We’ve been having a really great conversation about the recent WikiLeaks incident on an informal Fletcherite group list, and I wanted to get some of the thoughts up that have been spiraling about, as well as refine my own thoughts.  For those I mention below, if they’ve got a blog, they’re well worth the follow so I suggest doing so!

My biggest issue with this situation from the get go was whether or not this leak was handled in a responsible and constructive manner.  I don’t think it was. I am in complete support of transparency and open government and all those high-aspiring concepts we work so hard for (especially in the digital activism field).

However, I feel there are effective ways to accomplish this, and ineffective ways. This, in my opinion, was an ineffective way.

In our conversation stream, the first question I brought up was something to the effect of…”This isn’t everyday information, and while I feel the government should be more transparent, I also wonder what level of expertise Julien has with that sort of information and *everything* (consequences, people involved, military structure, etc) included with it.  Did he actually do a “responsible” vetting process before leaking, to the point where military info could be appropriately consumed by the public, the regular Joe, in a constructive, non-agenda-based way?”

I always try to push the responsibility aspect of issues like this, as I think it works better than willy-nilly throwing around of information for sensationalist purposes….soap-boxers and dramatic whistle blowers don’t strike a chord with me very often in a situation like this, and it’s very clear that Assange and WikiLeaks had an agenda they were trying to push.  This means that it wasn’t about transparency anymore, it was about an agenda.  This is further supported by the fact that the original source of the information has essentially said that the leak was not for the purposes of broad-based transparency… it’s because he himself had become disillusioned with the war he was involved in, he didn’t like his position, and he wanted to “strike back.”  Even people close to the course felt compelled to bring the original leak to the government’s attention because of the way it was handled…

Carol Waters said it very well in our email discussions:

“I’ve been a fan and supporter of Wikileaks since its inception in 2007, and I still strongly believe that it occupies a critical space for information that needs to see the light of day.  But the biggest issue right now –embodied in the current case of Wikileaks– is the establishment of a code of conduct as leaks and transparency become more and more common over the next few decades.

I’m concerned with the direction WikiLeaks has taken recently — the site’s power resides in its stateless existence, but this is also its greatest weakness, for it chooses its own code of accountability.  And now that WikiLeaks has received so much attention as the new hip place to break dirty-dirt on various governments, organizations, corporations, individuals, and movements, this is an even greater issue.

When Assange released the video of the bombing a few months ago and titled it “Collateral Murder,” he lost me as a supporter.  Not because I disagreed with his sentiment that the acts in the video were murderous in nature, but because it showed that Assange was going overt with his political editorialization of the material on the site, and I couldn’t trust his judgment any more.  Not because he stamped his opinion and politics on the video in such a bald manner, but because it implied something more serious and dangerous in my eyes: selective leaks to serve political agendas, taking the culture of wiki away from the site. Selective political leaking has always been an issue, but I can no longer view WikiLeaks choices of leaked material as anything other than deeply politicized, and I find this a sad element in Assange’s recent decisions.

I agree that “official” journalists shouldn’t have the exclusive stamp of legitimacy in the realm of “fair and balanced” reporting, and I think transparency is good and preferred (albeit with some heavy caveats), but I think when Assange only chooses to leak documents that promote his political beliefs and agendas, he becomes a variant of a cleverly edited cable news show, be it Jon Stewart or Fox.  What’s disappointing is that whistleblowing and “leaks for good” still have a positive connotation, but Assange’s choices and contextualizations may change that, throwing all of it into a barrel labeled infowar or counterintelligence as we move into the future.”

If Assange/WikiLeaks had firstly done a more thorough job of sifting through the information – really curating it for the readers he was trying to reach – and been more sensitive of that information (it’s generally agreed that the amount of time that was spent on this process was not nearly enough…), I might be ok with it.

If he had also presented it in a way that was more compelling, and more constructive than a “hear me roar” I may have also listened.

Before I get carried away – which would be easy in this case – I’ll leave you with a few more comments from my colleagues, which really sum up the breadth of issues and takes on the matter.

Mark Belinsky, Founder and Co-Director of Digital Democracy and a new media strategy consultant with his company New Words, put his thoughts on his blog, well worth reading (“Notes on Wikileaks,” a few snippets of which I’ve place below):

“Julian’s point, which I agree with, is often that newspapers are failing because of bad journalism. How many stories has Wikileaks broken vs the Times. Or the Guardian. Combined. And as budget cuts increase, it allows for good journalism to emerge from Global Voices and other interesting new projects.

This disruptive media source is something that western governments are now struggling with. I’ve been speaking with members of EU Parliament about it and have even presented to US Congress on the subject. Pinning the internet to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as Secretary Clinton did in her “Internet Freedom” speech was a bold move, but not one entirely based in reality. There is a lack of general consensus as to the nature of these right, making it hard to implement policy after the fact of making a strong declaration. The US needs allies in this battle in sympathetic governments (and vice-versa since so many tools are built here), but there’s a lack of consistency with what’s happening across the pond….

….After all, even an internet based-system is not “stateless.” It is bound by servers and wiring, of which only a few people know. And only a few lawyers know the legal frame that allows it to exist through the cables and servers of a handful of friendly States. In this sense it continues to be “centralized” even if the system for leaking itself is distributed and protected.”

From Josh Goldstein, who writes over at In An African Minute:

“Reality is far too complex for the 20th century institutions we are burdened with. How can a government, or even a small number of new and old style journos that make up the media elite, possibly claim a monopoly on truth in a situation as complicated as Afghanistan. Wikileaks matters because it will provide the raw content for those of us who are conceiving of new ways to interpret the world…..

…Money quote from the New Yorker article Mark points us towards:

“He had come to understand the defining human struggle not as left versus right, or faith versus reason, but as individual versus institution. As a student of Kafka, Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn, he believed that truth, creativity, love, and compassion are corrupted by institutional hierarchies, and by “patronage networks”—one of his favorite expressions—that contort the human spirit. He sketched out a manifesto of sorts, titled “Conspiracy as Governance,” which sought to apply graph theory to politics. Assange wrote that illegitimate governance was by definition conspiratorial—the product of functionaries in “collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population.” He argued that, when a regime’s lines of internal communication are disrupted, the information flow among conspirators must dwindle, and that, as the flow approaches zero, the conspiracy dissolves. Leaks were an instrument of information warfare…..”

John Rahaghi, a former active duty military member and current reservist, offers his take on the situation:

“I think this was a clear demonstration of contempt for the government, among other things. Many people have noted the leak hasn’t revealed alot of new information, at least so far.  Then why do this? Were there war crimes exposed?  Possibly, (I’m sure we’ll find out).  Were there 90,000 of them?  What was the whistle blown on?  That we are in a war?  That its conduct has gone poorly?  That we have differences with allies?  Is this an indictment of government secrecy in any form, the fact we have a military at all, or some combination of other factors?  Maybe its an attack on the very structure of the government altogether.   A leak this massive doesn’t lend itself to any simple explanation, at least for me. In the military, you are supposed to take the oath and follow lawful orders.  Ostensibly, if you see something that you feel is egregiously wrong, illegal, unethical, immoral, or whatever the case is as you see it, you bring it to the attention of the chain of command, the JAG corps, or your civilian leadership.  Naturally, this can be difficult, but this wasn’t a leak of an incident or pattern of behavior, it was years of classified documents covering many areas and I personally don’t think this was a credible way to change policy, if that was even the intent.

While you can talk about government secrecy as a separate topic itself, I think its important to understand some things about classified documents and the negative effects that can result from their disclosure.  JFK conspiracies, UFOs, or specs for a new death ray aren’t the only topics under confidential and Top Secret. The majority of what is classified is not as super cool as people think and I would bet seems innocuous or even obvious to a casual observer. I’d wager many people would read these documents and think whats the big deal, I knew that/guessed that/assumed that. But anything about tactics, sources, methods, operational details, assessments, and mission planning, to name a few, are in fact valuable to an enemy even years afterward.  Airing the fact that we have doubts about allies only complicates matters further (the State Dept cables could be an even bigger bombshell), and even something widely known in the press can take on different meaning when its seen to be the official thought or assessment of the U.S. government.  These are broad strokes and I suppose someone may not care about any of it because of how they feel about the conflicts, conduct, and administration etc.”

Ben Mazzotta transferred his discussion over to his blog post, which is well worth reading.  A few of his thoughts to wet your appetite (definitely read the rest of his piece if you’re interested in the topic):

“Graph theory or no graph theory, Assange’s intent here is to wage war on the Obama Administration, by attacking the American public’s political will to continue the fight. He is specifically opposed to the policy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with disregard for the law he attempts to bring about a change to the Administration’s stated policy. Let’s grant him that the information is too cold to be acutely dangerous in a tactical sense, although that’s another argument worth having….

…Imagine if your small business was targeted, or if Google were targeted, or if Lockheed Martin were targeted by a similar disclosure of thousands of internal reports and communications not intended for public release. The damage to shareholders and management would be immense, partly because of the sheer irresponsibility of the leak per se, and then again from regulatory penalties, civil liability, and ruined corporate strategy. Malicious disclosure in business and government goes by the same name: espionage. In private life it can end marriages, friendships, and careers. The fact that the adversary here is The Man does not change the character of this leak….

…

This disclosure is a watershed event. It drives home the ease with which any individual can compromise the boundary between internal and public information. Actions of this type can undermine American strategy in the war. Political decisions about partnerships have tactical consequences, witness the importance of Turkish air bases in 2003.

In order to applaud Wikileaks for its role in this disclosure, I believe you have to hold two opinions. First, that the injustice of the Afghan war is so immense that citizens have a responsibility to bring about its immediate end, through civil disobedience or comparable means. Second, that Wikileaks is well qualified to assess the potential harm that might be inflicted as a result of the disclosures. You have to make up your own minds about the ethics of the Afghan war. On the second question, though, I invite you to think carefully through the wisdom of giving unaccountable, private organizations the power to disclose stolen, sensitive information based solely on their judgment that the benefit outweighs the harm. Can you reconcile the indiscriminate, voluminous, and quotidien nature of the leak with a story about plucky and righteous individuals bending unjust government to their will? To me, the leak betrays haste, youth and passion. I cannot buy into Assange’s vision of a world without confidentiality or privacy.

I don’t buy the Robin Hood argument here, and I don’t see this as a Tank Man moment.”

Chrissy Martin got into some of the implications on journalism (of which there are many in this case!)

“I think this raises interesting questions regarding the interaction between new media and traditional journalism.  Julian basically decided to do the newspapers the favor of offering them access first, a decision that I think was better for everyone involved because it allowed the documents to be vetted and analyzed before being released to the wider public.  But a decision that was not required, or enforceable, and may not happen the next time around.

This a case where regulation cannot keep up with technology, a situation that we are now seeing on an increasingly regular basis.  I am all for open government, transparency, citizen journalism.  However, I also think that the dissemination of information and how it is presented is a vital and often overlooked aspect of open initiatives.  Is it really a service to post a mass of information that may or not be true, as with intelligence reports that might have already been determined to be misinformation, but are not marked as such when posted on the internet?”

If you’re curious about some history of leaks in general, Mary Joyce put up a good post over at the MAP site (which she added to our discussion as well).

I’d love there to be further discussion in the comments below.  What do you think about the whole affair?  Who’s right?  Who’s wrong?  Who’s effected and how?