Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of the currently downed Wikileaks Web site and international man-on-the-run, turned himself in to Scotland Yard two days ago. The arrest of Mr. Assange had been called for by Swedish authorities and the warrant became pervasive in Europe on Dec. 1, with Interpol issuing a “Red Notice” (color association with levels of perceived danger somehow makes the gravity of threat verge on humorous, instead of serious. Thank you, terrorist color warning system) for his arrest. The warrant derives from allegedly legitimate accusations concerning two charges of sexual assault against the Wikileaks founder. Each allegation has resulted in backlash of considerable doubt and dripping criticism by media and public alike. Considering the charges were initially dropped against Assange and then resurfaced once the immense power of Wikileaks actualized, in conjunction with the ferocity felt toward Assange by various countries wielding incredible amounts of power, it’s unsurprising that the charges have been popularized as untenable. Assange and Wikileaks have denounced the accusations as a smear campaign against Wikileaks.
The questionable validity of the accusations is not issue for concern. Undoubtedly, if Assange loses the court battle against his extradition and is put on trial in Sweden, the court case will be weighted heavily against him. Still, even if convicted, whether on an ambiguous ruling or ostensibly justifiable grounds, Assange will have achieved martyrdom status within the counterculture. SO, going to court is a victory for the Wikileaks founder, whether he is cleared of all charges or convicted, and turning himself in at this juncture is strategically a brilliant maneuver.
Consider this, the British judge disallowed Assange bail on these two grounds: they are certain that if granted bail he would flee, and they are preoccupied with his safety. Should Assange die in prison, it will be viciously obvious that his murder was perpetrated by one of the many governments who have him within their crosshairs, which will result in instant martyrdom for Assange and gobs of criticism and backlash toward the British government for placing himself in a threatening environment (of course, if this occurs, the reputed Poison Pill will be released). In addition, the alleged concern for his safety is a bogus assertion. Thus far, Assange has managed running Wikileaks safely enough, and his most tangible threat has been government agencies, SUCH AS Scotland Yard, who have sought to detain him. By stating, and with good reason, that the British judicial system has adequate grounds to believe that Julian Assange, if granted bail, would immediately flee, the judges are only adding to his mythos, which is accruing volume daily.
Through turning himself in, Assange puts all of his dissidents in a very perilous and delicate situation, as demonstrated by the multiple online organizations that have joined Wikileaks in the fight against maligned corporations in bed with our own government and the misguided vigilante, redneck hackers such as Jester. Any misstep against Assange will result in a public relations nightmare and a Web war.
An element to the Wikileaks phenomenon remains woefully unaddressed. What about us? Wikileaks intentionally releases classified or withheld information to the public and in order top keep us more aware of our government’s proclivities.
How does this affect you? Many people, such as Press Secretary Robert Gates (who has easily one of the worst television personas I have ever seen. Also, his rhetorical savvy is dubious. Here is what Robert Gates had to say about our relations with foreign government’s post Cablegate: ““The fact is governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they think we can keep secrets” and “governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.” Good. I’m pleased that the head of spin at Washington is perpetuating our country’s impetuous nature at a time of poor PR) enjoy spouting that Assange is putting people at incredible risk. What about the Wikileaks cast? Is Assange not in incredible peril? Are his compatriots not in danger? In order to retain their liberty, Wikileaks workers have a cache of important documents and cables (again, the Poison Pill) that they will release should they encounter their greatest threat (the ire of the politicians they are exposing); collateral against the jeopardy they willingly placed themselves into in order to better serve us common folk.
Is it not obvious that the argument for danger is unfounded and contains incredible spin? Our military knowingly places these people into danger situations. How does releasing documents for public use accentuate the danger people already found or find themselves in? These are documents and cables that express what a person; group or government has done or plans to do. If the release of such information reveals perilous scenarios, it’s assumed that the action they performed or plan to perform is a dangerous action. These people were already imperiled long before the documents and cables were released. Forget this justification for persecuting Julian Assange; much like Harriet the Spy, our childish government can’t put up with their secret journal being put up on public display.
So how do we take this information that Wikileaks has provided us with? As the intended audience, I feel we should have some reaction. Consider this: corporations such as Amazon have succumbed to the pressure of politicians (Amazon was persuaded to pull hosting support by Joe Lieberman [what, how?], Lieberman smugly congratulated himself for this achievement on Fox News and then attacked the NY Times with accusations of espionage and poor citizenship [why is he still allowed to attend Democratic caucuses?]) and pulled support from Wikileaks. Other corporations who have made it pretty clear that they are influenced quite heavily by government interest: Paypal (and by extension Ebay), Visa and Mastercard.
Visa and Mastercard both claim that they’re waiting to see if investigations of Wikileaks expose any activity that contravenes the ethos of their businesses. Yet, wouldn’t it be in their best interest as a business to allow Mastercard and Visa to be used on the site until something controversial enough to disturb a corporation’s ethos (ha!) surfaces?
Let’s consider this logically. The intention of Wikileaks is to provide information to the public, to keep governments open. Our government and other governments do not wish this to happen. They express their distaste. Corporations begin to pull their support from Wikileaks. How do we interpret the corporations’ choice to essentially ditch Wikileaks? Well, the Web site was made for us to be informed, the governments do not wish us to be informed and some corporations have aligned their support with the government. Therefore, these corporations also wish for the public to remain in the dark. Yet, withdrawing their support from Wikileaks was a very public action, which I can only take as a slight against me, the citizen and intended audience of the whistle-blowing Web site.
What I am saying:
I have this weird obsession with making sure that when the historic moment in my lifetime comes to the fore, I want to make sure I place myself into the fray. Experience tells me that even though I believe this sentiment is unique to me, it isn’t. More likely, most people within whatever demographic I embody (I’ve been categorized as a millennial, a techno, an iKid, a post 9/11-er) have echoed this passion. As Wikileaks’ influence and effects on international relations are realized, both in the virtual and physical world, the public will have to decide whether keeping the government honest and in check is a norm citizens should expect. Although my bias is obvious, I’m not trying to coerce your support for Julian Assange. Just asking for you to examine the facts and check the premises. Then, make a decision. Knowing where you stand may have integral importance in the not-so-distant future.
-Mozart