From the Fine Print....Comments on WikiLeaks and Assange

[XE says: These comments come from an astute reader who is also one of the bright lights at DemocracyforCalifornia. They are too good to let sit on the shelves. All emphasis is mine.]

The first is about Wikileaks and also about Assange's so-called "rape" charge.  The second is on an article in the Guardian.  Both were sent in reply to other comments on "Best Reads on Wikileaks"

#1:  I appreciate your concerns about the future of diplomacy, but I don't think any particular harm, other than embarrassment, is being done with the publication of these cables. Diplomats will continue to do their work with the U.S., not because they like us, but because it is in the best interest of their country to do so. They might not be able to use digital pipelines of communication, as they have, but I for one think there is some poetic justice in that. If nations operate with an old-century mindset, then they can go back to using old-century tools. The Internet is for freedom of information. It belongs to all citizens of the world.

As far as the "rape" charges against Julian Assange. Keep in mind, there have been no charges. In fact, I read somewhere that the reason for this is that there are no actual laws on the books in Sweden concerning "not using a condom," but that they had intended to write some laws. Perhaps that explains why Swedish prosecutors have been going back and forth on the issue. Basically, he's been called in for "questioning" since they don't actually have a law to charge him with. But there are concerns that Sweden (which is known to have worked with the CIA on extraordinary renditions) could extradite Julian to the U.S., and that would be very bad for him. I guess we'll know tomorrow (Tuesday) if Great Britain will extradite him to Sweden for "questioning."

I would not venture an opinion about the two women who made these charges. I don't know how legitimate they are. It's possible, Julian has a weakness with women, perhaps he's been a geek too long, and is easily seduced? Or perhaps the charges are bogus? I don't know, I don't think anybody else does at this point. But isn't the timing a tad too coincidental?

Regardless, whatever Assange did or did not do, it does not alter my opinion of the importance of wikileaks.

#2:  An interesting article from the Guardian...

WikiLeaks may make the powerful howl, but we are learning the truth

WikiLeaks has offered us glimpses of how the world works. And in most cases nothing but good can come of it

Here's a snippet:

The world has changed, not simply because governments find they are just as vulnerable to the acquisition, copying and distribution of huge amounts of data as the music, publishing and film businesses were, but because we are unlikely to return to the happy ignorance of the past. Knowing Saudi Arabia has urged the bombing of Iran, that Shell maintains an iron grip on the government of Nigeria, that Pfizer hired investigators to disrupt investigations into drugs trials on children, also in Nigeria, that the Pakistan intelligence service, the ISI, is swinging both ways on the Taliban, that China launched a cyber attack on Google, that North Korean has provided nuclear scientists to Burma, that Russia is a virtual mafia state in which security services and gangsters are joined at the hip – and knowing all this in some detail – means we are far more likely to treat the accounts of events we are given in the future with much greater scepticism.

Never mind the self-serving politicians who waffle on about the need for diplomatic confidentiality when they themselves order the bugging of diplomats and hacking of diplomatic communications. What is astonishing is the number of journalists out there who argue that it is better not to know these things, that the world is safer if the public is kept in ignorance. In their swooning infatuation with practically any power elite that comes to hand, some writers for the Murdoch press and Telegraph titles argue in essence for the Chinese or Russian models of deceit and obscurantism. They advocate the continued infantilising of the public.