Why WikiLeaks Is Good for Democracy by JeremiahProphet


									Why WikiLeaks Is Good for Democracy

                                                                     by Bill Quigley
                                                                      01 December 2010
                                                                   from Truth-Out Website

                                                             WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
                                                           (Photo: New Media Days/Peter Erichsen)

                                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, Congress and international allies have gone meekly along with the escalating secrecy demands of the US

        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.


                "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

        Into the secrecy vacuum stepped Private Bradley Manning, who, according to the Associated Press, was able to defeat,

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama72.htm[12/10/2013 7:14:16 PM]
Why WikiLeaks Is Good for Democracy

                "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 nonprofit media organization that specializes in publishing leaked

        Wikileaks in turn shared the documents to other media around the world, including The New York Times, and published
        much of the documents' contents on its website.

        Despite criminal investigations by the U.S. and other governments, it is not clear that media organizations like Wikileaks
        can be prosecuted in the U.S., in light of the 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 on what the documents reveal, hopes that no lives will be
        lost because of this flood of information.

        So far, it appears those hopes have been met:

                McClatchy 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 U.S. has been going in the wrong direction for years by classifying millions of documents as secrets.

        Wikileaks and other media that 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 U.S.

        That is good for democracy...

          WikiLeaks Releases State Department Cables
                                                                 by Nancy A. Youssef
                                                                    McClatchy Newspapers
                                                                      27 November 2010
                                                                   from Truth-Out Website

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama72.htm[12/10/2013 7:14:16 PM]
Why WikiLeaks Is Good for Democracy

                                Editor's Note:
                                The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel have published
                                stories this afternoon revealing details of the State Department cables.

        U.S. diplomats and officials said they're bracing Sunday for at least three newspapers and WikiLeaks to publish hundreds
        of thousands classified State Department cables that could drastically alter U.S. relations with top allies and reveal
        embarrassing secrets about U.S. foreign policy.

        U.S. diplomats frantically have been reaching out to their counterparts around the world as intelligence officials pleaded
        with WikiLeaks and the newspapers, including The New York Times, the Guardian in London and Der Spiegel, a German
        newsweekly, to not publish information that could endanger lives and U.S. policy.

        Some of the documents are expected to reveal details about how some U.S. diplomats feel about top foreign leaders.

        While this is the third time this year that WikiLeaks has released a large batch of documents related to U.S. foreign policy,
        officials told McClatchy that Sunday's expected release will be far more damaging than the first two combined.

        The first batch dealt with Afghanistan and the second with Iraq. Both releases largely gave details about what many
        thought the U.S. military was doing in those wars. This batch however, is expected to include never released private
        cables between diplomats.

        Publicly, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley warned that releasing the documents could put "lives and interests
        at risk." But privately, administration officials are far more concerned about what they contain and implications of releasing

        NBC News reported Friday that some of the documents would reveal damaging details about U.S. efforts to renegotiate
        the START nuclear arms treaty with Russia and U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in Yemen.

        Speculation is rampant in Washington about what's in the documents.

        Germany's Der Spiegel briefly published a story on its website Saturday saying that the documents include 251,287
        cables and 8,000 diplomatic directives, most of which date after 2004. About 9,000 documents are from the first two
        months of this year, the newspaper said.

        About 6 percent of the documents were classified as secret, the newspaper said before taking down its story. The
        majority was unclassified, the newspaper said, but all were intended to remain confidential.

        The newspaper said it would release all the documents at 4:30 p.m. EST. WikiLeaks and the newspapers are expected to
        release the documents and their findings at the same time. However, the release time has changed several times over
        the past few days.

        Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached out Friday to leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,
        Britain, France and Afghanistan, Crowley said via Twitter. Diplomats throughout the State Department have spent days
        reaching out and warning allies of what's coming.

        Newspapers in Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, India, Pakistan, Israel and Belgium, among others, said they expect
        the leaked documents to include details about U.S. relations with their countries.

        Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN in an interview to be broadcast Sunday that: "I
        would hope that those who are responsible for this would, at some point in time, think about the responsibility that they
        have for lives that they're exposing."

        Although WikiLeaks hasn't said how it obtained the documents, U.S. officials think that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, while
        a 22-year-old intelligence office stationed in Iraq, downloaded thousands of documents, at times pretending he was
        listening to music by Lady Gaga.

        Manning and other soldiers had access to the documents as part of an effort by the military to get as much information as

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama72.htm[12/10/2013 7:14:16 PM]
Why WikiLeaks Is Good for Democracy

        possible to soldiers on the battlefield about their communities so that they had the best intelligence possible.

        Manning has been charged with illegally downloading thousands of classified documents and is being held in a military

                                                              Return to WikiLeaks
                                                           Return to The Global Elite
                                                           Return to Global Militarism
                                                        Return to The New World Order
                                                       Return to Big Brother Loves You...
                                                 Return to Obama - A "New" Sociopolitical Era?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama72.htm[12/10/2013 7:14:16 PM]

To top