There is a new terrorist on the block and he is causing quite a bit of a ruckus at the Pentagon. Wielding a quarter million cables that hold potentially embarrassing accounts of foreign countries given by U.S.
In December of 2010, the figure most associated with the organization, Julian Assange, spoke about a Bank of America hard drive, ostensibly holding pre-meltdown data spurring the company to appoint a damage control council. The organization does not just operate on a whim. A copy of all of their files is kept by a company operating in an underground bunker that was made during World War II. Additionally, the organization keeps a 1.4 gigabyte-sized file named “Insurance,” so if anything happens to Assange the contents would be made public. Although the file is posted to be a dangling threat to many world governments, it could also serve as a temptation to those that think they can take on such a project.[1] But the most important issue is that Wikileaks is, in fact, seen as a threat to national security.
Because of the threat that they now pose, the U.S.
An organization that preaches transparency by leaking secret information should prompt the country’s citizens to demand answers for many important questions before showing any type of support for the organization. And as a matter of principle, the organization preaching the message ought to live by the motto and values for which it advocates. But it seems that this is not the case. For someone who is taking such a solid stand for transparency, they seem to be peculiarly unconcerned with the transparency of their own organization. It does not stop there. Front man Julian Assange has been adamant with communicating to volunteers that any type of information they have on him is to be kept secret, prohibiting them from talking to anyone associated with the media. He has had three prominent volunteers resign because he suspended them from volunteering after they gave out already-known information to the press.[3]
The most publically criticized hypocrisy the organization has faced is the veil it has placed over its finances. Because of this lack of transparency, many feel that Wikileaks could be financed by a number of “shady” adversaries, or even the U.S.
Another ambiguous trait of the organization is the shortage of sources that confirms its board members. While a record of its consultative board members had been posted on the Wikileaks website at one time, many of those listed have yet to confirm anything close to a consultative relationship with Wikileaks. But this is the most intriguing part of the organization.
A large portion of those board members listed as “advisers” had no idea they were on the board.[4] And as far as the other board members are concerned, there are little to no sources that confirm their advising role. These seemingly loose connections between those on the advisory board and Wikileaks necessarily shifts the focus of the original question. And with the identity of the advisers and a financial record masked by what is often described as a dictatorship, defining the identity of Wikileaks by looking at the organization, seems to be a lost cause. Therefore, by defining the dictator, the authoritarian shroud is gradually lifted and the face of a pure, simple quest for truth inadvertently becomes a depraved, complex attack on individual freedom.
With board members unknowingly a part of Wikileaks and key volunteers quitting because of Julian Assange’s dictatorial management approach, the task of painting a picture of the organization proves difficult. But removing the noise and shifting the focus on Assange yields a much clearer portrait, allowing the intent of the organization to be critically examined as opposed to getting trapped in focusing on its public identity.
The information available on Assange is limited, but it is known that he is an experienced cryptographer and hacker. He was taken to court for hacking into “thousands of systems” including a few belonging to the Department of Defense.[5] An email exchange posted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows Assange collaborating with NASA scientist Fred Blonder and Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Michael C. Neuman on a project nearly two-years before his prosecution.[6] These scientists were in top positions at prominent national security research institutions. This puts Assange connected to a seemingly tight-knit community of national security scientists. And it’s not the only ambiguous trait of his past.
Assange has reportedly attended thirty-seven separate schools and six universities, many of which have yet to be mentioned by name. Nor is there information or proof of his actual credentials or the work that he had performed prior to the Wikileaks project. The best information available is in a biography which states that he is a “…prolific programmer and consultant for many open-source projects and his software is used by most large organizations and is inside every Apple computer.” But yet he has not appeared in any sources open to the public as being a freelance contributor to Apple.[7]
The fact that an advocate for transparency has such a blurry past does very little to support the thought that they are conspiring with others. It does, though, point out major discrepancies in Assange’s credibility by revealing the possibility of manipulating the public by manufacturing a past that can answer any questions that arise. And even though there is a need for the anonymity of Assange and Wikileaks’ board members, there is also a need to portray the group as being open and trusted. But that’s not the case. Wikileaks has as sketchy and unknown of a past as the governments they seek to change. Pot, meet kettle. Of course, there is always the idea that Assange and Wikileaks are funded and controlled by the U.S.
Okay, it may not be a conspiracy, but there are still many questions that need to be answered before I relinquish my foil hat. The simple fact is that Americans are now in a compromising position because of what Wikileaks has brought to the table. The possibility of regulating the internet may be laughable, but the reality is that there were reports that both military and university leaders spoke out against reading the cables on line. It is far from absolute regulation, but it is as close to a knee-jerk reaction that I need to register in my mind that it could very well be a route considered by the government at a later time.
It is clear that Wikileaks is a threat to government transparency. And much of what is happening parallels a perfect storm that could both obligate and justify the government to go to extremes in combating the organization. Therefore, even though Wikileaks may be expressing and testing our freedom of speech and press, those rights are contingent upon the extremity the government wishes to go in the name of national security. When looking back at the PATRIOT act or Ollie North’s Rex 84, it is not so far fetched to see that because of the threat that Wikileaks poses on our government, it, inadvertently, poses a similar threat to our civil freedom.
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/05/wikileaks-ready-release-massive-insurance-file-shut/
[2] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/cia-wikileaks-wtf.html
[3] ABC | Brian Ross Investigates: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 Season 1 : Ep. 36 (20:08) Air date: 12/17/2010
[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va
[6] http://diswww.mit.edu/menelaus/bt/204
[7] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=22437&context=va
No comments:
Post a Comment