Is Wikileaks using or abusing it’s power of free speech?

(To increase the font size of this essay – hold down the Ctrl key and keep pressing +)  Consider this opium laced story: what if I can show you a top security 5 chili e-mail once written by Wong Can’t Synch to Mini Me Lee on how he believes Mas Selamat did not escape from Whitley Hall; but what actually happened instead was he was abducted by aliens?

Now you get the gist of what Wikileaks is all about.

As WikiLeaks prepares to let loose another tsunami of top secret diplomatic correspondences – it could stand to borrow some basic ethical principles from the organization it appears at loggerheads with: big governments. For big governments, fighting to keep people and planet safe is definitely not a crime, but where this happy narrative gives way to something darker – is when government security agencies regularly adopt underhanded tactics in the name of fulfilling the greater good – when they do this not only do they embellish, exaggerate, lie, circumvent and pull the wools over the eyes of the public; they also show scant regard for the rule of law.

Under those nefarious conditions – why should big govts be allowed to hide under the veil of confidentiality? They shouldn’t and should rightly be exposed!

Paradoxically, that same moralistic attitude of having to do the right thing – can just as well be levelled at Wikileaks: i.e just bc u have info doesn’t give you the right per se to share it with the www. Not if the leak can lead to collateral damage – this prompts us to ask: do they have the right to blow the whistle without first considering the collateral damage? I mean if I happen to be a D16 secret agent planted in let’s say the tribal setting of Afghanistan; the last thing I want is to get my cover blown wide open by some do gooder who simply doesn’t even understand 101 basic covert operations… Get my drift?

Then again – what do you really expect big governments to say when they are going to get their dirty linen and tangled sheets splayed out pasar malam style in the public square? Of course, they’re going to play the “if you snitch on us, you are compromising our ability to do a good job!” Besides that’s what they have always said – but guess what, no one seems to be dying from any of the leaks from WikiLeaks – so that line of argument has to be at best threadbare.

I think as we consider whether Wikileaks is abusing the idea of freedom of speech – the real litmus test is do these revelations force governments to abide to some sort of code of conduct, that they would otherwise not feel the need to pay homage too, if not for outfits like Wikileaks? 

Secondly do these revelations combined with thr threats of further leaks bring out the best practices of international diplomacy, soldiering and what it takes to be a responsible member of the international community? After all, the rules of engagement in any conflict compel bureacrats and soldiers to refuse illegal orders and report war crimes and malfeasance, but those in the front line are typically expected do so through their own chain of command, an act that goes against the grain of everything else they’re taught about obedience and loyalty. When service personnel do speak out, they can only hope their confidentiality will be respected and that they will be rewarded rather than penalized for honesty. WikiLeaks in this sense provides a credible solution to an age old problem that has dogged humanity since the first ape witnessed another ape bang his weapon over another ape - I wouldn’t go as far as to say Wikileaks is the European Court of Justice; but it is not exactly the lunatic fringe either (if you can even call it that) that is so hollowed out of morality, ethics and responsibility as it’s so often painted out to be by the Ms
MSM – as when we talk about Wikileaks as a idea that goes beyond the meaning of a social technology, it is (for lack of a better word) merely a reportican where whistle blowers can report specific war crimes, executive misdeeds and bureaucratic malfeasance without fear of retribution.

I see nothing wrong with that.

One could even argue the case; had big governments not tried to sweep so much shit underneath the carpets in the first place - Wikileaks as an idea would probably not command the same currency of appeal it does today – fact of the matter is this: governments lie all the time; fact No.2, they have this misplaced belief that they can get away by labeling everything as secret – Fact No.3, big governments have never ever protected the Whistle blower (not without being blackmailed to do so) - don’t believe me, then consider this: when Sgt. Joe Darby saw his buddies abusing prisoners in 2004, he fulfilled his duties under the Geneva Conventions by reporting the abuses to the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. Though he persistently requested that his complaint should remain anonymous – the then-Defense Secretary Air head Donald Rumsfeld revealed his identity, inviting hate mail and death threats from the public. It is no wonder that so many other participants at Abu Ghraib chose not to stick their necks out for fear of compromising their careers and personal safety. The Abu Ghraib case is hardly an isolated one, but more importantly what this case brings into sharp focus is where would humanity really be –  if organizations like Wikileaks did not exist? Would humanity be richer or poorer for lack of it…

 (The rest of this essay has been withdrawn by the Brotherhood Press from general circulation due to Measured Response.)