The US's Reaction To Wikileaks Is Doing A Lot More Harm Than The Leaks Themselves
from the destroying-any-moral-high-ground dept
It's becoming clear as the weeks go on, that the US government's massive overreaction to the latest Wikileaks releases is doing much more harm to the US's standings abroad than anything in the documents themselves. So far, most of the reaction from various politicians and diplomats concerning the actual content of the documents was that some of it might be slightly embarrassing, but there's been nothing all that surprising. Some foreign diplomats have joked back: "you should see what we say about you." And yet, we're still hearing claims that Julian Assange needs to be put on trial or (worse) executed, and other forms of "attacks" should be made on Wikileaks itself. All this has done has been to have foreign governments and diplomats start mocking the US for not living up to its claims of supporting freedom of the press and freedom of expression. This will make it much, much harder any time the US tries to stop any form of censorship in other countries, as they'll immediately point back at how many of our politicians flipped out over Wikileaks.A bunch of folks sent over this blog post by Jack Goldsmith, which succinctly summarizes how backwards and damaging the US's response to Wikileaks has been. He questions if whoever leaked the diplomatic cables (he names Bradley Manning, but nothing has yet proven that he's the specific source, as far as I know) directly to the NY Times -- and the same info would likely have been published -- would the US government reacted in the same way?
Would our reaction to that have been more subdued than our reaction now to Assange? If so, why? If not, why is our reaction so subdued when the Times receives and publishes the information from Bradley through Assange the intermediary? Finally, in 2005-2006, the Times disclosed information about important but fragile government surveillance programs. There is no way to know, but I would bet that these disclosures were more harmful to national security than the wikileaks disclosures. There was outcry over the Times' surveillance disclosures, but nothing compared to the outcry over wikileaks. Why the difference? Because of quantity? Because Assange is not a U.S. citizen? Because he has a philosophy more menacing than "freedom of the press"? Because he is not a journalist? Because he has a bad motive?He also notes that a reporter like Bob Woodward has published and revealed "many details about top secret programs, code names, documents and the like," obviously with direct help from top administration officials... and yet there's been no anger and threats about all of that. Among the many points he raises, one is particularly compelling: any attempt to actually charge Assange will backfire for a huge list of reasons:
I think trying to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act would be a mistake. The prosecution could fail for any number of reasons (no legal violation, extradition impossible, First Amendment). Trying but failing to put Assange in jail is worse than not trying at all. And succeeding will harm First Amendment press protections, make a martyr of Assange, and invite further chaotic Internet attacks. The best thing to do -- I realize that this is politically impossible -- would be to ignore Assange and fix the secrecy system so this does not happen again.Yet again, I'm left noticing the similarities between the US government's reaction to Wikileaks and the entertainment industry's reaction to file sharing. Each move that it made, including going legal, backfired in a big, bad way. It's really quite stunning to watch the US government make the same mistakes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, politics, reaction, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If the times had published this stuff, it's no biggy because they still have a degree of control over them, and if they overstep, the government can easily come down on them, pressure them, influence what gets put out, do things to threaten the time's business etc.
They really don't have much control over Wikileaks at all, which is probably more of a perceived problem for them than anything that has actually been released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm, you might want to see who's been publishing cables and the analysis of the cables. You might recognize a newspaper or two ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One result of the domain shutdown has been to give a boost to other whistleblower sites such as OpenLeaks which is supposed to go live today (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BC23E20101213). It is going to be a lot harder to monitor and crack down on a distributed network like OpenLeaks proposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stunning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it stunning?
Haven't you pointed out time and again that I lot of the top people in the Justice Department came from Hollywood? If so then I would expect them to act the same way in DC that they did in Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it stunning?
Our government IS Hollywood by this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it stunning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it stunning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it stunning?
An actor as president, a comedian as senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it stunning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it stunning?
Not quite, unfortunately. If they were, they would be making
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it stunning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it stunning?
If the people running the country follow in the same circles as those from the RIAA/MPAA, shouldn't this have been expected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because it's on the Internet, that big scary place full of the worst of the worst.
/sarcasm (in case it didn't jump out of the screen and bite you)
"any attempt to actually charge Assange will backfire"
Here's my question. Will he be charged? With all this hoopla about how bad this person is, what are the odds that he would even be heard from again after crossing the US border?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...not all that surprising
It's unfortunate to see this false notion perpetuated - it speaks to the failing of the mainstream media to examine the real issues exposed by the cables. The fact is, we've learned a lot. Glenn Greenwald breaks it down pretty well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it news?
When they get in large numbers, the mob mentality takes over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So far, it has just been a lot of hot air.
As for him being charged? Personally I think that the safest country for him to be in would be the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "Land of the Free" is starting to sound very hollow to the rest of the world. I know it does to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistakes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My real take away from the Wikileaks story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As more of the newsy-go-round is devoted to Wikileaks, less is devoted to the leaks themselves, the outrageous policy hypocrisy some illustrate, or unveiling our government's deep and shadowy marriage of state and corporate interests.
US corporatocracy depends on people not thinking for themselves. It's a very successful tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US's Reaction To Wikileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really?
Also, since when has the US Government had or cared about moral high ground? Honestly now, it's been a giant hypocrite for a very long time...this really isn't something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Gov't, tricks are for autoritarian regimes...
Rather, people now have access to a variety of news sources and opinions from the independent media--meaning the media which are not further constrained by the financial reality that they must not alienate their corporate advertisers. Many people clearly value this access to information. And when the government tries to censor truthful information regarding elected public servants in a democracy, should they be surprised when people question their arbitrary claim of authority to do so?
Not surprising their attempts to conceal have backfired. Most likely any attempt to prosecute Assange in the US will make him a martyr for the free press and free flow of information. Thank goodness some people recognize the possible damage to the US's int'l interests and "reputation" (which isn't good anyway)is far outweighed by the people's desire to choose whether or not to be governed by those claiming power, possibly fooling the people under the pretense of democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiikileaks has babies, one birth on Thur, second on Mon
Not only do we have 1880 or so mirror sites to Wikileaks, we now have Openleaks and Brusselsleaks.
http://brusselsleaksdotcom
See also
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2010/12/13/new-brussels-based-wikileaks-spin-off-to-ta rget-eu/
and
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2010/12/brussels-leaks/
This is all happening quickly and unfolding at great speed. Brusselsleaks is already overwhelmed at the response they are getting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiikileaks has babies, one birth on Thur, second on Mon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US government got pwned by a private, the missteps so far.
1. This happened... Why does a private have access to the virtual entirety of classified diplomatic correspondence?
2. Underestimating wikileaks. There was no attempt at negotiation, no attempt to work out some sort of deal to delay the posting of all this "lethal information" while the government got its "at risk operatives" out of harms way. The US just told wikileaks that they would be really really angry if they released this stuff and assumed that was all they had to do.
3. Bi-polar response to the leaks. There are literally back to back press conferences where administration officials say that wikileaks is "endangering the lives of countless US operatives" only to have another talking head come forth and spew out 20 minutes later "the US will continue with business as usual, while embarrassing, the leaks will not significantly undermine US diplomatic efforts."
Either our operatives being hunted down and slaughtered wholesale, "will not significantly undermine US diplomatic efforts" or more logically, "endangering the lives of countless US operatives" really means endangering the careers of corrupt and/or inept bureaucrats.
4. The martyrdom of Julian Assange and attack on freedom of speech. Congratulations America, we gave him exactly what he wanted. I am ashamed to say that a paranoid, narcissistic, anarchist, who may or may not be fond of "surprise sex" has more credibility throughout the world than the US government. Not to mention that in the haste to accuse him of crimes that do not exist we have trampled over the core values of our society. No "creative prosecution" will stand up in court. I find it CRIMINAL, in its most base and disgusting sense, that the administration would poke and prod through the constitution to find a loophole that would allow them to prosecute someone for a crime that is not real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade writes, "Some forms of influence are widely accepted. Press releases are influence, as is the police asking the press to hold off on a story so as not to hinder an investigation. Having to worry about following U.S. laws is a form of influence and pressure."
If you're trying to understand the perspectives of non-Americans, American interests and laws are not a good starting point.
You may think that these forms of U.S. are legitimate. In America such interventions are justified on the basis of national security. I'm Canadian. To "foreigners" like me attempts to impose American standards and law outside the U.S. appear illegitimate. American interests and the particulars of U.S. law are beside the point.
I think the United States has no comprehension of what they have done. The extraordinary power of the U.S. has been legitimated on the basis of lofty ideals like democracy and freedom of speech. When the U.S. does something bad, this is explained as a failure to execute rather than malice. E.g., hundreds of thousands died in Iraq - but at least America had good intentions.
The American response to WikiLeaks has shattered the basis for American legitimacy abroad. In the contest between its interests and its claimed ideals, the U.S. has decisively chosen hypocrisy. Mike talks as though the American reaction is a tactical error. I think most of the world sees it as revealing the true face of American power.
Americans don�t get this because their starting point is American interests. Government elites there and elsewhere don�t get it because they had few illusions. But ordinary folks did. Check out the message boards on the CBC or the Globe and Mail, Canada�s main news sites. They are running 4 to 1 for WikiLeaks over the U.S. - or worse. They don�t want to be subjects of an empire. And this is *Canada*, where we feel strong kinship with the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No matter where you are, influences on the press are a reality. If your newspaper is a business, you are reliant on public opinion. Politicians influence public opinion. The mere ability for them to choose who they speek to and voice their opinions on topics gives them influence over your bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misdirection at its Finest
I say it is even more than that. If you take everything .gov says as a lie, then it means these leaks are no big deal, and they are making a big deal for a reason. When a leak comes out in the future that really is harmful to the .gov, then expect them to remain hush about it.
Therefore, no harm equals uproar, big harm equals hush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misdirection at its Finest
Man, I am applauding you, BRAVO! you hit it on the head!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misdirection at its Finest
Now consider if the leaks were not really leaks but a means to convey information from the start much like the Nile RADAR images were a conveyance of US radar practicalities to the Soviets.
The question is what is going on here? And, it is not obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cade writes, "I'm Canadian as well. And I hold no illusions that we don't have many of the same influences on the press here."
Heh. I feel a bit foolish, but my argument stands. What you say about Canada is of course absolutely true. I'm sure our government would react similarly if given the opportunity. In that case though, who but Canadians would care? The impact of this falls particularly hard on the U.S. (as it should) given its power and its claims of free speech.
You are also correct about the strong influence of politics on the press. I read some research recently finding that politicians influence the press more than the other way around (unfortunately I'm not sure so can't check it or its broader validity).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this the makings of the i-Patriot Act..?
http://boingboing.net/2008/08/05/lawrence-lessig-on-t.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dictatorships always react this way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trial?
So what's all this worry about the difficulty of prosecuting Assange in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trial?
They are US officials. If a politician has the power to order anyone�s assassination it should be their own electorate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, you think we support other countries because it is the right thing to do and not just in our own best interests? Does any country do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subject
The result of all of this will be the same. They could have accomplished a lot by shrugging and just going about their business.
But nope..that's the American government for you. They are free to waste taxpayer dollars even though the end result is; absolutely nothing is achieved and absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, the only results are things are much worse off now than before and further embarrassment is the final result.
Stupid US government. Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have no problem with out govt. taking this position.
What is the value of other countries perception that the US might just take you out if you screw up too much? Say what you want, but GWB had to worry quite a few governments out there knowing that they may be next.
Of course, it doesn't work quite as well with countries like China or Russia, but it does have value with smaller countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History always repeats itself, politicians always think they are right even when proven wrong, and SSDD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]