Al, when Assange called for President Obama to resign he put his political motivation clearly on display. And he lost me for good.

I agree with your argument that "any attempt to prosecute him would be illegal and unconstitutional." But I don't believe any longer that Assange is a friend to people of goodwill. He's the worst possible spokesperson for increase government transparency.

"To hear things or to see things that we hate tests the First Amendment more than seeing or hearing things that we like. It wasn't designed for things we like."

- William Kunstler, Esq. (Arguing the flag burning case before the US Supreme Court)

Yeah, I agree.

Disagreeing with someone I dislike; I couldn't disagree more, could I?

Disagreeing with someone I like; I couldn't disagree less, if I tried...

Agreeing with someone I dislike; I could disagree more, and I try...

Agreeing with someone I like; I could disagree less, for I tried...

It seems as though they're more or less following the gameplan you laid out in your previous post, by offloading the framing and publication of individual stories to established media organizations.

Moreover, by having publications in many countries release cables of greatest interest to each country or region in a slow drip they appear to be making sure the multiple media markets worldwide get hit in both print and digital on a regular basis, with the benefit of the kind of context and analysis wikileaks itelf would be hard pressed to put together at such a pace.

It seems like it also serves the purpose of keeping big-name organizations reporting on the content of the cables themselves, as opposed to just the sideshow anti-wikileaks namecalling.

There also appears to be a gameplan for which cables get released when, with early documents publically destroying the credibility of the US State department by exposing their spying operations, demonstrating possession of 'seriously-you-don't-want-us-to-drop-the-insurance.aes256-key' info with the list of national-security-critical facilities, and now we start to get cables like http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html , http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-ni... , and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-cluster-bom... which seem to really start to get into the meat of how the US manipulates other countries and protects business interests at a high level.

Al's estimation of the importance of WikiLeaks is absolutely valid.  It occupies a historic position as the first global digital service that could enormously empower whistleblowers against government and corporate misdeeds everywhere.  The importance of that mission calls for tactics to defend itself -- in public commentary, legal action and guidance to its supporters -- far more shrewd than we're seeing displayed so far.

First, the more political and ideological that it seems are Assange's motives, the less clearly predicated on freedom of speech for whistleblowers, and freedom of press for itself, will be Wikileaks' cause, as seen by the public, in Europe and North America at least.  Assange's gratuitious remark in this interview, for example, about "the tentacles of the corrupt American elite," may thrill his supporters on the radical left, but it will only bait those who could initiate costly legal proceedings against WikiLeaks in the U.S.  Governments will hesitate to go after it, if the public supports its mission -- which makes defending that mission paramount.  They will interpret its mission on the basis of how it describes its adversaries as well as its goals as an organization. So far the international conflict of perceptions of WikiLeaks is still very much unresolved. 

Second, the content of what WikiLeaks leaks will support or weaken its ability to claim that, as Assange says in this interview, that it exists to help whistleblowers, who he defines as "persons who denounce wrongdoing in the organizations in which they work."  On the basis of the diplomatic cables leaked so far, the content of few of the cables reveals "wrongdoing".  They may show bad judgment, arrogance, underhanded motives and hypocrisy, but most of them don't show "wrongdoing" in a legal or even ethical sense.  That's why the diplomatic cables' release has been interpreted in the global mainstream media -- which otherwise quite enjoys trumpeting this material -- as more damaging to conventional diplomacy (which needs confidentiality) than as a legitmate exposure of corruption of any kind.  Thus the believability of the charge that WikiLeaks is motivated politically to damage the U.S.  Such charges were not as easily believed about the Iraq and Afghan war documents' release, since both the legality of and civilian damage done by those wars are broadly criticized in most of the world -- but diplomacy isn't.

Third, if Wikileaks doesn't advise its more enthusiastic followers not to hold back from trying to disrupt governments or companies that have withheld assistance to it or to Assange (as with companies that have stopped doing business with it), it will only expand the forces arrayed against it.  Most corporations and governments want to stay well away from a global controversy like this, because it has the potential to alienate some of their customers or constituents. Wikileaks should strive to reduce and not increase the number of institutions that want to impose silence on it.

So far it seems that the people behind Wikileaks, including Assange, believe that they're engaged in a political war with powerful states. That may make them feel heroic for a while, but they won't win such a war. They should have only one goal:  surviving this storm, so that they can build a stronger global public network of organizations as well as individuals, to support the legitimacy and need for what they do. The future lasts a long time, and WikiLeaks is only a few years into its work.

when Assange called for President Obama to resign he put his political motivation clearly on display.

/sigh

Assange called for O to COME CLEAN or resign.

Trib, they ARE WINNING.

1. there is a prototype closed information systems killer right out of a scifi novel running in cyberspace right now.

2. the hyperpower CANNOT turn it off.

3. the systems killer is apparently WAI.  Assange activated his fifth column with the poison pill of encrypted data and his arrest.  Anonymous, the chanese, and the mirror sites.  IFF Assanges beta prototype works, it is the ELE (extinction level event) of the modern security state.

but this hydra sprouts a thousand heads - before you even touch the first.

And if you get so far as to harm that head, you don't know what's going to happen. But you know it will be yet a thousand times worse.

Every cable. Every document. Probably as-yet unguessed-at horrific dirt on every major player on the world stage. Perhaps the source code to the magic untraceable submission system that was years in the making, sowing the seeds for an unruly dandelion jungle of perhaps less scrupulous copycats.

Either way, people now know it can be done. A prototype indeed.

And why do you think they need to wait years to flex their muscle? They've demonstrated their efficacy by safely getting boatloads of classified information out in the past (manning dug his own grave, sadly). They're now proving more adept at motivating the media than ever.

Why wait for more atrocities to occur? Why wait for more of the world's future to be sold for a golden parachute and a campaign donation? For more governments to be infiltrated by business? Innocent countries to be invaded? Children to be sold for sex by US mercenaries?

 

Regardless, the die is cast. Wikileaks might not even be able to stop this now if it wanted to - the publishing organizations have all the documents already. And nobody tells anonymous what to do. Most of them are probably just happy for an excuse to DDOS a credit card company like little digital tyler durdens. So, strap in, I guess.

Vicepresidencia de Bolivia coloca en su Portal documentos filtrados por Wikileaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VEisU88wf8

I second Tribunus above regarding the importance of WikiLeaks for the future, and I'm really enjoying the quality of coverage on this site.  Great work, Al. 

My main question is, why didn't the State Department agree to cooperate with WikiLeaks when it offered to let them review all these cables and redact potentially harmful information?  Assange literally told them what he had and offered to let them see it - who's the retard at State who turned that down?

Second, WikiLeaks is only the beginning.  Open Leaks is being started by a splinter group, and I can only imagine that several more copycat sites will pop up in the future, even if WikiLeaks is shut down for good.  We are now engaged in a serious fight for the 21st century - a struggle to determine whether the Internet will truly become an empowering force for those without power, or whether it will come under the control of moneyed and political interests who will use it to further their agendas. 

As a patriotic, educated young American, I fervently support WikiLeaks and will do all I can to see it triumph for the benefit of all.

...and the elevation of the next "modern security state" - this time without that messy business of elections and social pluralism.

A triumph.

I didn't elect Assange, I don't trust him, I don't trust the governance of the secretive Wikileaks and in a battle of Assange v. Obama (which is clearly the motivation here), I'm down with the President, warts and security apparatus and all.

Tom - I don't get where you're coming from when you say that this is "a battle of Assange v. Obama." I can see how kind of on a superficial level it is being portrayed that way in the media. I really see this as something much bigger than the personalities involved: an inevitable historic shift, in which both men play key roles at key moments: the history of the time that we live in.

I also find this somewhat amusing since you and I have had plenty of discussions over the past three years in which you sided with someone who has said far worse things about Mr. Obama than anything Assange has said! Of course, she happens to be his Sec. of State now, further complicating the machinations (and directly so, regarding Mr. Assange's recent statement that you've zeroed in on, because they were about whether the President knew of something that his Sec. of State had done, something evidently illegal, according to documents made public by WikiLeaks).

But we have at least two chess players on the global stage right now. I want to see how this plays out. I really don't feel that this is a matter of choosing sides or deciding that one is heavenly and the other is diabolical. I, rather, see both as products of the same social forces at work. And in the end each seems to be making moves that will strengthen the other's hand against other forces that are more wed to the past. But, alas, looking moves ahead on the chess board can be a solitary sport at times.

 

When you say this, I agree:

I really don't feel that this is a matter of choosing sides or deciding that one is heavenly and the other is diabolical. I, rather, see both as products of the same social forces at work.

That's right. And we don't know how it will play out. And I'm with you on heavenly vs. diabolical. But I've come to believe Assange has his "big finish" in mind as the downfall of the current Administration. His timing, the limited releases, his comments - started with defense department, moved to state (calling for the head of the Secretary), and then on to the President.

It's an attack at the tendons and very interestingly, an attack on one of Obama's areas of political strength (at least in my view, which doesn't signify agreement with all policies, mind you) - international relations. There actually has been a reset of the American engagement around the world - there is real change here in U.S. goals. We may think it's small change sure, but the movement of resources and attention toward human rights, open technology (don't laugh), women's empowerment, and overall development is an Obama hallmark. And I think it's something he can rightfully claim during '12 election; it was, after all, a campaign promise - and it would be totally fair to say that Secretary Clinton did the moving in shifting to President Obama's view on how foreign policy should be run. In any case, he gets the credit; justly so - it's his vision.

And you know, you also make my point for me by recalling the rough elbows of the '08 race (which went both ways, or all ways if you vector in the GOP) - there, it was in the context of a public contest for elected office. All the machinations were for votes and we controlled the outcome. I find Wikileaks almost comically non-democratic and closed. (And also lucky - but for a single massive leak, we'd never have heard of 'em - some new paradigm). I'm a bit lonely in my position on the left right now, but I'm cursed with not seeing absolutes. We'll see.

I think Tom has hit the nail on the head, and I'll rephrase it as I see it:  Assange wants to destroy the credibility of the U.S. government, though not because he has it in for Obama personally -- merely because that's the ideological content of his views; he sees the U.S. as the evil empire.  The problem is that in pursuing this agenda, he is seriously jeopardizing the need to protect and strengthen WikiLeaks as a conduit for whistleblowers.  WikiLeaks may well be seen increasingly as an agency for certain political views, rather than an important new form of obtaining and reporting information about the abuses of governments everywhere.

Some evidence of the problematic nature of infusing a left ideological flavor into the mission of WikiLeaks is seen in the defection of some of its people, who've established a non-ideological alternative, OpenLeaks. Another piece of evidence is the hypertrophic lionization of Assange on the radical left, with romanticized graphics of his face elevating him to the level of Che. WikiLeaks' survivability was never going to be helped by its adoption by those who think it can engineer some sort of global revolution.  And to the extent that Assange thinks that such a revolution is possible merely by throwing back-channel diplomatic and military documents onto the pages of The Guardian and the New York Times, he's underestimating the foe he has baited -- and is missing the reality that virtually all other governments will be delighted if WikiLeaks is disarmed, whether legally or digitally. 

As to the hints and rumors floating around that WikiLeaks will expose White House communications, that might help Obama as much as it hurts him.  The left already believes that Obama=Bush when it comes to Guantanamo, the Afghan war, and methods of curbing terrorism. Disclosure of tough tactics against states or groups that aid terrorism won't hurt Obama domestically.  Disclosure of favors done for Israel cannot further damage Obama on the left, because they're already convinced he will sell out the Palestinians (that's a misread, but that's another debate). Disclosure of suspicions of Chinese motives will surprise no one, since they're shared by countries in Asia and Africa too.

One of the reasons that Obama has not been fully engaged in fighting the real ideological battles within American politics is not that he's a secret conservative, it's that the vast majority of his time has probably been focused abroad, particularly on nuclear non-proliferation.  If facts about the reality of the latter are disclosed, they're likely to help Obama more than hurt him, when people see the degree to which he has most likely been heavily involved in trying to stop nuclear trafficking.  As Tom says, Obama has significantly changed the way that the American government engages other governments, both in terms of abandoning the bullying for which the Bush Administration was known, as well as no longer constantly denouncing other governments for not getting on the democracy bandwagon.  (One measure of that change is how strident have been the denunciations of Obama by the American right for his failure to spend every day excoriating the regimes it doesn't like.) 

If Assange pursues a jeremiad against American international policies and actions, he will damage WikiLeaks and the cause of digital rights more than U.S. power.  To the extent he uses his new celebrity to explain the universal right of people to full information freedom and access, and justifies his actions in that context, he'll vastly expand his constituency beyond the left and also rightly claim a historical role in advancing that cause.

I think it is typical American to reduce this to a battle between Hollywood characters created by its media. The cables, the war logs, the Guantanamo documents - all span multiple administrations. It doesn't matter who is the puppet in charge, and similarities in US foreign policy have for decades far outweighed the so-called "changes". As these cables demonstrate. What WikiLeaks does is attacking a system, and it does it very well or they wouldn't be so crazily upset about it. You could argue that the goal is to bring down the last superpower - about time - or the way governments around the world conduct their business - also about time. But to turn it into some personal vendetta against Obama A) gives Obama too much credit, is B) not based on facts and C) sounds like something out of the "rejected" pile in the production office of the James Bond movies.

Something profoundly American in nature has got to give: America's secular disdain for foreign affairs or a transcendental Presidency, for both are being exacerbated and mobilized through an exercise in public transparency.

In a multi-polar World it's time for a show-down between a degenerate, for mostly inbred, foreign policy and its nefarious effluents, and a learned, in the noble sense of the term, and newly gregarious Presidency. This President cannot lose. No matter what, the World knows what he stands for, ...and the courage, the mettle and the resiliency of a man of American exception.

The pressure mounts on the Presidency to embody his tenant's open-ended horizons and freeze them into common perceptions and practices. If the Presidency fails to steer America toward the perception as well as the practice of an engaging solidarity with both the outside world and the American conundrum itself, then only the President will be left unscathed by the ensuing American tragedy.

No one but no one can take down this President. One, at his perils, just called on the Presidency to be consistent with its President.

I don't think that Assange is going to be the hero, but he's definitely the one who stirs up the pot enough to bring forth the real hero in the free speech debate.

He's the Rosa Parks of internet censorship.

To even mention the noble Rosa Parks in the vicinity of preening Julian Assange is a big mistake, I think. Indeed, the movement for open government and fewer state secrets is injured by such a posing personage, in my humble view.

To have Glenn Greenwald angrily decrying Time's choice for Man of the Year (Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook) because Assange somehow deserved it - such a meaningless "honor"! - shows how the celebrefication of Wikileaks and the glow of Assange (he's got that "can't look away" quality) has taken over the actual principles at play - and the open disussion those principles deserve.

That and the knee-jerk reaction of so many of my progressive friends to the Swedish case - it must be false! it's a conspiracy! - so damned dispiriting.

You're right that WikiLeaks is just the beginning.  Here's a new leak to site specific to the Balkans. 

"Dear friends,

Following the example of the whistleblowers site Wikileaks we opened this site to promote transparency and fight the nexus of organized crime and political corruption in the Balkan states....."

http://www.balkanleaks.eu/

Don't miss Maximilian Forte's important 12/14/10 essay in Counterpunch, The Wikileaks Revolution.

This is a conflict, Wikileaks is a movement, but what transformation can we expect, and would that transformation be revolutionary? That we have reached a crossroads is clear: never again will the relationship between state power, media, and citizenship be the same. It should be easy enough to agree with Julian Assange who recently stated: “geopolitics will be separated into pre and post cablegate phases;” and Carne Ross, a British diplomat, who wrote: “History may now be dated pre- or post-WikiLeaks.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/forte12142010.html 

December 13, 2010 from Forbes magazine. 

Here Come The WikiLeaks Copycats: IndoLeaks, BrusselsLeaks And BalkanLeaks

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/12/13/here-come-the-wikileaks-copycats-indoleaks-brusselsleaks-and-balkanleaks/?boxes=techchannelsections

The Counterpunch article is so overblown in its analysis as to be virtually nonsensical. According to the author, this is a "war", a "revolution" and "a catalyst in realigning our understanding of world politics."  Wow.  A bunch of controversial cables about documents Hillary Clinton signed, a cable about Qaddafi's Ukrainian nurse, and a lot of cables showing what we already knew about Arab leaders' fears of Iran, and we can no longer understand world politics without waiting for the next feats of Julian Assange? Absurd.  WikiLeaks is important, but Assange is not the Messiah of Global Revolution. No rational plan to defend global information liberty or build a case against systematic abuses of power by the American or other governments will come out of such hyperventilation.

The giveaway line in this article that reveals its author's extremism is the line about how Nazism provided the "template" for American power. So where, since World War II, are the ovens and killling fields where genocide, massacres and forced famines were performed by the U.S. Army?  Oh, ahem, there weren't any. The famines and massacres were in the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution" under Mao,  genocide happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot, more massacres happened in the "Red Terror" in Ethiopia in the late '70s and in East Timor by the Indonesian army, another genocide in Rwanda, and...the list goes on.  Don't get me wrong: U.S. military interventions around the world have killed far, far too many civilians, and that too is morally odious.  But to postulate that Wikileaks is the vehicle for bringing down the Evil Empire ludicrously exaggerates its ability to organize the necessary people on the ground in societies where actual insurrections might be helpful. We get to global justice one campaign at a time, one country at a time.  We don't get there by imagining that the world will be transformed because an innovative web site for whistleblowers has finally captured the attention of the mainstream media.