Someone observed in a discussion group I was at recently that Wikileaks was confirming "our" (i.e. the mildly libertarian/conservative) view of the world. That Russia was a country of gangster politics, that China assertive authoritarianism bothered its neighbours, that even China was exasperated by the North Korean regime, that Rudd was a
(
Read more... )
Comments 10
Wikileaks is useful and interesting in a number of ways.
The real comedy gold, however, is in the way that every political perspective I have privy to view discussions of are revealing their confirmation bias by claiming that the leaks show that they've been right all along. It's like watching some fabulous high farce in which every single character in the play simultaneously leaps onto the stage triumphantly yelling "Aha! Gotcha!" and pointing at some other character.
Reply
I agree with Assange to the extent that coercive power and secrecy is a combination prone to be exploited. I just do not see specifically American coercive power and secrecy as some unique (or uniquely noxious) problem.
For those with a longer view, the nastier details do confirm why the common law has regarded torture as noxious: beyond its inherent problems, it has all sorts of corrupting knock-on effects.
Reply
Confirmation bias again. You expect to see this as a special and unique attack on the US, and so you do.
Wikileaks does host information from other countries, and has repeatedly requested people post leaks from all the countries of the world. They are just as interested in leaks from China and Russia and Burma as they are from the US.
It's just that they happen to have these communiqués, in great numbers, and by god they're publishing them. And what we are seeing reported are those portions which reflect on us, and on things we know about.
As far as other leaks go, it's difficult to point to them, given that Wilileaks has had to batten down the hatches because of the attacks from the US government and its proxies. But they refer to
Reply
http://mindstalk.livejournal.com/tag/wikileaks
Not to mention how Bradley Manning is being treated.
Reply
Reply
Knowing complicity implies consent. And an accessory after the fact is still an accessory.
Reply
I do feel the focus on Assange is misplaced - after all, his website might have had a scoop, but he's not the person doing the leaking. What I can't shake is the feeling that I know him from my mispent youth - just another geek with delusions of grandeur - the only difference is that he seems to be running a rather more public multi-user dungeon than most.
Reply
Then people started popping up across the internet, claiming to be the spokesperson for Wikileaks. This could not be allowed to stand, so Assange stepped forward and put his face up as the face of Wikileaks.
What he also, incidentally, did was to provide a figurehead for the inevitable enemies to take aim at, while everyone else at Wikileaks went on with their jobs.
All the attention is on Assange, very little at all on Kristinn Rafnsson. Or anyone else behind the curtain. Co-incidence? maybe.
But as well, there are the split-off Wikileaks. That cat's out of the bag, and even if Wikileaks itself goes down permanently (a difficult task in its own right), that leaves lessons for the next generation of leakers ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Well, he is a dead ringer for a slightly younger Mr Humphries from "Are You Being Served?"
Reply
Leave a comment