Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Wikileaks is Good for Democracy
Information is the currency of democracy. --Thomas Jefferson.
Since 9-11, the US government, through Presidents Bush and Obama, has increasingly told the US public that “state secrets” will not be shared with citizens. Candidate Obama pledged to reduce the use of state secrets, but President Obama continued the Bush tradition. The Courts and Congress and international allies have gone meekly along with the escalating secrecy demands of the US Executive.
By labeling tens of millions of documents secret, the US government has created a huge vacuum of information.
But information is the lifeblood of democracy. Information about government contributes to a healthy democracy. Transparency and accountability are essential elements of good government. Likewise, “a lack of government transparency and accountability undermines democracy and gives rise to cynicism and mistrust,” according to a 2008 Harris survey commissioned by the Association of Government Accountants.
Into the secrecy vacuum stepped Private Bradley Manning, who, according to the Associated Press, was able to defeat “Pentagon security systems using little more than a Lady Gaga CD and a portable computer memory stick.”
Manning apparently sent the information to Wikileaks – a non profit media organization, which specializes in publishing leaked information. Wikileaks in turn shared the documents to other media around the world including the New York Times and published much of it on its website.
Despite criminal investigations by the US and other governments, it is not clear that media organizations like Wikileaks can be prosecuted in the US in light of First Amendment. Recall that the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Outraged politicians are claiming that the release of government information is the criminal equivalent of terrorism and puts innocent people’s lives at risk. Many of those same politicians authorized the modern equivalent of carpet bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, the sacrifice of thousands of lives of soldiers and civilians, and drone assaults on civilian areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Their anger at a document dump, no matter how extensive, is more than a little suspect.
Everyone, including Wikileaks and the other media reporting the documents, hopes that no lives will be lost because of this. So far, that appears to be the case as McClatchey Newspapers reported November 28, 2010, that ‘US officials conceded that they have no evidence to date that the [prior] release of documents led to anyone’s death.”
The US has been going in the wrong direction for years by classifying millions of documents as secrets. Wikileaks and other media which report these so called secrets will embarrass people yes. Wikileaks and other media will make leaders uncomfortable yes. But embarrassment and discomfort are small prices to pay for a healthier democracy.
Wikileaks has the potential to make transparency and accountability more robust in the US. That is good for democracy.
- Posted in
70 Comments so far
Show AllBill...Thank you for this article. I have a feeling that you might be one of the first to step up in the legal defense. Please tell us how we can protect Assange and also free Manning.
It seems to me, that the leaks will save many lives. Exposing war crimes is a service to humanity.
You can by voting him TIME, man of the year,
and get as many friends voting for him. This
is the very least we can do. He is currently
in third places.
http://www.time.com/time/specials
/packages/completelist/0,29569,
2028734,00.html
Or by googling "vote time man of the year"
Excellent suggestion, thanks.
I voted, but it's a little difficult to figure out how. You have to rate him, right?
AMEN to that!!
Great article and spot on. I heard yesterday Obama is launching a massive investigation of this issue, but continues to ignore the bigger issue of bank fraud. Not a single prosecution on the banksters, the oil rig that blew up and killed 9 people, or the resulting habitate destruction whcih resulted from the oil spill; I guess this investigation is another example of what Obama refers to as transparency.
And your comments here are spot on, too. All the hue and cry over the release of information which everyone pretty much knew anyway-- the real issue is the embarrassment of the government.
Like you, I wonder when we're going to see a prosecution of the banksters, or prosecution of the persons and corporations responsible for the Gulf oil rig disaster.
that is really what this is all about. the complete hypocrisy of our goverment whether it's a dim or rethug. they are caught with their asses hanging out and they are all outraged but when the coporate elite commit crimes no one is held accountable. many lives have been lost in the us and other countries because of the US wars and no accountability from the dims or rethugs.
matt
galveston tx
Regarding Wikileaks from the Washington Post:
"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing."
Brrrr. That's cold. Kafkaesque and cold. Buttle and Tuttle are being investigated.
But it does not apply to Wall Streeters and bankers who brought down the world economy, or IMF et al who starve out the population to keep the "monetary systems" stable, or those who destroy whole ecosystems in their rush for easy money. When you count lost and ruined lives caused, those people are terrorists for sure.
Joe
This massive leaks serves our democracy...I agree with Daniel Elsberg's statement on MSNBC on this latest leak...elitist politicians and establishment figures are only upset with leaks they themselves did not make.
Meanwhile, speaking of banks, according to an article on AlterNet, they may be Assange's next target:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/369573/updated%3A_wikileaks%27_next_target%3A_american_bank/
You're right, somebody's got to do this.
Meanwhile, there is also an article on AlterNet regarding Ecuador offering residency to Assange:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/370741/ecuador_offers_residency_to_wikileaks_founder_as_he_faces_threat_of_espionage_charges/#paragraph6
It's telling -- but the sheeple will eat it up -- that the only people condemning Assange is the government, most notably in the person of Hillary Clinton. Did any of you guys hear her on NPR this morning?
Funny who our gov. is so concerned about this...but when Valerie Plame was outed by the Cheney, Bush and our great government as a vindictive act towards her husband, that was a different story entirely. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Agreeing with the message, does not in and of itself, exonorate the messanger. There is no doubt that the US government has too often 'classified' information for dubious reasons and that should be questioned. There are however, legitimate reasons to sometimes classify the fact that we have certain information, not because of the sensitivity of such, but because of the avenues from which that information stemmed. Wikileaks compromises those avenues as well as putting lives at risk.
It is fine to say that "Wikileaks and the other media reporting the documents, hopes that no lives will be lost because of this", but nobody, certainly not Eikileaks is going to spend time and money researching this claim. Other cultures may take retribution by eliminating the blood line rather than go after the individual. So a child dies, or an aunt and uncle, and nobody connects the dots.
We DO need an avenue to question why certain information is classified and we need to declassify LOTS of stuff, but that should be done cautiously, with integrity, something Wikileaks knows nil about.
Integrity!! that word or concept does not exist with the power and greed brokers that run the world...and most of them are in this country...you will see what you are worth if you don't already know...a race to the bottom for most of us while they take trillions out of our pockets through housing,stock market crashes and banksters bailouts...good luck.
Much effort was expended to ensure that no lives were placed in jeopardy, despite your comments to the contrary. Can you point to any example in the documents released to show otherwise?
Can YOU ensure that no lives WILL BE lost? Of course NEITHER of us can support our respective positions. I CAN however, draw from personal experience from back in the 60's and KNOW for a fact, that when certain information is found to be in the hands of an adversary, the search is very rapid and thorough to find the routing of said source.
As an example, (strictly theoretical of course), IF an American intelligence agency had tunneled under the Berlin wall and tapped into the East German telephone trunk line in order to monitor the communications between Russian and East German headquarters to parimeter posts, ALL communications intercepted, even that of innocent civilians would have been classified. Now, had it been discovered that the Americans were in possession of information, offical or non-official, that could have ONLY been gathered by listening to a telephone conversation, there would have been an immediate project to find out who had access, or how access could have been gained, followed by arrests of people in charge of telephone security, albeit innocent of wrong doing, and the digging up of lines or re-routing of communications.
In the above instance, presumabley, only the 'official' communications would have been forwarded to higher authorities and the rest, once scanned would have been filed in the black hole. ALL THEORY.
YOUR contention that "much effort" was expended to ensure no lives were placed in jeopardy", I believe to be totally non-credible however. With the shear number of releases, NOBODY in Wikileaks could have reviewed each and every one. It would have taken a staff of THOUSANDS of task dedicated people to screen that number of communiques, which I believe Wikileaks does NOT have.
I DO support the act of "whistle blowing" for wrongful acts, and am painfully aware of our goverenment abusing the "classified" stamp to coverup incompetence and abuses of power. That said, the methods of release by Wikileaks I still find to be unsupportable. It's not the act I objet to, but the magtitude of the act which reaks of irresponsibility. We may indeed make too much information classified, but for the security of our contry, we should accept that there are some legitimate sources that need protection. just an opinion.
You are not alone in ignoring or slanting the facts to aid in your conclusions. Nevertheless Assange and Wikileaks carefully scrutinized every damn cable to ensure that the fictions you proffer would not occur. Further, the news organizations receiving those cables did exactly the same thing. Our government has as much as said that as well, excepting for the tirades from the usual flag waving jackwagons of course.
As to the "magnitude of the act" perhaps you might share just how many secrets exposed are acceptable to you, or just how many nefarious and stupid foreign policies you agree with. A little to much democracy seems to make you nervous.
Assange is a freaking hero and you....aren't.
Commentary by people like Bill Quigley is good for democracy, too. We all know that the cries of outrage from the administration are just a smokescreen that is an attempt to cover a corrupt, rotting system.
Anyone listening to the fulminations of Hillary Clinton and other spokespeople has to be cynical about where their real concern lies.
Manning should be released from prison to provide more cell space for the real criminals like Obama and Clinton.
Right on! I would love to see both them together in jailed forever.
Thank you, Bill.
I hate to be treated like a mushroom--kept in the dark and fed horse manure. I found the information in the leaks very cheering. It is wonderful to know that China may be willing to help in the reunification of Korea. It is revealing to know the Arab governments want us to whack Iran. It is revealing to know that our diplomats know what we already suspect about leaders--like Angela Merkel's lack of creativity. It is also revealing to know how blatantly our diplomats gosssip, especailly when it is among an audience of a "mere" 2.5 million. Are these people nuts? Well, that is revealed as well. I love WikiLeaks and hope it continues on its path.
'Democratic Government' is a private club.
I wonder why the Defense Department and the State Department seem to hire amateurs to provide security for their computer systems.
There are several software packages which provide security for commercial companies. When my wife was the security administrator for an insurance company she ran a package that monitored every keystroke on every terminal connected to the mainframe system. It kept track of who was trying to access any file in the system. If you tried to get to something you were not cleared for, you could not, and a message was sent informing the administrator that you tried. Some very good programmers tried to "crack" the system, but were not successful.
So how does a Pfc in the army get access to all of the files leaked to Wikileaks?
You wonder why? Maybe because the State Dept *wants* them leaked. I don't believe in accidents or mistakes when the US Gov is concerned.
These files have been leaked for a reason, and Wikileaks might very well working for the government.
Nothing leaked so far has really damaged anything or anyone, and the purpose of this charade is to tell the world, see, war isn't that bad. We know the real, disgusting American atrocities will never be leaked and this dumpage is simply a distraction from the real crimes.
If Assange were a threat, he would've been disposed of by now. Wikileaks is part of the charade.
Delia: That is the answer that makes the most sense to me so far. " I don't believe in accidents or mistakes when the U.S.Gov. is concerned". One thing we all know for sure: we cannot believe anything we are told by our government and its whore press!
This is definitely a possibility however I fail to agree that our government is in control of everything...mistakes are made...otherwise lies and spin wouldn't be essential..a more plausible theory is power is shifting and assuage has cover to do this from others..who knows for sure..but they sure have their shorts in a knot
Sheepherder: " So how does a PFC in the army get access to all of the files leaked to Wikileaks? I have been asking myself that same question for a long time. Your question begs an answer. Maybe PFC Manning is locked up and incommunicado for this very reason.
Wikileak everything - everything in every nook and cranny of public life. Freedom. Let the truth set you free. As long as there are secrets there is no meaningful democratic society, only a continuation of this hollow mimicry.
You know, I sort of agree with fruitwriter, and ChiangmaiChris' point of view. I've read other posters decrying the lack of "needed secrecy" that allows the state to function-- but to me, that's been the problem all along. I'm sick of it. I'm tired of the lies and spin and fabrications and whispering acts that allow the wars to continue forever. Now they're prepping us for a fireup of the Korean conflict all over again.
I would like to see people in other countries start blowing the cover off their minders' operations, too. I think WikiLeaks is influencing people around the globe. I think it enboldens whistleblowers and monkeywrenchers. We're starting to see knock-on effects as others contribute. I can't believe that all the material released is the result of just one leaker.
I'd like to play back to the government just what they've been telling us about our eternal illegal surveillance. You know, when the NSC spies on our emails and phone calls, we're supposed to believe it's all for the good (not that it is). After all, if we have nothing to hide, we shouldn't mind, right? Well, if the government is on the up and up, they shouldn't be bent out of shape. After all, if they behaved in a legitimate fashion, what do they have to be afraid of?
" Since 911, the U.S. government through Presidents Bush and Obama has increasingly told the U.S. public that "state secrets" will not be shared with its citizens". Not for national security, but for their security and to keep their lies from being exposed and embarrassing them! No doubt, 911 was an inside job and has been used by our government for wars,the unpatriotic treason act, and more " state secrets ".
Bob Woodward said on Larry King last night that there was a very real need for a type of WikiLeaks dissemination of information prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Interview today: Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Editor of Guardian
http://www.democracynow.org/
I love what Noam Chomsky said in this interview -- that the leaks reveal how much our government politicians despise democracy. VERY TRUE.
These in our government are FASCISTS who hate our freedoms in the US and are whittling them down, just like Hitler did, the latest being the TSA sexual gropings of travelers including young children. If this becomes 'normal' to the people, they will most likely start entering our homes whenever they wish to harrass, beat, and rape the residents they claim are 'terrorists' because they have their own organic garden in the backyard.
It's to each of us to stand for something more important than fear.
Seems to me, your statement could only be true if in the grand scheme of things, the purpose of planet earth was to prove the harm in it. Is that your position?
No, and I don't see how you came to that conclusion. My larger point is that fear can be debilitating if the individual allows it to be. With courage and willingness, fear can be overcome and outgrown.
PURPOSE OF LIFE
But, only three options do you have on the issue I have raised, for the purpose of this world would have to be one of the following:
(1) To prove the harm in it, which is the most logical as we are gaining a full and perfect understanding of darkness, darkness being a liar's pretense of good hiding his intent to be enriched upon our misery. For with a full understanding of darkness clear in the minds of all, never again would a liar be able to lock us in darkness.
(2) To prove the good in this world as evolution takes us from "the lesser to the greater." Problem is, in my 70 years of enduring darkness, only more miserable has become the darkness. Actually the minds of most every man today, every inclination of the thoughts of his heart is only criminal all the time.
(3) This world has no purpose, no logical destiny to be fulfilled. But then the only purpose of life would be to maximize pleasure, and everyone would be fully justified in enriching themselves upon the misery of anyone less aggressive.
WikiLeaks good for Democracy?
What is Democracy good for?
Are you in the lower half of society?
Reason I ask is because democracy allows the 51% most aggressive and wealthy, to vote in a way that best enslaves the lower half of society.
I doubt your figure is an accurate representation of actual democratic flaws in action. I think that it is far better to understand that it is really only about 2% or so that runs the place.
Obey the Constitution and defend it. Free Bradley Manning for doing his job.
STATE RELIGION
“All men are created equal” to the rich,
equal in ambition, aggression and ability
to be rich.
Rightly understood, the Constitution establishes a state religion that creates a fake morality and an ambition dictatorship. One that allows those most ambitious and aggressive to be the 1% rich who hoard 80% of wealth.
And so, why should me a nature lover with no ambition for wealth, be enslaved by those who have a monopoly on the use of force and violence because of all their wealth?
CORRUPTION -- IMPOSSIBLE IN THE LIGHT
For no one enriches himself upon your misery in full view of the public. Surely, and only by some pretense of good could such crime do us harm.
Therefore, full and perfect democracy could be achieved instantly and be most equal and self-evident to all. Just make it impossible for any secrecy: In government or business require there to be full disclosure to an anti-secrecy committee.
Elizabeth Warren with all power necessary to uncover any secret in high finance or the FED, Noam Chomsky to know everything that any president or politician knows, Ralph Nader to know everything that any corporation is planning or doing, that sort of thing.
I think it's too early to gauge the effect of the wikileaks document releases, but at the very least it will impart a degree of caution among the powerful in governments and corporations worldwide. That caution may lead them to restrict access to files by people lower down in the organizations, but those are the people who carry out policy.
It is important to recognize that the USG decided, after 9-11, to set up a much more open data system which allowed a lowly PFC like Bradley Manning to allegedly tap into Pentagon and State communications. The idea was that 9-11 occurred because CIA, FBI etc were not sharing what they already knew about Al Queda and hence could not "connect the dots." If the net result of wikileaks is to set up new barriers between agencies, there may be some damage in US ability to detect and thwart future threats.
And given the usual tendency of bureaucracies to overreact to embarrassments, I think it's safe to predict that the USG will revert to the pre-9/11 mentality re data-sharing, which will not be in anyone's interest. Democracy and civil liberties did not stand up too well to the 9-11 attacks, and another such catastrophe would push the USG into unprecedented authoritarianism, in my view.
I don't believe the Constitution of the Unites States grants the federal government the "powers" of keeping secrets and lying; and in contrast to the fourth amendment that grants citizens the right to be secure in their papers, no amendment gives government the right to be secure in its papers.
The US Constitution gives judges the freedom to always
rule in favor of the party most wealthy, which enhances
the careers of most lawyers and judges most handsomely.
mmmmm. That's interesting. How about if John Roberts and the chuckle heads of The Supreme Court find that, like corporations, certain agency's of the government are in fact persons. And the robed robbers believe that these 'persons' should have all the privacy protections available to actual persons (who in fact don't really have them at all) and that violating these very special persons privacy is a terrorist act subject to extreme prejudice. mmmmm. Problem solved.
WHO HAS WEALTH -- HAS POWER
doubledee
“I think that it is far better to understand that it is
really only about 2% or so that runs the place.”
LIGHT
You could be right, so answer us this:
(1) A little over half of society live in terrific housing, establishing that they have great jobs and share in the wealth. As most everyone in the lower half of society has more debt then wealth, what does this establish?
(2) Those in the upper half of society, by and large, know that if distribution of wealth were to be made equal, their wealth would have to take a haircut. Is this not why the disparity of wealth keeps getting greater?
Hard to answer what is basically unsupported opinion given as unchallengeable fact.
The real issue is the power and wealth accumulation of the small minority at the very top, not the life style of the (shrinking) middle class as you posit. There is no difference, according to you, between the folks above 50% who live in mortgaged housing with under water debt load and the very few who own multiple dwellings in prime locations. I cannot support such generalizations, nor buy into your weird attempt to isolate the working class from those in the middle class who are natural allies.
The disparity of wealth gets more not because the middle is benefiting, but because only the very top is doing so. You really ought to research your opinions more.