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)

(d) Definitions
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.

This 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.

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