The comparison with the unveiling, in 1971, of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times is immediate and legitimate. Daniel Ellsberg, the source of the 7,000 pages, leaked to the paper, of "top secret" documents on the Vietnam War, was among the first in the US to defend WikiLeaks. Julian Assange is quick to quote the ruling of the US Supreme Court when it ruled against a government injunction forbidding the continued publication of the Papers by the New York Times: "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government," wrote Justice Hugo Black at the time.
Presenting the disclosure of the 251,287 diplomatic cables, of which 15,652 are classified ‘secret' the WikiLeaks site points out that it is revealing the contradictions between the public statements of US officials and what is said and done "behind closed doors". This is followed by a partial list of examples such as: spying on allies and on the UN; indifference to corruption and to human rights violations; secret deals; and lobbying on behalf of industry. The site also, naively, recalls that every American schoolchild is taught that the first American president, George Washington, never told a lie. This statement is bound to bring a smile to the lips of proponents of Machiavellian cynicism for whom politics is always about dissimulation.
But the catastrophic misadventure of post 9/11 America suffices to remind us that official lies (in this case regarding the links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, as well as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction) always cause the misery of peoples. And if, on June 16th, 2010, the Icelandic Parliament unanimously voted in the IMMI (Icelandic Modern Media Initiative), proposing to turn this little island country, now ruined, into a political paradise for freedom of information, it is because of the accumulated lies of its economic, political and media elites, which dragged it into the abyss of a devastating financial crisis exacerbated by a moral collapse.
In the troubled and uncertain times that mark this era of transition - the crisis of capitalism, the industrial revolution, the world out of kilter - the only guarantee of keeping at bay the perils of war and mad threats is to maximise the role of democracy and reinforce all its mechanisms, from the most widespread circulation of information to the widest participation of citizens. This guarantee demands politicians who accept accounting for and being accountable for their actions, and, in consequence, a public able to know whether or not they really do what they say, and say precisely what they do.
From this perspective, the transparency demanded reflects not the fantasy of a glass-walled society, but the demand for a policy of openness as stated as early as 1789 by the revolutionary leader Jean Sylvain Bailly: everything that concerns the public can potentially be rendered public. And this is all the more legitimate when it transpires that, sheltered by our so-called democratic societies, those in power cover up their lies and mistakes, their corruption and their hypocrisy, their crimes even, with illegitimate secrets. And yet it is precisely shock that was felt by the young man without whom, according to the American press, all this story would never have seen the light of day.
For, by singling out Julian Assange as a lone Robin Hood figure, the media has consigned to the shadows the courage of his supposed informant, the 23 year-old soldier Bradley Manning. Currently being detained in a military base in Virginia, he may well face more than fifty years in prison. Betrayed by a former hacker in whom he confided via an e-mail exchange last May, this soldier posted to Iraq, an intelligence analyst specialising in computer technology, is said to be the source of the revelations that are shaking America's leadership. Those who have accessed the leaks are, quite logically, refusing to confirm so, out of respect for the protection of sources, and there are doubts that there may be a manipulation exercise involved.
If it so happens that the soldier Manning is indeed behind these scoops that, in one year, have earned WikiLeaks universal fame - the video of a military blunder in Iraq (Collateral Murder), reports on the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and, now diplomatic telegrams - what counts is his motivation.According to the emails quoted by the American press and, in France, in the print edition of French weekly news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, his acts are totally disinterested, and profoundly motivated by the shock felt on discovering the lies proffered and the crimes committed in the name of his own country.
"i was actively involved in something that i was completely against..." he writes, adding, "maybe im just young, naive, and stupid [...] i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore [...] we're better in some respects... we're much more subtle... use a lot more words and legal techniques to legitimize everything [...] but just because something is more subtle, doesn't make it right."
If, like Ellsberg before him, Manning is the source of WikiLeaks, he's a perfect whistleblower who should be defended and supported as such: a citizen doing his duty by alerting the people to illegitimate acts committed by his own government. "What is your endgame plan, then?" asks the hacker in the May 2010 email exchange, before denouncing him. Manning's answer is sincerely and laudably idealistic: "Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. If not... than [sic] we're doomed as a species. i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens. [...] i want people to see the truth... regardless of who they are... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public [...] it should be a public good". He says that "rather than some slimy intel collector", he is "crazy like that".
0 comments:
Post a Comment