Are you enjoying Wikileaks? I am

[erudito]

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

Comments

[omnot]

"Wikileaks was confirming "our" (i.e. the mildly libertarian/conservative) view of the world

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.

Good point

[erudito]

Yes, there is an element of that, though it depends a bit on what you focus on. Such as the general strategic patterns or the nasty details. Though, and this reinforces your confirmation bias point, it also depends on the context in which you place facts. (For example, Glenn Greenwald assuming that every death in Iraq is the US's fault, so the US gets blamed for its actions AND the actions of those it is fighting, while his rhetoric that Iraq "has been destroyed" is just nonsense.)

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.

Re: Good point

[catsidhe]

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.

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

• Dili investigator called to Canberra as evidence of execution mounts - the Feb 2008

[mindstalk]

There's some pretty criminal US stuff in there as well. Coverups of mass killings, interfering with judiciaries, illegal spying on diplomats, procuring boys for rape parties.
http://mindstalk.livejournal.com/tag/wikileaks
Not to mention how Bradley Manning is being treated.

Coercive power plus secrecy

[erudito]

As I said in my reply to omnot 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

Bachi Bazi

[catsidhe]

It is documented that the US government knew of this practice. It is not documented that there were any sanctions afterwards.

Knowing complicity implies consent. And an accessory after the fact is still an accessory.

[quatrefoil]

It's one of those rare occasions where I agree with you entirely. Shocking revelation after shocking revelation has left me saying 'well, *der*'. I must admit, though, I haven't been paying too much attention to the military stuff.

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.

[catsidhe]

Originally, Wikileaks was anonymous. The focus was on the information.

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

[quatrefoil]

No argument there - most of the geeks with delusions of grandeur I know are neither wrong nor stupid, but they do frequently have problems with interpersonal relationships, and sometimes personal hygiene. I actually think Assange has that combination of recklessness and genius that would probably make him quite attractive if I were fifteen years younger and hadn't learned my lessons.

[basal_surge]

What I can't shake is the feeling that I know him from my mispent youth

Well, he is a dead ringer for a slightly younger Mr Humphries from "Are You Being Served?"