximately 1/3 of United Statians will be diagnosed with a mental disorder in their lifetimes. Meaning that roughly 100 million people in this country can be considered "crazy" yet they do not all engage in acts of violence or political assassination. These acts are comparatively rare considering the amount of people who would qualify as "crazy" or "mentally disturbed" yet the structural power relations that inform and construct norms lead many people to utilize the label of "crazy" as a scapegoat to reason out events that do not immediately make sense to them.This supposition places the viewer of an act at the center, and all relative value of an act is seen through that lens and that lens alone, meaning that if I disagree or do not understand why a person engages in a certain action I can write them off as crazy and go about my day. There is no space for reflection, no engagement with the actor, my own subjectivity trumps any other possible interpretation. This is very problematic, it asserts that my individuality trumps all others, that my opinion is all that matters to me. This is not a democratic way of thinking. A democracy thrives on multiple opinions, not just one. That is a defining point of separation between the democracy of the United States, and the British monarchy that was rebelled against. If a person wants to participate in democratic debate and speech, then one should do the homework needed to not collapse people into easily digestible labels.They should take the time to listen to a person, not just write them off and ignore their dissent.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A Response From the Hacker Community
Today I founda post from the hacker magazine 2600 stating their thoughts on Wikileaks and Operation Payback. Good stuff, great read.
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037
The article puts a few things in proper perspective, hackers as a community are being collapsed in this discourse, so we can find stories of hackers assaulting Visa and Mastercard websites, as well as the Wikileaks site. There is no differentiation made by the media, cyber- attacks are "always caused by hackers". This type of discourse ignores the corporate and governmental interest and use of cyber-warfare. Those folk aren't hackers but have job titles, like Network Security Consultant, that mask the duties, even though there are many folk employed to both defend from cyber-attacks as well as engineer them to mess with competitors.
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037
The article puts a few things in proper perspective, hackers as a community are being collapsed in this discourse, so we can find stories of hackers assaulting Visa and Mastercard websites, as well as the Wikileaks site. There is no differentiation made by the media, cyber- attacks are "always caused by hackers". This type of discourse ignores the corporate and governmental interest and use of cyber-warfare. Those folk aren't hackers but have job titles, like Network Security Consultant, that mask the duties, even though there are many folk employed to both defend from cyber-attacks as well as engineer them to mess with competitors.
Friday, December 10, 2010
New tactics released from Anonymous!
So the tactics have changed
view the link below to find out how you too can help fight against the corporate and governmental control over information!!
http://seanbonner.tumblr.com/post/2160477006/anonymous-stops-dropping-traffic-bombs-starts
view the link below to find out how you too can help fight against the corporate and governmental control over information!!
http://seanbonner.tumblr.com/post/2160477006/anonymous-stops-dropping-traffic-bombs-starts
Openlinks
So here we go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/openleaks-wikileaks-rival_n_794939.html#
This here is a link to a story abou another website that will open up soon to replace/supplant Wikileaks. It is created and run by former members of the Wikileaks team who left that organization due to "the autocratic" nature of Julian Assange. They have also chosen to differentiate themselves from Wikileaks by no longer being a publishing website but a liaison between whistleblowers and the press. This is where I begin to seriously doubt the efficacy of this organization. I agree with them that Assange is not a great leader for this type of movement, but going so far as to cease publication I feel is the wrong way to go.
I understand that this move insulates Openleaks from the kinds of threats that Wikileaks is undergoing currently, but putting the power of releasing these documents solely on the international media seems blind to the lack of accountability that the media has demonstrated over the years. The success of Wikileaks, most notably of the past three major leaks that have come out this year, is due to the manner in which they distribute the data. It is published openly, to allow access to anyone who can reach their website. The press was given copies of the leaks before the official release so that summaries an notable points of interest could be found and given to the populace who doesn't have the time to read documents that a thousands of pages long. If Openleaks becomes the new standard I fear that without the open publishing the public will remain largely unknowing as to the content of the leaks. We will only get what the media talks about, and that will depend heavily on election cycles, lobbying efforts and proposed legislation. Making these leaks part of the political theater cheapens the information itself and makes it a bargaining chip rather than an action of solidarity with those conscientious members of corporations and governments that can't abide watching terrible things happen in their name.
This is not to say that the position of liaison between whistleblowers and the media is not needed. I feel that it is. However, this position, in my mind, creates additional tension for whistleblowers who have already taken enormous risks in attaining and releasing the information. Now whislteblowers would have to hope that the information gets out, rather than know that their work will be seen and be accesible. As an added question I wonder if the members of Openleaks will hold the media organization they leak information to accountable to that information, to make sure that it does indeed get posted, and does get spoken about. I see no mention of this in the story above.
I support Openleaks idea of a more democratic organization, but I must admit part of me thinks that perhaps an autocrat, a leader, someone to bear the weight of the operation might actually be necessary to maintain the mission statement of the organization. Considering the immense weight of international pressure by nation states of the Global North on these leaks and the tactics used against Assange I wonder if a democratically configured organization would be able to maintain the same levels of stalwart-ness in the face of the pressure and threats that Assange has managed. Without the brick wall that is Assange's conviction to his cause I fear that the purpose of these organizations may fail at protecting and aiding the people who have risked so much to let the world know what happens behind closed doors, or in the streets.
As I write this last sentence I immediately think that had the international media had the stones to report what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also, to be fair, the access, then the leaks would not have been necessary. But they are necessary, the media doesn't tell us what's going on, we were not given the full numbers of civilian deaths, only the government's "estimations" which due to the leaks were found out to be lies. I also wonder about the nature of the citizen journalist, the bloggers, the photojournalists, those of us with a mind for this work, but without the credentials, the people who really strive to find "the truth" and let it be known, not for a paycheck, but because people need to be aware that bad things happen everyday, and most of them happen in our name. We are complicit to thousands of crimes in the past decade that we as US citizens aren't even aware of. In the information age, where the internet has allowed for the potential to democratize information, allowing incredible access, and publication possibilities to millions, if not billions of people. Openleaks stand to undemocratize that space in the name of accountability, but not in the spirit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/openleaks-wikileaks-rival_n_794939.html#
This here is a link to a story abou another website that will open up soon to replace/supplant Wikileaks. It is created and run by former members of the Wikileaks team who left that organization due to "the autocratic" nature of Julian Assange. They have also chosen to differentiate themselves from Wikileaks by no longer being a publishing website but a liaison between whistleblowers and the press. This is where I begin to seriously doubt the efficacy of this organization. I agree with them that Assange is not a great leader for this type of movement, but going so far as to cease publication I feel is the wrong way to go.
I understand that this move insulates Openleaks from the kinds of threats that Wikileaks is undergoing currently, but putting the power of releasing these documents solely on the international media seems blind to the lack of accountability that the media has demonstrated over the years. The success of Wikileaks, most notably of the past three major leaks that have come out this year, is due to the manner in which they distribute the data. It is published openly, to allow access to anyone who can reach their website. The press was given copies of the leaks before the official release so that summaries an notable points of interest could be found and given to the populace who doesn't have the time to read documents that a thousands of pages long. If Openleaks becomes the new standard I fear that without the open publishing the public will remain largely unknowing as to the content of the leaks. We will only get what the media talks about, and that will depend heavily on election cycles, lobbying efforts and proposed legislation. Making these leaks part of the political theater cheapens the information itself and makes it a bargaining chip rather than an action of solidarity with those conscientious members of corporations and governments that can't abide watching terrible things happen in their name.
This is not to say that the position of liaison between whistleblowers and the media is not needed. I feel that it is. However, this position, in my mind, creates additional tension for whistleblowers who have already taken enormous risks in attaining and releasing the information. Now whislteblowers would have to hope that the information gets out, rather than know that their work will be seen and be accesible. As an added question I wonder if the members of Openleaks will hold the media organization they leak information to accountable to that information, to make sure that it does indeed get posted, and does get spoken about. I see no mention of this in the story above.
I support Openleaks idea of a more democratic organization, but I must admit part of me thinks that perhaps an autocrat, a leader, someone to bear the weight of the operation might actually be necessary to maintain the mission statement of the organization. Considering the immense weight of international pressure by nation states of the Global North on these leaks and the tactics used against Assange I wonder if a democratically configured organization would be able to maintain the same levels of stalwart-ness in the face of the pressure and threats that Assange has managed. Without the brick wall that is Assange's conviction to his cause I fear that the purpose of these organizations may fail at protecting and aiding the people who have risked so much to let the world know what happens behind closed doors, or in the streets.
As I write this last sentence I immediately think that had the international media had the stones to report what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also, to be fair, the access, then the leaks would not have been necessary. But they are necessary, the media doesn't tell us what's going on, we were not given the full numbers of civilian deaths, only the government's "estimations" which due to the leaks were found out to be lies. I also wonder about the nature of the citizen journalist, the bloggers, the photojournalists, those of us with a mind for this work, but without the credentials, the people who really strive to find "the truth" and let it be known, not for a paycheck, but because people need to be aware that bad things happen everyday, and most of them happen in our name. We are complicit to thousands of crimes in the past decade that we as US citizens aren't even aware of. In the information age, where the internet has allowed for the potential to democratize information, allowing incredible access, and publication possibilities to millions, if not billions of people. Openleaks stand to undemocratize that space in the name of accountability, but not in the spirit.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The one click tool for the info-war
Boing Boing - tools of the DDoS info war
Here is a great short article on the program being used to DDoS the Visa and Mastercard websites, as well as no doubt PayPal and everyone else being targeted by Operation Payback
Here is a great short article on the program being used to DDoS the Visa and Mastercard websites, as well as no doubt PayPal and everyone else being targeted by Operation Payback
In Regards to the Political Theatre That is Wikileaks
So I published a link on my facebook page today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/operation-payback-mastercard-website-wikileaks
and I started to think about the contents of this story and all of the sudden I realized I had way more to say about all of this than I would have been allowed in my facebook post. Hence this creation.
So here we go.....
First and foremost, I am a supporter of open information, I subscribe to ye olde "Hacker Manifesto". As a friend of mine put it while we were in a bar: "Do you remember what it was like to be curious?" Our access to information is nothing short of absolutely amazing. Last night while distracted I looked at satellite photos of the icefields here in Juneau and then compared them to the mountain formations and striations in the Himalayas, and it was no big deal, easy as pie, and then it hit me again just how remarkable this access is, and how much I take it for granted.
Net Neutrality has become an issue of increasing public and political concern, and it is a discussion that has implications that I don't believe we as citizens of an extremely powerful nation state, or even as a people of the global community understand or appreciate. Though the Internet and the "World Wide Web" were designed primarily by and for governments to wire information to one another or for University research, by the time that the "WWW" had become popular, the discourse on it was as a tool for educating the world, a new manner in which to shrink the globe through globalization and cultural interconnectedness. This idea of course has its problematic, no one seemed to bother to ask the world whether it wanted to be shrunk or not, much less the given of who would have this great access to the world and what might be done with it.
Fast Forward to now, some 15-20 years after the burgeoning popularity of the "World Wide Web" and it has become a central and defining feature of post-industrial life. Many can't imagine a world anymore where we did not have instant access to information. However, even considering the wealth of information out there, so much that I am quite certain one could spend their entire life everyday, 20 hour days looking things up online and never come close to reading/viewing even %30 of what is out there. We simply cannot keep up with the amount of information being produced/distributed. I know I'm not saying anything shocking here, but I assure you its a good lead up to where I'm going.
So here we all are, the end of 2010, and facing what may very well become known as the first major info war of the century. This is not to say that others wars have not had an intelligence component to them, they have, intel is important in any war. What marks this as different is that this may be the first war fought for and by information and the access to it. as the article I posted states, there have been DDoS attacks on Mastercard and PayPal's websites, shutting down all traffic for small periods of time. This is a direct response to the attempts at limiting the information given to the public by Wikileaks, who recently have leaked US State Dept diplomatic cables and earlier released classified mission logs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. First off let me start by saying that the leaks of the War logs is and was far more damaging than the leaked State dept cables. In terms of content and overall edutainment value, the cables were interesting yet subtle in their content to such a degree that very few documents contain revelations that the US citizenry wasn't already aware of or considered to be standard practice. Not so with the War Logs, there were considerably larger revelations, and seemingly to me more to be embarrassed about on the part of the US government. Yet, it is the leak of the cables that has prompted the rebuke from the US government and subsequently corporations tied to the US government.
Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, is a man whom I do not entirely agree with. I approve of the charter for Wikileaks given the assault on whistleblower protections that occurred during the Bush Administration I feel that there is indeed a need in the world for a site that can allow whistleblowers to speak out against things that are contrary to their conscience, or to release files that they feel the populace needs to know about governments and corporations. Mr. Assange has stated that his interest in this work is largely spiteful. I do not argue with that spite either, I too feel that governmental powers have superseded the ability for accountability to the people and that the only recourse is for the people to construct institution of acountability on their own. I feel that Wikileaks provides a site for some of this accountability.
The hypocrisy of the Obama administration's reaction to these leaks has been extremely surprising and yet, should it be? His administration has lauded transparency in governance, yet has overseen multiple cases where the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was dismissed for "security reasons". To which I feel I must ask: Whose security? If one acts in the public interest I would presume that it would be the public's security that President Obama would be ensuring, yet it would seem more that he is protecting the previous administration and the decisions of his own from the public. This is a tame condemnation of the administration's behavior, but I feel that at this juncture being reactive would lead me to acts of irresponsible speech, there is a time for anger in one's speech, but right now I feel the need to be articulate and critical, to engage the ideas and discourse surrounding this issue.
Assange has been arrested for largely bogus charges, he had consensual sex with two different women at different times, but refused to wear a condom. The women involved decided to make this issue a legal one once they realized that Assange was sleeping with other women. Assange and his supporters have declared this legal battle to be the workings of various governments (mostly the US) to silence him and tarnish his image. To which I feel I must respond, Mr Assange, though these legal battles have affected your image and that of Wikileaks, it has been a very small change, what has disrupted your image more has been yourself. The manner in which you discuss your work and your detractors has done you a greater disservice than anything the media has said or done regarding you. You appear smug at best and highly confrontational to the point of irrationality at worst. I realize that these are pressing issues to you, they are also to me, but your choice of discourse polarizes a situation that is largely grey to the world. In a system of societies where the internet is taken for granted and the information that "most" people want is free and easy to access, your points confuse and distract them from points that could make this debate personal to them. However you have spoken to 'teh l33ts', your supporters who DO know how bad things already are and are terrified into action by what has transpired in the past week regarding this issue. As a result your supporter have launched Operation Payback, the results of which are as of today only beginning to be seen.
Now to talk a little about everyone's favorite subject: terrorism. New York Rep. Peter King (R) has called for Wikileaks to be labeled a foreign terrorist organization. Some, whose names I can't currently find have also asserted that treason charges should be brought to bear on Assange, despite the fact that he is an Australian citizen.
(From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
I lean more towards the latter, as the Nuremburg trials have taught us following orders is not an excuse for perpetrating crimes. The extension of this thinking is that one must engage one's conscience in making decision regardless of who orders you to do what. Now this was originally intended for matters of war and the issue of military following orders given from superior officers, to stop war crimes from being committed, but who is to say that there is not a corollary outside of military conflict where conscience comes into play. Certainly many have experienced situations at their jobs that they felt were not ethical, but they could not say anything for fear of losing their jobs. There used to be protections for these people, they are called whistleblowers. Some of the greatest advancements in our bureaucratic infrstructure have come about due to whistleblowers. The FDA was created largely as a result of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. People need to know what the government does in their name, if one is to call that government a democracy.
I just realized I wrote 4 pages here, I have so much more to say but will cut this short in attempt to ease myself into the inanity that is blogging.
Toodles
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/operation-payback-mastercard-website-wikileaks
and I started to think about the contents of this story and all of the sudden I realized I had way more to say about all of this than I would have been allowed in my facebook post. Hence this creation.
So here we go.....
First and foremost, I am a supporter of open information, I subscribe to ye olde "Hacker Manifesto". As a friend of mine put it while we were in a bar: "Do you remember what it was like to be curious?" Our access to information is nothing short of absolutely amazing. Last night while distracted I looked at satellite photos of the icefields here in Juneau and then compared them to the mountain formations and striations in the Himalayas, and it was no big deal, easy as pie, and then it hit me again just how remarkable this access is, and how much I take it for granted.
Net Neutrality has become an issue of increasing public and political concern, and it is a discussion that has implications that I don't believe we as citizens of an extremely powerful nation state, or even as a people of the global community understand or appreciate. Though the Internet and the "World Wide Web" were designed primarily by and for governments to wire information to one another or for University research, by the time that the "WWW" had become popular, the discourse on it was as a tool for educating the world, a new manner in which to shrink the globe through globalization and cultural interconnectedness. This idea of course has its problematic, no one seemed to bother to ask the world whether it wanted to be shrunk or not, much less the given of who would have this great access to the world and what might be done with it.
Fast Forward to now, some 15-20 years after the burgeoning popularity of the "World Wide Web" and it has become a central and defining feature of post-industrial life. Many can't imagine a world anymore where we did not have instant access to information. However, even considering the wealth of information out there, so much that I am quite certain one could spend their entire life everyday, 20 hour days looking things up online and never come close to reading/viewing even %30 of what is out there. We simply cannot keep up with the amount of information being produced/distributed. I know I'm not saying anything shocking here, but I assure you its a good lead up to where I'm going.
So here we all are, the end of 2010, and facing what may very well become known as the first major info war of the century. This is not to say that others wars have not had an intelligence component to them, they have, intel is important in any war. What marks this as different is that this may be the first war fought for and by information and the access to it. as the article I posted states, there have been DDoS attacks on Mastercard and PayPal's websites, shutting down all traffic for small periods of time. This is a direct response to the attempts at limiting the information given to the public by Wikileaks, who recently have leaked US State Dept diplomatic cables and earlier released classified mission logs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. First off let me start by saying that the leaks of the War logs is and was far more damaging than the leaked State dept cables. In terms of content and overall edutainment value, the cables were interesting yet subtle in their content to such a degree that very few documents contain revelations that the US citizenry wasn't already aware of or considered to be standard practice. Not so with the War Logs, there were considerably larger revelations, and seemingly to me more to be embarrassed about on the part of the US government. Yet, it is the leak of the cables that has prompted the rebuke from the US government and subsequently corporations tied to the US government.
Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, is a man whom I do not entirely agree with. I approve of the charter for Wikileaks given the assault on whistleblower protections that occurred during the Bush Administration I feel that there is indeed a need in the world for a site that can allow whistleblowers to speak out against things that are contrary to their conscience, or to release files that they feel the populace needs to know about governments and corporations. Mr. Assange has stated that his interest in this work is largely spiteful. I do not argue with that spite either, I too feel that governmental powers have superseded the ability for accountability to the people and that the only recourse is for the people to construct institution of acountability on their own. I feel that Wikileaks provides a site for some of this accountability.
The hypocrisy of the Obama administration's reaction to these leaks has been extremely surprising and yet, should it be? His administration has lauded transparency in governance, yet has overseen multiple cases where the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was dismissed for "security reasons". To which I feel I must ask: Whose security? If one acts in the public interest I would presume that it would be the public's security that President Obama would be ensuring, yet it would seem more that he is protecting the previous administration and the decisions of his own from the public. This is a tame condemnation of the administration's behavior, but I feel that at this juncture being reactive would lead me to acts of irresponsible speech, there is a time for anger in one's speech, but right now I feel the need to be articulate and critical, to engage the ideas and discourse surrounding this issue.
Assange has been arrested for largely bogus charges, he had consensual sex with two different women at different times, but refused to wear a condom. The women involved decided to make this issue a legal one once they realized that Assange was sleeping with other women. Assange and his supporters have declared this legal battle to be the workings of various governments (mostly the US) to silence him and tarnish his image. To which I feel I must respond, Mr Assange, though these legal battles have affected your image and that of Wikileaks, it has been a very small change, what has disrupted your image more has been yourself. The manner in which you discuss your work and your detractors has done you a greater disservice than anything the media has said or done regarding you. You appear smug at best and highly confrontational to the point of irrationality at worst. I realize that these are pressing issues to you, they are also to me, but your choice of discourse polarizes a situation that is largely grey to the world. In a system of societies where the internet is taken for granted and the information that "most" people want is free and easy to access, your points confuse and distract them from points that could make this debate personal to them. However you have spoken to 'teh l33ts', your supporters who DO know how bad things already are and are terrified into action by what has transpired in the past week regarding this issue. As a result your supporter have launched Operation Payback, the results of which are as of today only beginning to be seen.
Now to talk a little about everyone's favorite subject: terrorism. New York Rep. Peter King (R) has called for Wikileaks to be labeled a foreign terrorist organization. Some, whose names I can't currently find have also asserted that treason charges should be brought to bear on Assange, despite the fact that he is an Australian citizen.
(From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)
(d) DefinitionsThis is the U.S. definition of terrorism, by this definition Wikileaks in no way shape of form qualifies. There has been no violence. Some have asserted that the Afganistan war logs released names of informant that would be subject to reprisal, but as Assange has stated before, there has been no proof to these allegations. Even if there was reprisal is Wikileaks responsible for the attacks? The question of responsibility here is a tricky one and also near impossible to prove. But who is responsible for this information being released? Is it Wikileaks or the person who leaked the info to Wikileaks? Or perhaps it is the people who make the decisions to keep the Iraqi civilian death count during this most recent occupation a secret.
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.
I lean more towards the latter, as the Nuremburg trials have taught us following orders is not an excuse for perpetrating crimes. The extension of this thinking is that one must engage one's conscience in making decision regardless of who orders you to do what. Now this was originally intended for matters of war and the issue of military following orders given from superior officers, to stop war crimes from being committed, but who is to say that there is not a corollary outside of military conflict where conscience comes into play. Certainly many have experienced situations at their jobs that they felt were not ethical, but they could not say anything for fear of losing their jobs. There used to be protections for these people, they are called whistleblowers. Some of the greatest advancements in our bureaucratic infrstructure have come about due to whistleblowers. The FDA was created largely as a result of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. People need to know what the government does in their name, if one is to call that government a democracy.
I just realized I wrote 4 pages here, I have so much more to say but will cut this short in attempt to ease myself into the inanity that is blogging.
Toodles
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)