WikiLeaks, easily one of the top three stories of 2010, is not going away in 2011.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange recently signed a $1.3 million book deal and WikiLeaks is set to reveal more startling documents about corruption in Russia and UFOs, two topics that, unlike America’s wars, I think do badly need to bear the light of day.
Meanwhile, former WikiLeaks employee Daniel Domscheit-Berg has broken off from WikiLeaks and is starting another outfit, OpenLeaks.
Unlike WikiLeaks, which itself directly reveals secret information to the dismay of governments and large companies, OpenLeaks would partner with news organizations. Your local newspaper tells “leakers” to send information to OpenLeaks. OpenLeaks receives the leak, keeps it anonymous, and sends it to your local newspaper. The newspaper then takes responsibility for what anonymous leaked information should or should not be published. Thus, your local newspaper would be no different in function than WikiLeaks.
This tells us then that the real issue at hand is not WikiLeaks, it is that we live in a new age of information free flow. Whether it’s WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks, or your local newspaper, people strive for and value truth. Truth, in and of itself, is an awesome thing that sets us free our own narrow-mindedness and facilitates a better environment for everyone.
If the U.S. State Department wants to face the real issues at hand, it needs to do the unthinkable by partnering with WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks, or another similar organization.
The U.S. State Department’s stated mission is to: “Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world.”
This mission should not be viewed as at odds with the mission of WikiLeaks to “bring important news and information to the public.” Indeed, advancing freedom for the American people and the international community requires that important news and information be brought to the public.
The only issue should be how to do it in a reasonable and compassionate way. Revealing sensitive information that gets U.S. troops killed, even if true, is not compassionate. But the vast majority of the information WikiLeaks has made public does not have that potential.
The U.S. State Department should simply make it a policy that any of its international communications, as long as they don’t put lives in danger, can be obtained by the public. This is already happening on a national level with the Freedom of Information Act.
Certainly, upon implementation of such an open policy, the United States would have some trouble communicating candidly with other governments and would lose face to some extent. That’s a tough pill that has to be swallowed, but it’s also likely other governments will follow suit.
If a government can’t talk candidly without fearing the public, then candidly let the public know what is going on. If you think Russia’s government is corrupt and China’s government is corrupt and inhuman, then say it and make documents proving it available.
On Nov. 29, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed leaked State Department cables, defending the need for secrecy: “In almost every profession … people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it.”
Honestly, except when lives are at stake, I can’t think of any instance when we, as a people, are made worse off by the revealing of truth. I respectfully wonder if Secretary Clinton can provide some concrete examples.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange recently signed a $1.3 million book deal and WikiLeaks is set to reveal more startling documents about corruption in Russia and UFOs, two topics that, unlike America’s wars, I think do badly need to bear the light of day.
Meanwhile, former WikiLeaks employee Daniel Domscheit-Berg has broken off from WikiLeaks and is starting another outfit, OpenLeaks.
Unlike WikiLeaks, which itself directly reveals secret information to the dismay of governments and large companies, OpenLeaks would partner with news organizations. Your local newspaper tells “leakers” to send information to OpenLeaks. OpenLeaks receives the leak, keeps it anonymous, and sends it to your local newspaper. The newspaper then takes responsibility for what anonymous leaked information should or should not be published. Thus, your local newspaper would be no different in function than WikiLeaks.
This tells us then that the real issue at hand is not WikiLeaks, it is that we live in a new age of information free flow. Whether it’s WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks, or your local newspaper, people strive for and value truth. Truth, in and of itself, is an awesome thing that sets us free our own narrow-mindedness and facilitates a better environment for everyone.
If the U.S. State Department wants to face the real issues at hand, it needs to do the unthinkable by partnering with WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks, or another similar organization.
The U.S. State Department’s stated mission is to: “Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world.”
This mission should not be viewed as at odds with the mission of WikiLeaks to “bring important news and information to the public.” Indeed, advancing freedom for the American people and the international community requires that important news and information be brought to the public.
The only issue should be how to do it in a reasonable and compassionate way. Revealing sensitive information that gets U.S. troops killed, even if true, is not compassionate. But the vast majority of the information WikiLeaks has made public does not have that potential.
The U.S. State Department should simply make it a policy that any of its international communications, as long as they don’t put lives in danger, can be obtained by the public. This is already happening on a national level with the Freedom of Information Act.
Certainly, upon implementation of such an open policy, the United States would have some trouble communicating candidly with other governments and would lose face to some extent. That’s a tough pill that has to be swallowed, but it’s also likely other governments will follow suit.
If a government can’t talk candidly without fearing the public, then candidly let the public know what is going on. If you think Russia’s government is corrupt and China’s government is corrupt and inhuman, then say it and make documents proving it available.
On Nov. 29, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed leaked State Department cables, defending the need for secrecy: “In almost every profession … people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it.”
Honestly, except when lives are at stake, I can’t think of any instance when we, as a people, are made worse off by the revealing of truth. I respectfully wonder if Secretary Clinton can provide some concrete examples.
Friends Read Free