Who is he?
 |
| Julian Assange - Age 39 |
There is no need to deliver information about his childhood, relationships, or education. Rather, it’s important to note how he went from being virtually unknown to the world in April 2010 to one of the most famous people of our time by December 2010. He was even voted ‘Time’ magazine’s ‘Person of the Year (2010)’.
Assange’s view on politics, and the workings of government and corporations, was shaped by his own experiences in the justice system. In 1988 Assange joined the Melbourne subculture of hacking under the name, Mendax. In 1993 he helped the Victorian Police break a large paedophile ring on the internet.
However, by July 1994 other charges were laid against Assange for computer hacking. The case was finally settled in December 1996, whereby he received a $5000 good behaviour bond and a $2100 compensation order.
But the damage was already done. The arrest and trial had shaped his views on politics, governments and wealthy corporations.
What does he represent?
Assange believes in transparent and honest governments and corporations. At present, he sees all power in western society as belonging to the political and economic elites, whom only offer ordinary people a fake form of democracy.
He also believes in an open form of communication. That is, where information across the globe is freely shared and where all humans enjoy the right to communicate without interventionist governments or corporations.
These two beliefs also seem to form the foundation of WikiLeaks. That is, through the use of free communication, governments and corporations are held accountable to the ordinary person.
What is Wikileaks?
WikiLeaks was actualised in July 2006. Its aim, as stated on its home web page, is: ‘We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.’
The WikiLeaks’ symbol itself is a reflection of this aim. The illustration shows drops of water leaking from the earth to form a new earth as a representation of information leaking from the unknown masses to a different source. This movement undergoes a colour transition from top to bottom – the darker blue representing ignorance of confidential information, and the lighter blue showing an awareness, an enlightenment, of the people through the information released via WikiLeaks. Finally, the hour glass is a symbol of WikiLeaks’ constancy and aim to always be remembered in history.
 |
| WikiLeaks Logo |
To this date, WikiLeaks has never being successfully sued.
How did WikiLeaks become famous?
In 2009 WikiLeaks released documents regarding many internal communications across the globe, including: Guantanamo Bay operational manuals; Sarah Palin’s emails; corruption in Kenya; a nuclear mishap in Iran; and footage of dissent of China in Tibet – just to name a few. At all times, none of the whistleblowers of these documents had been uncovered. WikiLeaks even won an award from Amnesty International as a result.
However, the world did not seem to pay attention to WikiLeaks until it released 78, 000 items concerning America and its war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Private Bradley Manning (below) – a junior American intelligence analyst and not known to Assange – was the source of these leaks. At the time, Manning was having deep concerns about America’s involvement in Iraq and is evidenced to have said, ‘I’m actively involved in something I [am] totally against’. Currently, Manning is in solitary confinement in Kuwait for breaching US government security and faces life in prison for his disclosures to WikiLeaks.
 |
| Private Bradley Manning - Age 23 |
One of the items Manning sent to WikiLeaks was of US footage of an American Apache helicopter and its soldiers gunning down 15 unarmed men in Baghdad. Assange entitled this clip, ‘Collateral Murder’. Following is this very clip – only 6.53 minutes of your time. Take note of the soldiers’ comments and two of the slain men who were Reuters news staff carrying cameras. This clip demands to be watched before you continue reading this blog post. (Note: it includes sensitive and disturbing images.)
After Assange launched this clip in Washington at the National Press Club on 5th April 2010 the Americans started to listen to WikiLeaks, and so too, did the rest of the world. Assange had achieved his aim … embarrassing officials through open and honest communication turning the tables on conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression in the current world.
Assange now faces extradition to the US where a secret grand jury will determine whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that he has committed crimes outlined in the 1917 Espionage Act or broken some other law.
What of the sexual assault claims?
Assange also faces another legal threat – extradition to Sweden to be interviewed for sexual assault claims. This is totally separate to his part in WikiLeaks.
 |
| Anna Ardin |
On 21st August 2010 Assange found himself under investigation for sexual assault in Sweden. He had had sex with two different women (WikiLeaks volunteers) within a three day period (one of these women pictured above). Since then, these charges have being upgraded to rape, then downgraded to molestation, changed to rape by surprise, to rape because the condom broke, and finally, rape because his body weight held the victim down. It is also an interesting point to note that the Swedish laws for sexual assaults consider consensual sex without a condom as a ‘sex crime’, not matter how much you enjoyed yourself at the time.
In February 2011 a British court ruled that Assange must be extradited to Sweden to face the sex crime allegations. Assange’s lawyers are appealing the decision, which could take months before the case is finally completed. In the meantime, Assange is on bail and under house arrest in Britain.
Questions to consider and for discussion:
1. What are your thoughts on Julian Assange?
2. Does WikiLeaks fail to protect human rights activists?
3. Do we need information sources, like WikiLeaks, to keep governments and corporations honest?
4. Does political correctness turn us into a nation of sheep?
The Word
It is vital that the state maintain strict confidentiality with regards to certain powers they uphold. Once such power would be the defence of the country. However, it is also vital that in other powers they remain transparent and honest. For example, powers such as taxation, health, human rights, international relations and immigration. How often are the citizens of a country fooled, or uninformed, of the workings of the government? Therefore, I think it is essential to have the likes of Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks, in order to give the common people a voice. I also believe that Julian Assange did not know Bradley Manning - the informant of 'Collateral Murder' - hence, did not breach any privacy laws. Without the courage of these people, how are we to ever know the truth? Or, the closest to the truth we can come? - The Word.
The Word
It is vital that the state maintain strict confidentiality with regards to certain powers they uphold. Once such power would be the defence of the country. However, it is also vital that in other powers they remain transparent and honest. For example, powers such as taxation, health, human rights, international relations and immigration. How often are the citizens of a country fooled, or uninformed, of the workings of the government? Therefore, I think it is essential to have the likes of Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks, in order to give the common people a voice. I also believe that Julian Assange did not know Bradley Manning - the informant of 'Collateral Murder' - hence, did not breach any privacy laws. Without the courage of these people, how are we to ever know the truth? Or, the closest to the truth we can come? - The Word.
In the 60s and 70s television allowed the world to view the realities of the Vietnam war. Today, the internet makes the realities of modern warfare publicly available. As with almost everything on the internet, good comes with bad. Like it, hate it (or simply indifferent to it), perhaps WikiLeaks is just a sign of the times?
ReplyDeleteOne must consider both sides of the coin. Four Corners recently interviewed Assange and it appeared that his motivations were now questionable - is he really the freedom fighter or are his motivations more selfish ie million dollar book deal?
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the protection of information providers to Wikileaks, one person's human rights activist is another person's terrorist. So the protection that Wikileaks can offer is really subject to the laws of the country to whom the information pertains – Private Manning committed offences in releasing information – he would have been naïve to think he would be provided with complete protection.
Honesty and transparency in a democratic society are essential so long as they do not interfere with the security of the state. Problem is who decides. Governments would err towards protecting release; Wkileaks toward full disclosure. Who should decide? In light of the questionable motivations behind the Iraq war it might seem that the public should decide, but how can that possible happen if they do not know? Should the machinations of governments be stringent enough to perform their own quality review of such decisions? Time and time again history repeats itself with the US. Vietnam, Iraq...
I hope this helps in opening further discussion.
The lack of regulation of the internet in Australia (and much of the "Information Rich" world) can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing. The question is though, is there really a lack of regulation? Surely the stakeholders are sifting through, regulating what can and can't be seen by the world?!?! And the government MUST have an interest in what is aired in the media.
ReplyDeleteDoes Assange just know how to work the system?
Although I see positives with Wiki Leaks, as they promote honesty and transparency, it is sometimes troubling that they appear to have their own agenda and certainly do not portray facts objectively. For example, the clip on collateral murder. Let me say from the outset this was a tragedy, a terrible, terrible tragedy and MUST be reviewed. If processes or protocols were not followed which led to innocent peoples deaths, then someone should be held to account.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have seen both unedited and edited versions of this footage and I don't know how on earth the chopper pilots could have known the people were innocent camera men. Could you tell from the footage without an arrow next to them highlighting this. I'm sure in war they don't (perhaps they should) use such prompts. It's this lack of objectivity from Wiki Leaks that is disappointing. I remember at the time some of the comments made by the pilots were less than favorable, but again it's got to be taken in context. They are in a war zone, under immense pressure and doing a job I would not want in a million years but I am thankful they do that job.
That said, innocent people died and this needs (I don't know if it has) to be investigated so it doesn't happen again. There is no excuse if it was negligence that caused this.
However, it is the spin (prompt arrows in the footage, very subtle but powerful) that in my view causes me to question the objectivity of Wiki Leaks. Sure we need an organisation to keep companies and organisations transparent, but that organisation needs to deliver unedited facts not their own spin on things.
As for Assange being charged with rape, well the timing of these charges was, well ....... suspicious. One minute world leaders are labeling him a person of immense interest, a person who they would being investigating for crimes relating to leaking of information and then guess what the next day his being investigated for rape. That stinks. If his done the wrong thing with release of information or rape, fine, but just the timing of the rape charges - it just didn't look right. Well just a few thoughts anyway.