The WikiLeaks Dilemma—Why is Any Document Confidential?

Share

You have allowed the Republicans to twist your mind, until now, you've become the very thing you swore to destroy.



by The Late Mitchell Warren

Back in June of 2010, the “fate of the Internet” was decided in a back room.  The Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal explained that the Federal Communications Commission was holding “closed door meetings” in order to broker a deal on what was called “Net Neutrality.”  All of the major corporations were represented by lobbyists and the goal was reportedly to “reach consensus” regarding the rules of the Internet.

At that time the thought struck me: what rules?  What are the rules of free press?  The Internet is the single greatest invention in the history of politics and human civility, because it gives a platform to the underrepresented portion of society.  The ones who don’t hold office, don’t have money, and are not part of an official “mob” of protesters.

The greatest difference between an organized mob and the Internet crowd?  A mob can be clobbered by a tank.  The Internet army is vast, never ending, and strangely enough, just as fiercely motivated as the common thug.  The implication of what big capitalism could do to the Internet (the new technology that indeed killed the video star, which killed the radio star) was nervously anticipated but never realized…until now.

What is WikiLeaks?


And why has Wikipedia guru Jimmy Wales and all those other begging Wikimedia authors turned against us?  Actually, WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia, but did steal its name and concept from Wikipedia.  The name “Wiki”, with its free, anonymous and untraceable reporting style, is quickly becoming the new “Judas Iscariot” catchphrase for the 21st century.

WikiLeaks is an international non-profit website that publishes anonymous submissions of “unavailable documents”, which could include classified or even secret documents from governments, corporations and powerful people.  The documents come from anonymous news sources and leaks—the same way 60 Minutes, Channel 5 Investigative Reports, and The New York Times did it in the 1990s.

The problem, and hence the source of the great WikiLeaks debate, is just how damn successful WikiLeaks is at uncovering dirt.  Since the website’s launch in 2006, the WikiLeaks database has grown to over one million documents.  Though Julian Assange is the Australian-born director, the whole organization is made up of various cerebral assassins from all over the globe, including China, the U.S. Europe and South Africa.

In recent months, WikiLeaks has been on a Wiki-roller coaster ride as far as producing confidential documents.  Some of the website’s greatest hits have included Sarah Palin’s private emails, classified U.S. military documents on the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, video footage of U.S. helicopters shooting Reuters photographers, and even age old documents dating back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Why Isn’t WikiLeaks Illegal?

That brings us to an interesting question.  If WikiLeaks is doing something unethical or illegal by posting documents meant to be private in public, why isn’t the U.S. investigating the issue or shooting people to make it all stop?  Well, they are, actually.  Historically speaking, the United States takes great pride in torturing innocent people (see water boarding) suing little high school hackers (see David Kernell or the latest casualty from the war on WikiLeaks) and of course murdering its own people for intricate political purposes.

Yeah, all right we did it, lol. -The U.S. Government


However, the WikiLeaks website has fallen into a complex gray avenue of ethics, morality and law.  There is nothing blatantly illegal about what WikiLeaks is doing.  They are a journalistic publication following in the footsteps of many news organizations before them that somehow or another got their hands on non-public information.

The term “non-public” is a bit of a paradox.  Private documents are the intellectual property of private citizens.  Governments distribute information and ideas concerning the public.  (Ideas are not copyrightable)  If a document is not publicly distributed, but not privately held intellectual copyright, then it is considered non-public.  Therefore, practically all publicly available documents, (with the possible exception of Palin’s private emails) are documents that concern the public and thus should be publicly available.  In essence, these available documents are not distributed among the public because they are far too complex for stupid people to understand.

This brings to us another principal character in this cyber drama: the whistleblower.  The whistleblower, which refers to the actual human being who is “betraying” his country (WikiLeaks claims it never requests any non-public information), cannot be considered a criminal, because he is actually telling someone in authority (namely the people, which supposedly have final say over the law of Democratic government) that dangerous and illegal activity is taking place within the institution.

There you have it.  Governments must tiptoe around these legalities and attempt to silence WikiLeaks through other methods—in full view of the press and the public, who are reading these documents and using their brains to make intelligent decisions.  At present time, governments are conducting criminal probes of WikiLeaks, and are instead attempting to freeze the assets of the organization, arbitrarily bankrupting it, through the cooperation of professional pussies like Amazon.com, PayPal.com (those bastards take 10% of my pay check) and Visa and MasterCard.

WikiLeaks is not located anywhere near a communist regime or a fake democracy like the United States.  The major sites hosting WikiLeaks (there are several “mirror sites” where it can be accessed) are available from any uncensored Internet connection.  The main headquarters is in Sweden, and particularly because of Sweden’s laws that vow to protect the welfare of journalists incognito.

Julian Assange’s Arrest

This is Julian Assange, not the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy Dude


The fact that WikiLeaks founder and director Julian Assange was arrested on December 7, 2010 in London at the request of the International Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden and Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization), for sexual assault charges (rape, molestation and unlawful coercion) should fill everyone with a glimmer of hope that WikiLeaks is actually winning the ethical war.  Despite the threats of various charges of espionage and stolen government property, it appears as if “surprise sex!” is the only charge that’s really capable of sticking in court.  Good to know Sweden is so zealous about punishing sex offenders…a word of advice from Roman Polanski to Assange: “Don’t go to Switzerland.”

Of course, we all must step back and consider the possibility that Assange really is a rapist and that the charges are fishy, convenient, contrived and yet totally justified.

While it would be unusual that a man who won the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Award, the 2010 Sam Adams Award, as well as honorable mentions from the World’s 50 Most Influential Figures of 2010 by the New Statesman, Utne Reader’s 25 Top Visionaries, and Time Magazine’s Person of the Year 2010, could also rape a woman, it’s an entirely plausible scenario.  (A little know fact: the majority of Time Magazine Person of the Year winners are actually rapists, including The Computer of 1982)

However, what is truly unprecedented is the outpouring of support that Assange has received from world leaders, celebrities and of course, the free Internet community, who believe the charges are phony and for purely spiteful political reasons.  British celebrities like Jemina Khan and John Pilger have spoken out on behalf of Assange.  American publications like the Washington Post have devoted plenty of ink to Assange’s plight, not to mention thousands of Internet news sites, which show—if not total support—at least a healthy measure of objectivity for the story.  A story that could very well be a fabrication, and the starting point for a worldwide-witnessed crime, indicting many of the so-called free world powers of today.

Many world leaders have been outspoken against the legal and peer-oppressive actions taken against Assange, including Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev, who suggested Assange should receive a Nobel Prize, and Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who called the arrest a “blow against freedom of expression.”

Perhaps the most dramatic display of support for Assange’s release comes from the Internet community.  “Anonymous”, a group of well, anonymous hackers has vowed to attack major companies showing support for government suppression of WikiLeaks including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Amazon.  Other “freelance” hackers are also doing their part to sabotage the daily business routines of other companies and individuals that continue to discriminate against WikiLeaks, a non-profit organization being deprived of its donations.

More threats are being made by the United Hackers who swear to target British government websites for cyber-attacks if Assange is extradited to Sweden—where he then could be extra-extradited to the vengeful United States who has espionage charges lined up.  The “Operation Payback” paranoia is so heated that recently Columbia University advised its students not to even mention the word WikiLeaks for fear of endangering a future job with the Federal Government.

The tragedy of the situation is that now that the world has seen how spiteful these world powers are in hanging Assange for whistle blowing, we have no way of ever knowing whether the man is guilty of sexual crimes.  Evidence can easily be fabricated, witnesses can be bought off and rubber stamps come cheap in the court systems.  It’s sad that the woman who may have actually been raped must now drop her case for the resolution of a larger cause.  (Right now, Chris Brown is thinking…If only I had founded WikiLeaks…)

Where You Stand on the WikiLeaks Debate

What is the subversive thinker to think about the most recent WikiLeaks news?  How could Subversify Magazine, an alternative and subversive press, ever dream of taking sides against a web publication that promotes free speech?  We certainly like the attitude of WikiLeaks but what do the facts show?

By all logic, WikiLeaks has not broken any laws in any Democratic country that supports freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  For espionage to be a chargeable offense, one must be actively doing something to support the country’s enemies during wartime, or promoting insubordination in the military—merely blowing a whistle on an illegal activity in public is protected under the First Amendment.

Furthermore, by precedent of the Supreme Court in 1971 with Nixon’s Pentagon Papers, the constitution protects re-publication of illegally acquired information, so as long as the publisher did not break the law to attain it.  Therefore, everything that WikiLeaks is publishing—even if it were considered classified information—is completely protected by American law.  Even the outside the box suggestion of charging Assange with “stolen government property” doesn’t work, because the claim of intellectual property is not so easy to prove with in court.  Ideas and facts are not copyrightable.

Regardless of constitutional rights, and of freedom of press, and whatever other perpetrated myths the U.S. force feeds us through the pledge of allegiance, the Federal Government continues to wage war against WikiLeaks and other free press entities.

Senators John Ensign, Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown are trying to create news laws in congress making it illegal to publish the names of military or intelligence community informants—something WikiLeaks has already done, and thus would have to stand trial for.

The Barack Obama Administration is also going after Assange and WikiLeaks.  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has admitted that the Federal Government is trying to think of a way to prosecute Assange for espionage.  The Obama Administration is not acting independently of its party.  Many Democrats, being the control-freaks they are, are uniting with Republicans on this issue.  Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic senator from California, wrote that Assange should be charged with Espionage.

The British Independent newspaper has reported that the U.S. and Sweden are negotiating “behind closed doors” (those magic words again) in an effort to deliver Assange into American custody.  Reportedly, they are not only exploring espionage but practically any angle that silences WikiLeaks.  As if the Democrats couldn’t get any creepier, Hillary Clinton had to open her mouth.  Clinton called the WikiLeaks controversy distressing, and hoped that countries and companies around the world could “assist us in preventing any of the consequences that could either endanger individuals or other interests internationally.”  Face it, if Hillary Clinton is gunning for you, you’re as good as dead.

Seriously, I think I saw this scene in "Alien 3"


Clinton also said that she regrets the information getting out because it was intended to be “confidential” information about “our diplomats personal assessments and observations.”  Psycho-chick brings up an interesting point.  If confidential information is potentially damaging to the United States, say, in time of war or economic uncertainty, isn’t it for the best that this information be censored—or shall we say “kept away” from the public eye?

Subversify Magazine says no.  In fact, we underground, freedom-of-the-press radicals have created our own Nicene Creed of New Journalism.  The basic theme here is that NO DOCUMENTS SHOULD EVER BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.  EVER, FOR ANY REASON.  We conclude this dogma based on the following observations:

  • We don’t believe in keeping privileged information away from “stupid people.”
  • Even if people are stupid, they still deserve to read what their government thinks about them.
  • People should be tried according to their actions, crimes and deeds—not what they know.
  • Confidential information usually involves the people of the republic.  Don’t you prefer to know what your friends and neighbors are saying about you?
  • Especially if your friends and neighbors have big guns?
  • Why the hell is Hillary Clinton afraid that her administration’s observations about various diplomats and world leaders is damaging?
  • Keeping confidential information creates a hierarchy of classes
  • Steps have to be taken so that American’s capitalism doesn’t devolve into communism or even fascism because of big business
  • And you need a “paper trail” in order to create evidence of crimes
  • No one is unaccountable on any local, state or federal level
  • Everyone must answer to someone
  • Freedom of the press does not punish, kill, water board or smite anyone
  • Politicians and the military do
  • Politicians and the military piss all over themselves, with minimal help from the press
  • If confidential documents cannot be released, there is no evidence of crimes that can be compiled
  • Hmm, what did ever happen to those Warren Commission documents, anyway?
  • America has always been at war, whether in World War II, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War and the ongoing War on Terror
  • So the argument of “keeping confidentiality because of the threat of war” is giving way too much power to the government
  • Come to think of it, did President Obama ever repeal the Patriot Act?  The one that said the government has the right to invade your PC, email, bank account and just about anything else you own for your own protection?
  • There is no specific reason to keep confidential documents away from “the enemy.”  It’s called counterintelligence.
  • We the people of the United States apparently ha ve no say in who gets elected (or at least, based on the latest elections, we’re a nation full of stupid tea party retards)
  • Thus we have no power to protect ourselves against our elected officials
  • Based on our track record of butting into people’s business, the rest of the world should be more afraid of us than we are of them
  • Secret documents hide corruption
  • If there’s no corruption to be revealed, then there’s no secret
  • Ask any cop and he’ll agree

Based on the aggressive actions of Obama-appointed officials to prosecute Assange for other things besides sexual crimes, we can assume that the Obama administration and the majority of the Democratic party (not to mention Republican monkeys who are busy eating their own tea-flavored feces) are against WikiLeaks and against freedom of speech, against the freedom of the press, against exposing corruption from within government ranks, and against the First Amendment of the Constitution.

But what about Barack Obama?  Isn’t Mr. Black President trying to be the peacekeeper here?  No, Obama hasn’t publicly said anything contrary to what his administration officials have said regarding WikiLeaks, which is telling.  There is little doubt that he personally approves and oversees of the suppression of free world speech.  If he supports freedom of the press, then an explanation from him is long overdue.

This is a very problematic issue for Subversify Magazine, because practically all of our magazine’s writers supported Obama for his 2008 campaign despite the fact that we all secretly knew he didn’t have a clue how to do his job.  But the president’s open policy of targeting journalists and criminalizing their whistle blowing policies is nothing short of espionage in our book.

Obama, what exactly have you been doing in office since we elected you?  Instead of fixing the economy, bringing about “change”, creating jobs, lowering taxes, or doing much of anything besides supporting black teachers you hardly know, all you’ve really been doing is talking up a storm while you help suppress freedom of speech from others.

As it stands right now, there is no reason for your administration to try and destroy WikiLeaks or nab up all those secret documents…because 250 million Americans already know

The United States of America along with Communist China, Australia, Germany, Thailand and other nations that suppress freedom of speech, are all waging war against the free Internet community—made up of billions of people.  They are united against the world of consumers.

WikiLeaks is just the beginning of this Cyber World War III.  How far will a globalized community of logical, thinking consumers who make the world go round, continue to be oppressed and silenced by government officials who obviously don’t give a damn about them?

Sure, the United States of America could drop an atomic bomb on WikiLeaks headquarters and stop the noise for a while.  But where will it end?  You can’t jail every single hacker, shut down every last video-sharing website and control every connected computer on the Internet.  You can’t make consumers buy something they don’t want.  As it stands right now, WikiLeaks is continuing on, regardless of Assange’s arrest.  Freedom of the press is a much larger issue than one man, one company or one website.

The only hope you (the big corporations and subservient governments who worship commerce) have of winning this “payback” war, where casualties are few but credit is scarce, is to pull out of the Internet entirely.  Go ahead, take your money and your commodity back to paper and back to the local market.  Abandon the Internet, gain back control all of this free information, and save yourself from internal combustion.

Let’s see what happens if cyberspace becomes nothing but a desolate wasteland of mindless chit chat, non-branded animated characters, outdated web pages, freeware games and of course amateur porn.

Peace and big brotherhood, man.

What company should Anonymous attack next in Operation Payback??
Blockbuster Video
The Internal Revenue Service
Yahoo!
Wal-Mart
Charter Cable
McDonalds
The cast of the The Hangover Part II
The Emmy Awards
pollcode.com free polls
Share