The Paradox of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

schnell writes "The New Statesman is publishing a new in-depth article that examines in detail the seemingly paradoxical nature of WikiLeaks' brave mission of public transparency with the private opaqueness of Julian Assange's leadership. On one hand, WikiLeaks created 'a transparency mechanism to hold governments and corporations to account' when nobody else could or would. On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.' If WikiLeaks performs a public service exposing the secrets of others but censors its own secrets, does it really matter? Or are the ethics of the organization and its leader inseparable?"

Re:Where is the balance?

[Americano]

I've neither seen nor heard evidence that any innocents were damaged by the publication of materials that were outed by Wikileaks.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because Assange himself has admitted that innocents have been killed (not just 'damaged') by the publication of materials outed by Wikileaks.

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.

(source [guardian.co.uk])

He goes on to whitewash that figure by citing malaria statistics - I guess in Africa, if you're responsible for killing fewer people than the average yearly death toll from malaria, you're eligible for sainthood, and all your sins are forgiven.

You can't play it both ways - either there are real world consequences for the publication of the data that you own the responsibility for, or there are no real world consequences and all you're doing is play-acting in front of a camera. Which is it?

I live in the states, and I've been listening to people call for accountability[...]

So you've noticed that there's a difference between what people say, and what they do, have you? Welcome to conscious existence. People have been calling for accountability, and re-electing the same bunch of retards and crooks every couple years, because "it's not MY GUY who's the problem - he's helping us out here! It's those R's or D's from other places who need to get tossed out on their asses!"

Until the public understands and accepts that accountability means more than "bitching to my co-worker who agrees with me while we have lunch," the accountability won't happen. There need to be actual teeth behind the threats of "voting for the other guy," "initiating recalls and impeachments," and other penalties for behaving badly.

In informing people of things governments need to be held accountable for, Wikileaks *does* provide a valuable service. The problem is, that value is often overshadowed by Assange's attention-seeking and grandstanding behavior.

How can we remind you of fiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since WL does publish leaks about Russia:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html

Remind me, why do you insist on claiming they don't publish leaks about russia?

Re:"to produce ... a more just society"

[Marxdot]

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia [wikileaks.org]
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation [wikileaks.org]
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China [wikileaks.org]

but criticizing and screwing with [sic] America is pretty safe these days

You said it, so it must be true.