Without whistleblowing, leaks, and investigative reporting, the world might not have known about My Lai, the Pentagon Papers, Abu Ghraib, the Afghanistan Convoy of Death, and the US-government and Canadian-government involvement in torture in the so-called War on Terror.
That an organization like Wikileaks is purportedly revealing confiential, secret, and not-so-confidential leaks is something that every supporter of an open society ought to support. It is often stated that knowledge is power, and despite John Dalberg-Acton’s caution, ((Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I disagree with this sentiment, believing instead that the corruptible are drawn to power. Nevertheless, if power corrupts, then let all people equally share in the corruption.)) in the context of knowledge, power is considered a good thing. Power belongs to the people; therefore, knowledge belongs to the masses.
Nasty things often hide in the dark. Knowing this, many governments demand their citizens submit to intrusive measures, chirping that if you have nothing to hide, then you need not fear encroachments into their private sphere like telephone monitoring, body scans, customs checks, census questionnaires, etc. That Albert Einstein, John Lennon, and others were subject to FBI scrutiny is anathema in an open society. Yet, the self-same governments hide behind secrecy acts and disinformation.
Unsurprisingly, Wikileaks has been assailed by government officials for the release of certain documents.
Concomitant with government zealotry for guarding secrecy has been the further eroding of the right of the citizens of many countries to privacy. Thus there is, for example, the Patriot Act in the US and Bill C-32 in Canada.
Thus Wikileaks, and its founder Julian Assange, were greeted by supporters of open government.
A recent article suggested that Julian Assange of Wikileaks should have been awarded Time magazine’s person-of-the-year. ((Kanomi Blake, “A Tale of Two Websites,” Dissident Voice, 20 December 2010.)) I do not care about who Time singles out for an award. Anything Time states is tainted since it belongs to the propagandic, disinforming corporate media. As such, it is beholden to generating profits for and promulgating viewpoints favorable to its owners and shareholders.
Openness is not about Assange. Neither is progressivism because it is not wrapped up in personality. Progressivism needs idolatry like it needed the false promises of hope and change from Barack Obama.
Insofar as Assange divulges information without prejudice through Wikileaks, this is laudatory, and certainly his legal and civil rights must be protected. However, progressivism does not need to chain itself to the anchor of Assange. Assange has much to clarify regarding social justice issues. Praising Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu while saying nothing about the occupation-oppression of the Palestinians is a glaring omission. Trusting the corporate media and praising media mogul Rupert Murdoch while remaining silent on the dangers of the increasing consolidation of the corporate media into fewer and fewer hands suggests a questionable adherence to openness of information. Assange’s unclarity on these points may be construed as morally damning.
Assange and Wikileaks should be at the forefront of unequivocably supporting the public’s right to know what their governments are doing. There is no need condemn either Assange of Wikileaks too hastily, and neither should one jump on a bandwagon too quickly.
There are questions that surround Wikileaks. How open is Wikileaks itself? Does Wikileaks release all leaks? Why or why not?
Progressives support the right of the people to know, but they should exercise a measure of skepticism to Wikileaks and Assange until they are both more revealing.
In the meantime, citizens must demand that their government representatives operate in the open and uphold the right of the citizenry to privacy in their daily lives. Then the sordid espionage networks can be dismantled.