Douthat could very well be right. As a result of these leaks, the state may clamp up and clamp down. In fact, according to Massimo Calabresi’s website-leading Time article today, which details WikiLeaks’s place in the history of the development of secrecy in the U.S. government, the clamp-down has already begun.
The leak has also led the U.S. to tighten, not loosen, its security protocols. After consulting with the White House in the run-up to the WikiLeaks dump, State temporarily cut the link between its NCD database and SIPRNet. CentCom has reimposed its restrictions on using removable media, is newly requiring that a second person approve the download of classified information to an unsecure device and is installing software designed to detect suspicious handling of secrets.
That may be the unfortunate consequence of WikiLeaks’s actions. But there is something iffy about journalists arguing for bartering with the state by holding back on “temporary victories for transparency” in the hope of a reward of long-term reform. The reason so many people are upset about the latest WikiLeak is that there is no hope for that kind of reform anytime soon—what was revealed in the documents, from the banal to the gossipy to the truly revelatory, was not meant to be seen by the press or the public and was not on its way to being so.
So what do we do? Twiddle our thumbs while we wait for a slicker facilitator of leaks? Someone or something we’re more comfortable with, something familiar? Do we tut-tut Assange until the government one day introduces reform that makes U.S. diplomacy and the conduct of war more transparent? Or do we, as many outlets have done, scrutinize WikiLeaks and its founder vigorously, while also taking in the information they offer, treating it sensitively, reporting it out, and being thankful that “temporary,” or otherwise, someone is committed to peeling back secrecy and colluding with us in holding government accountable? To dismiss WikiLeaks and wait for more institutionalized ways of increasing transparency feels like a euphemism for capitulating to the status quo. (It might also be a case of refusing to face our own failings—see Pressthink’s Jay Rosen’s 14-minute, Dewar’s-tinged rumination on how the “spectacular failure of the watchdog press” has catalyzed the rise of WikiLeaks.)
WikiLeaks may be a “blunt instrument” with which to attack the lack of transparency in government, but it is, for now, proving perhaps the most valuable.
I think the article misses the main point. Listen to Julian Assange's audio interview over Skype with Time Magazine's editor. If I heard and understood him correctly, in it he says that his aim isn't transparency, instead his aim is a more just society. Secrets he says, are simply meant to keep people in power, and by disrupting the way they ordinarily communicate throughout the organization, by disclosing their secrets, they can go one of two ways. Either they become more open and just - in which there's no problem any longer and he'd welcome the outcome, or they become increasingly paranoid and fail to function adequately because they can't communicate effectively with one another. This according to Assange is also welcome, because here he's succeeded in disrupting the workings of an immoral entity. In this sense, his observations are astute and far reaching, and more sensible than simply seeking greater transparency.
#1 Posted by Calme Meadows, CJR on Thu 2 Dec 2010 at 03:44 PM
Joel and CJR, thanks for the root-striking post. Ross Douthat touts "the useful work" of U.S. govt. agencies: "the prevention of wars, the anticipation of crises, the discreet management of difficult situations ..." Fine goals, all. But states, by their nature, wage economic, political and military wars against individuals and states. Beneath the legalese, demagoguery and glittering generalities, there is actual imperial statecraft: aggression, compulsion, deception, destruction, fear, theft, killing. And the USA's global state, purportedly, is history's largest and most powerful monopoly of violence. If only D.C. had prevented even five percent of the war it has waged. When U.S. govt. agencies "anticipate ... crises" is when politicians, central bankers, bureaucrats and lawyers find a judicial opportunity for easy political or economic gain — a chance to wage war against demons which often are exaggerated or self-made or better handled privately or more locally. And doesn't being "discreet" really mean state secrecy, or that a govt. transgression hasn't been reported yet? (Murder-by-drone-strike and torture can be called discreet.) In this supposedly free republic, the govt. is the most free from legal and moral restraint while the individual must submit to the law-making govt. or else. Free and brave news media should have much to say here on the role of government in a free society; thanks to Wikileaks and other "watchers," they do.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 2 Dec 2010 at 07:25 PM
To examine the value of wikileaks you should analyze its stated motives verses its actions. The two don't match.
Wikileaks claims it is a 'whistle-blower' site. Yet the 'War-Diary' had negligible fallout; no major cover-ups of criminal misdeeds, just hundreds of thousands of mundane documents posted where they don't belong. They single out the US, almost exclusively. Cablegate is shaping up to be the same.
If wikileaks wanted to be whistle-blowers, as they claim, they'd post documents that reveal cover-ups. But they don't, certainly not in any measure relative to the hundreds of thousands of pages released in the 'War-Diary'.
The operators of Wikileaks are just another in a long line of smug, sanctimonious anti-American bigots. Their stated mission as a 'whistle-blower' isn't born out by their actions. America is an easy, popular target, and America-bashing is the world's favorite pastime.
Sarah Palin's hacked personal emails? No significant cover-ups were revealed there, which begs the question - why did Wikileaks post them?
The answer is as sad as it is obvious. Based on their actions, Wikileaks motives are a combination of; seeking fame and fortune, engaging in anti-American bigotry, and thumping their chests-in self-righteousness while sashaying their criminal asses across the world stage.
#3 Posted by tu8ca, CJR on Fri 3 Dec 2010 at 04:08 AM