Gloat over my ignorance regarding the anger toward Assange

[jpgray]

So here we have leaker (Manning), middleman (Assange) and publisher (major world papers). Manning is obviously going away for this, but there is also vituperative rhetoric (and potential action) directed toward Assange and Wikileaks. So let's remove them from the equation for a moment. What would be different had Manning simply provided the information to the major world papers direct, a la Ellsberg? Would the information not have been published? Would the threats and dudgeon be directed at the press instead?

In my ignorance, I'm having trouble understanding the peculiar focus on the second step of this leak, which seems to me the least decisive in the process of leaking and publishing the documents. Had Manning gone to the papers and Assange never existed, what exactly would have changed? Why is all the outrage here and in the press so particularly focused on Assange?

[pnwmom]

1. Probably because he comes across as an egomaniac on a power trip. n/t

[avaistheone1]

3. How so?

I find him smart, articulate and resourceful.

[Gold Metal Flake]

24. Um, example? Link? Vid?

[Goldstein1984]

2. I think it takes a person who's an egomaniac on a power trip to

stand up to a nation that's run by egomaniancs on power trips.

Assange is what he needs to be to do what he needs to do. He has the most militaristic nation on the planet kissing asses all over that planet right now.

I'm looking forward to more from him. It sounds like he's going from Department of Defense to Department of State to the private sector. Should be good.

[avaistheone1]

4. Brilliant.

[pnwmom]

7. Yeah, and if we end up in a war with Iran or Korea because of him,

and his leaks that will be just great.

:sarcasm:

[JVS]

11. I'll worry about that when we're out of all the wars we've been in because nobody leaked.

[laughingliberal]

14. True, dat! I mean however did we get into those 2 wars we're in with no Assange to leak stuff? nt

[ljm2002]

18. Because God knows we never end up in wars...

...except when stuff like Wikileaks causes them.

:sarcasm:

[Goldstein1984]

21. I think the United States has proven that we don't need help from

Wikileaks to get into wars.

[Fool Count]

5. The difference would have been that the papers are for-profit entities more

easily influenced by the powers (by denying access on which their profits depend, for instance) or by the markets. In a more fundamental sense,
those papers are just guardians of the status quo with no inherent interest in truth and transparency. Whether they would have published all or
some of the documents or not would have entirely depended on papers' internal cost-benefit analysis. Wikileaks may be susceptible to same
kind of considerations, but their motives and interests are clearly more in tune with those of the leaker himself. Once Wikileaks decided to publish
they don't really need the papers to put the information in the public domain, they just use the papers for publicity. In this relationship the
papers are relieved from making the decision, and can reap all the benefits without assuming any costs. Public also benefits by gaining easier
access to the information. Any way you look at it Wikileaks provided an important public benefit, assuming the public is interested in transparency
and knowing the truth about their leaders. That is not an ironclad assumption, I know.

[Nostradammit]

13. Great post !

Welcome to DU, Fool Count.

:toast:

[inna]

6. nm

[Truth2Tell]

8. Maybe these major news outlets

wouldn't publish this material but for the fact they can claim it's already been placed in the public domain by Wikileaks.

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

9. Our corporations spent huge amounts of money and decades building their stranglehold

on the dissemination of information and this skinny little jerk could screw that up. How are they going to effectively sell their mythology to Marvin Middleclass when his snot-nosed kid can tell him what really happened?

[JVS]

10. Most of the boneheads calling for blood would realize that to demand quashing of the free press...

looks bad. Most, but not all. I'm not seeing how Assange isn't considered a journalist instead of a spy.

[global1]

12. The MSM (Newspapers & TV/Radio) Are Pretty Much Establishment And In The Back Pocket Of Those.....

that are in the background shaping the decisions. Assange is anti-establishment and therefore the enemy. If Manning went directly to the MSM - chances are he wouldn't have gotten very far. In this day and age we need a person and a media like Assange and the Internet to be able to accomplish what Ellsberg did back when he did it.

It is interesting to me that there is more animosity directed at Assange - who is really trying to out the establishment and do right by the American people - versus known criminals like - Bin Laden, Bush/Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, et al.

Whom would you rather see in jail? Who is the bigger criminal here?

Assange poses a bigger threat to those that are in power and trying to control the strings. Fact is - they can't control him.

A person like Bin Laden - they can use to their advantage. Use him to create fear.

Assange won't let himself be used.

On the other hand though .....

Then there are other people out there that think that Assange is being used in a very covert way to ultimately out BushCo. There are those that think that Assange ultimately will leak documents that will incontrovertibly hang BushCo for their war crimes and treason.

Right now it would be difficult for the Obama administration and the Dems to hang something on BushCo. It would look too partisan and would be characterized as partisan if Obama and the Dems tried to go after BushCo.

But if the information comes from a third party (Assange) and it is proof positive that BushCo is guilty of crimes - it would be irresponsible for the Obama administration not to prosecute. It would also be difficult for the Repugs to cover up or try to discredit.

The current leaks might be embarrassing to Obama's Administration and Clinton as SOS - but they are really not very damaging and I think that to date - they have handled this controversy - from a PR standpoint - correctly.

Now if info comes out about BushCo and their bona fide crimes - now that would be damaging to BushCo beyond belief.

I think we are in for some really interesting times to come. I think we should keep an eye on Assange and Wikileaks.

[progressoid]

15. Perhaps because Assange forced them to do something they wouldn't have otherwise done.

If Manning had gone directly to the press, we may never have actually seen the documents. Assange forced them to do their jobs and they are pissed about it. That calls for a redirect - attack the messenger.

[Igel]

16. Some would.

Different "somes" for each scenario.

No Assange? Well, he's fairly arrogant and self-centered. He wants truth and common sense to prevail, but defines them as what he wants with little more principle beyond what a spoiled toddler can adduce. There is no cause and effect. There is only the One True Morality, defined as His.

Then again, he's an Aussie ex-pat who explicitly wants to influence American politics by producing a lot of media attention in a highly cynical and self-serving way. You don't like the possibility of foreigners influencing US politics by contributing the the Chamber of Commerce and do like Assange? Here you have it on steroids. Enjoy. But then what you really are saying is that you only want foreign interferencewhen it helps you. There's no principle beyond "I really should be in charge, but I allow my self-appointed surrogates to do my bidding." See para. starting "No Assange?"

There's the usual claim that prior leaks didn't directly harm anybody; these are less likely to directly and immediately cause deaths. Of course, proving that the leaks were the direct and sole cause of some injury to an Afghan informant is rather a tough row to hoe, nearly anything requiring 100% probability of direct causality while having most of the information veiled is a losing proposition. Yet that's the standard. It's the same kind of thinking that says you can only count full-time, permanent previously unplanned jobs directly created ex nihilo by the 2009 stimulus--none of this modelling "it's better than it would have been" nonsense. Same with these leaks: They won't harm anybody. On the other hand, if it means that we can't "read" China's take on North Korea, or Russia's attitude towards Iran, it makes it harder to negotiate and judge responses. In other words, their attitudes become more opaque to decision makers, and the result isn't transparency where it's needed (unless what's needed is primarily what we want--see para. starting "No Assange?").

Then there's the narrow "if it hurts Obama, it hurts the world" kind of argument (at least it's not the "if it hurts the US it helps the world" argument). What's important isn't reduced information to the US government, but reduced information specifically to Obama. This is every bit as bad as Assange's attitude, just displaced: The One True Morality is Obama's, with Assange and other such leakers being either acolyte or nemesis, depending on whether what he does helps or hinders Obama. Some view this as patriotism, but it's an odd sort of patriotism because it's minus the patria and just includes the pater.

Notice that if you remove Assange personally all you do is, paradoxically, remove my third paragraph, the foreign influence on US politics and foreign policy because then you're substituting Manning's morality and making him a self-appointed dictator of enforcing that morality (if he actually produced the leaks, as seems likely; if not, some other individual's morality is at issue). We love individual Crusaders when they crusade for what we like, esp. if they're sufficiently iconoclastic and hurt the right people (we leave aside if they hurt the wrong people, because we really don't oppose human sacrifice when we think it's either a good thing or at least the price for others to pay).

It's about power, pure and simple. Some mask it in the guise of morality, but they are like penitents engaging in the flagellation of another's back while asking for forgiveness for sins that they, personally, haven't committed but personally have rooted out and condemned as wrong in the name of tolerance and benevolence. In this, they're all Jerry Falwells at his nastiest on a particularly nasty day.

I actually find it fairly amusing. Then again, I'm most definitely not Queen Victoria.

[ljm2002]

17. The powers that be hate him...

...because he has provided a platform for whistle blowers that provides them with considerable protections, i.e. it allows them to preserve their anonymity. Therefore Assange himself must become a target and he and the platform he created must be destroyed. To me it is that simple.

[bemildred]

19. The point is that Wikileaks provides (theoretically) a way to leak anonymously.

Mr Manning confessed, Wikileaks did not give him away.

This has two effects: 1.) It emboldens potential leakers with the prospect of immunity from punishment 2.) It instills "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt" in the minds of the powerful. You remember the old "We're an empire now, we make out own reality" quote. Those guys, they cannot make their own reality so easily now.

[jpgray]

20. Looking at what was released of the chat logs, I think Manning would have leaked anyway

Absent his "crazy white-haired Aussie," that is. But yes, I suppose a better guarantee of anonymity would encourage potential leakers.

[bemildred]

27. Well some guys will do it anyway. Some people just want to chuck it over the fence and run.

Wikileaks makes a big deal out of protecting leakers. That's their core idea really. Anonymous leaking. If you "contribute" in the right way, nobody would be able to trace you. You would still have to worry about what you leaked being traceable to you, but with the Diplomatic cables, they were so widely accessible that would not work either. You have to wonder if Manning regrets not keeping his mouth shut (figuratively speaking) now.

[TexasObserver]

22. Most of the opposition to Wikileaks comes from citizens driven by fear.

FEAR is the primary herding tool of the powers that be, and the most fearful are also the ones most responsive to FEAR mongering. If Wikileaks is a monster according to the government, then it's to be feared as a monster. It's basically the same ridiculous overreaction which has torn up the country's rights the past nine years.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Look who is angry and you have your answer

Authoritarians and right-leaning loudmouths.

On the (real) left I see little more than a narrow spectrum ranging from sanguinity to mild praise.



Your point is a good one. Assange is simply a facilitator. Nothing he has done has engineered the leaks and his absence from the scene would not limit the dissemination of the leaks.

[HEyHEY]

25. I think the very fact he is a middle man makes people question his motives.

He's become a sort of broker of secrets and that holds a lot of power. I personally am not mad at him, I don't really care what he does or doesn't do. I think, also, this argument has taken on a different form because anyone questioning the benefit of these leaks is attacked as anti-assange. So, maybe he just gives the pro-leak people a face to defend and by proxy becomes controversial.

[jpgray]

28. The reaction toward the leaks has been bizarre

A tiny percentage has been released of the whole. The "ah so this is its deal" lies not within anyone's understanding at this point.

Some of this information is important confirmation of what was only suspected (Arab nations pressuring for Iran attack, biometric data mining on UN diplomats, etc.), some of it is salacious nattering (Hello Ukrainian nurse!). Some focus on the important stuff and predict it will cause war and chaos. Others focus on the trivial, and claim the whole business is small potatoes. Some praise the leak for its own sake, and some praise it with likely futile hopes of volcanic change. Given the massive scope of the leak and the small portion that is more strictly classified, it is unsurprising it's this sort of mix of trivia and solid stuff.

I think little to none of this will change business as usual--more shocking revelations have frequently failed to do so. I wonder how much of the middle-man problem is related to the focus being on an individual, and after that an organization, lacking the compelled respect of institutional history. Wikileaks and Assange aren't coming from a tradition of any kind, and therefore their motive and behavior is more open to question.

[Canuckistanian]

26. Assange is being scapegoated as the instigator

And not the conduit.