Julian Assange, the public face of WikiLeaks, is, among many things, cowardly. Courageousness would involve meeting with Iranian dissidents, Russian journalists, Pakistani Christians, or Chinese human-rights activists — and then releasing any confidential information that they might have about the torment institutionalized by their countries’ authoritarian regimes. That would be risky to Assange, however, since such governments do not customarily go to court against their leakers; they gulag them — or liquidate them.
So, instead, Assange navigates through the European northwest among the good-life elites whose economic and security protocols he does so much to undermine. Being summoned to a trumped-up Swedish hearing for being an exploitative cad who fails to wear a condom in his ephemeral hook-ups is not the same thing as being dragged into the basement of the Pakistani intelligence service or appearing in an orange jumpsuit on an al-Qaeda execution video. Why does not the peripatetic Assange at least drive about, say, the back roads of the Middle East, Mexico, or Central Africa in his quest for conduits to spread cosmic truth and justice?
Advertisement
In truth, Assange is a sorry product of the postmodern West. He reminds us of the morality of Western shock artists who freely caricature Christianity on the hallowed principle of free speech, but, in a nano-second, censor themselves when Islam might provide an even larger target for their cynical secular disdain. WikiLeaks is the journalistic equivalent of a Piss Christ exhibition of the contemporary art world — a repellent reminder of the cowardly selectivity of the shock-jock huckster.
Julian Assange is without principles. He seems to think leaking confidential communications proves that the vast right-wing military-industrial-financial complex is harming either the most affluent, free Western population in the history of civilization or the globalized world itself — one that has done more to eliminate poverty and extend freedom in the last two decades than had been done at any other time in recorded history. We know from Climategate that the world’s green scientists are every bit as conniving, petty, and mean-spirited as any American diplomat. I would like to see the secret communications that buzz back and forth among Hollywood agents, producers, and financiers to learn of the real criteria that led to box-office bombs like Redacted and Rendition being written, cast, financed, and made. Maybe to calibrate the level of sincerity and honesty among our movers and shakers, we can read the minutes of Harvard or Yale tenure committees, some correspondence from the minions of George Soros, or the communications of the U.N. secretary general — or, better yet, the encrypted e-mail transcripts of exchanges among the WikiLeaks board. Apparently Assange thinks that confidentiality is trafficked only among the suspicious Western ruling classes, while dissidents like himself are fueled instead by “truth.” But if a man cannot be honest with a woman during intimacy, what can he be honest about? — whoops, one should not rush to an Assange-like judgment on the basis of gossip and innuendo; one should wait until the suspicious personage has had his day in court.
Awesome piece. Totally agree with the perpective. However, the news out of Wikileaks about Dyna-Corp supplying Becha Bazi boys to Afghan cops now has me re-thinking my perspective. Frankly, we might need this clarity.
The point about deeds, not words, exposes the soul of theses thespian manipulators, Julian WikiLeaks, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter et al., who thrust themselves upon the world stage as the antagonist to the American tyrant. They judge us, and want to be judged, but only on their righteousness, not on their deeds.
Leaking sensitive information is a problem. But so too is overclassification of government documents. Consent of the governed, etc.
Citizens are presumptively entitled to know what their government is up to and the government should have a compelling basis in order to overcome that presumption. Citizens are not presumptively entitled to know what their fellow citizens ( e.g., Wikilieaks' board, Hollywood agents, tenure committees, George Soros, ect.) are up to. If the 250K+ cables are ever released in total, it would be interesting to see how many were legitimately classified.
I feel ambivalent about this guy. I have a visceral dislike to his looks, he kind-of reminds me of a hooded viper. Also, he acts as if his mother was over-protective... But on the other hand, I enjoy watching our government officials squirm.
I'm afraid he's like the bomb and pistol whielding anarchists floating around Russia and Eastern Europe at the end of the long nineteenth century.
Dr. VDH - Gutt gezukht (well said). But what I would like to know is why Julian Assange not in an American prison? Has this Administration been so busy remaking America into Europe West that it doesn't have the strength to interdict this man before he leaks more documents?
Also - I have a feeling that there is someone else besides Manning doing the leaking.
Suppose for an instance that the rules that Assange allows for himself would be applied to him. Should not all of his personal correspondance and financial statements be made public? Too what reasoning would he imply that the effect would be detrimental to him?
I disagree, Mr. Hanson. You declare that Assange ought to trek across the globe finding sources before publishing his information. Aside from the physical impossibility of accomplishing such a task, the droves of diplomats and field reporters entrusted with just that task have failed to investigate or report on this information. If Assange and WikiLeaks do not provide the information, who will? Are we to wait infinitely before we receive information? Moreover, your assertion that Assange's residence in Western Europe somehow betrays the validity of the leaks is pure nonsense. Truth is Truth, whether spoken at an Afghan jurga or leaked by Mr. Assange.
I suppose we could wait 50 years for documents to be declassified, but what would that accomplish? It would be akin to the recent Russian admission of Stalin's orders at Katyn: nice to know after 70 years, but utterly impotent in terms of contemporary policy.
Or should we simply shrug our shoulders and acknowledge that specialization of labor and knowledge are the ultimate end for each citizen, and the best we can hope for is to be governed by an elite group of Guardians who decree what we may and may not know? With world leaders who agree to do one thing, but say something entirely different (See: leaked Yemen cable and leaked Pakistan cable) it's no wonder that the media hardly ever uncover the truth by conventional reporting. To paraphrase you, note how easily appointed and self-interested government officials can establish themselves as judge, jury, and executioner of world truth.
1) I really appreciated the Climate Gate document dumps. That saved us from a global scam. WikiLeaks did that, right?
2) How come Assange is scum, but the New York Times isn't, for doing the same stuff?
3) We recently saw a few dozen music sharing websites get closed down due to "copyright infringement" issues. Do we really want the government in the business of shutting down websites? The Chinese do that. What if Drudge links off to something copyrighted, does he get shut down, too? What if a Fox News blog allows some nut's seditious comment to go through. Close em down? It used to be Liberals making these arguments.
4) The ones who leak are the traitors. Not the leakees. After the leak is done, it's just "information". At least, that's what they say at the NY Times.
After due consideration, I believe Assange gives solipsistic narcissists a bad name. We just have to coin a new word for him - WikiTerrorist. No one has a right to engage in espionage and endanger the lives of others. Only criminals and antisocials minimize and attempt to justify behavior that puts innocent people in jaill in Iran as hostages or on an al Qaeda Hit List.
Assange got his hands on e-mails sent by Venezuela's ambassador to Argentina. He tried to auction them to the highest bidder - presumably to Chavez, too. That's not journalism. That's a shakedown. Maybe even a willingness to keep secrets, for the right price. External Link The Pentagon has told WikiLeaks its actions risk the lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan citizens and could possibly undermine military operations against extremists in Afghanistan. Members of the Taliban are reported to have said they are studying the documents with an eye toward retaliating against any informants cooperating with the U.S. military. External Link Add a caption No one has a right to engage in espionage and endanger the lives of others. Only criminals and antisocials minimize and attempt to justify behavior that puts innocent people in jaill in Iran as hostages or on an al Qaeda Hit List. Al-Qaida uses WikiLeaks for death list External Link This man's family in Iran will be abused because of this: External Link The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and three other groups have sent a series of e-mails to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange calling for the names of Afghan civilians to be removed from the 77,000 classified military documents published by the online whistle-blower last month. "There was no consideration about civilian lives," Nadery said, noting a rise in assassinations of Afghan civilians seen as government collaborators. External Link b) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information. External Link Assange got his hands on e-mails sent by Venezuela's ambassador to Argentina. He tried to auction them to the highest bidder - presumably to Chavez, too. That's not journalism. That's a shakedown. Maybe even a willingness to keep secrets, for the right price. External Link The Pentagon has told WikiLeaks its actions risk the lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan citizens and could possibly undermine military operations against extremists in Afghanistan. Members of the Taliban are reported to have said they are studying the documents with an eye toward retaliating against any informants cooperating with the U.S. military. External Link
You are Pharisees. This is the big problem of the USA, you have a lot of Pharisees...
"Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs." Luke 12, 2-3
Along with all the other things listed here, Assange is also the nerd loser who couldn't get a date. His notoriety and "courage" no doubt allow him to "score" with "progressive" chicks like the two that got him in trouble. It is fun to watch his Liberal defenders agonize about the charges against him. After-all ranking right up there with their facile support of his “heroic" deeds in service to the progressive agenda are the uncomfortable charges about his louche behavior with these emancipated ladies. What a conundrum: Do they support the champion of “freedom” or the bodily integrity of women (the right to say “no”)?
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the most ardent defenders against the charges of rape turn out to be the Catholic Church hierarchy? They would most certainly be in agreement with him against using condoms. All he has to do is say that his action was dictated by his religious conscience.
Along with all the other things listed here, Assange is also the nerd loser who couldn't get a date. His notoriety and "courage" no doubt allow him to "score" with "progressive" chicks like the two that got him in trouble. It is fun to watch his Liberal defenders agonize about the charges against him. After-all ranking right up there with their facile support of his “heroic" deeds in service to the progressive agenda are the uncomfortable charges about his louche behavior with these emancipated ladies. What a conundrum: Do they support the champion of “freedom” or the bodily integrity of women (the right to say “no”)?
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the most ardent defenders against the charges of rape turn out to be the Catholic Church hierarchy? They would most certainly be in agreement with him against using condoms. All he has to do is say that his action was dictated by his religious conscience.
I dunno, this doesn't seem that complicated to me. He connives his way into becoming a big-time leftist celebrity to get women to sleep with him. What am I missing?
The WikiLeaks case has a precedent.
Eleven years ago, Wen Ho Lee worked at Los Alamos National Lab. Lee copied classified documents from the secure lab machines and posted them on a university's computer system so that China could copy them.
The US couldn't prove that Lee knew that China copied them so the charges were reduced to mishandling of classified documents.
Lee eventually sued the US and won $1.6 million from the gov.
It is the perfect way to do espionage. Get the docs and post to the internet. You can't prove who eventually gets the doc.
So 11 years after this method first appeared, it looks like we still don't know how to prosecute these breaches.
All the supposed conservatives who are supporting Wikileaks out of an anti-government libertarianism are being extremely naive. (See Mr. Hanson’s comments above regarding the adult world.) There is a big difference between the investigative journalism of an Andrew Breitbart and the reckless exposure of information by an declared enemy of this country.
