From Sarah Palin to the Times readers who grilled Bill Keller over that paper’s right to publish information contained in 250,000 diplomatic cables leaked this Sunday, there has been plenty of outrage over the latest WikiLeaks dump. In a Q&A with Keller, Jill Abramson, and Andrew W. Lehrer, reader Brian Chrisman summed up the concern:
It is not up to WikiLeaks, The New York Times, or any other entity to determine whether confidential United States government information should be shielded from the public. We elect leaders who, along with their trusted appointees and officials, analyze data and make such decisions. By subverting that process, The New York Times and WikiLeaks are undermining our entire electoral process.
Resorting to “somebody will do it anyway” rationalizations is pathetic.
Legal? Perhaps. Wrong? Definitely.
Senators have weighed in as well, and now, the Post reports that the Justice Department is conducting “an active, ongoing criminal investigation” into whether WikiLeaks has broken any laws.
People are clearly upset—even as they pore through the sometimes gossipy details and wonder, just what do Putin and Berlusconi talk about when they get together.
But whom are they upset at?
If the WikiLeaks dump, and press’s decision to use it, has riled you, tell us why. Why wasn’t it the right thing to do? And who exactly are you angry at? Manning? Assange? WikiLeaks? The press? The government, for not corking up its leaky holes sooner?
And if you believe publishing on WikiLeaks’s cables was right—tell us why, too.
As battle lines are being drawn over the leaks, imperial mafiosi and state-coddling press, alike, are being exposed. And for that, I am a proud and happy American.
More people are realizing the MSM's cowardly willingness to take the official story as Gospel.
As it turns out, "diplomacy" is actually warfare: immoral, unconstitutional, political and economic aggression against you, me and individuals across the planet, on U.S. taxpayers' dimes. Who would have known? Readers of The AP or the NYT? Probably not.
The only "process" being "subverted" here is that by which the "free" press is able to insidiously portray the U.S. warfare state as a well-intentioned force for peace and stability on so on.
Finally, it's instructive, if repulsive, to see state-coddling news editors backtrack and weasel their ways under, over, around the muck — all the while, transferring their own culpability onto the truly independent and principled watchdogs.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 03:45 PM
I don’t know “angry” would be a good descriptor for me.
I certainly am interested that, once again, the NY Times shows its utterly contemptible double standard on secrets. After all, they wouldn’t even link to, let alone republish the 2009 climategate emails, explaining that the “documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye”. Typical LSM bull I suppose.
As for the content and commentary, how much of the hysterics about “exposing corruption” and “calling out the liars” was there? Assange’s goal seems to be to expose some kind of corrupt grand conspiracy by the US to rape the world, but as of today, the most “shocking” details pretty much fly in the face of left wing commentary and speculation on the Middle East, such as: Iran is building a nuclear program and the capability to deploy ICBM’s, China is helping them, North Korea is helping them, no one in the middle east is really keen on Iran getting a bomb and would like nothing better than for the US/Israel to erase Iran’s program, Iran has been smuggling weapons to Hezbollah in Red Crescent ambulances (don’t count on hearing more about this one from Juan Cole or Glen Greenwald), the “dire” situation of the Palestinians is more fiction than fact, China has been engaged in high level cyber warfare against the US, and turkey is in a slow motion slide in becoming a Pakistani like Islamic republic.
As far as Assange goes, he seems to have a real hard for the US military. Recall that just a few years ago Wikileaks divulged sensitive technical data on the Army’s Warlock Red/Green anti IED systems that snuffed out the IED threat overnight saving countless coalition and civilian lives. There was really no justification for this and its only purpose was to see Americans dead (never mind the collateral damage). Oh well, now that Assange has decided to go after the Russians, we will see how he likes his tea … will it be one or two lumps of polonium-210?
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 05:20 PM
I'm not angry at Wikileaks because the only people who don't know the truth about what the USA is up to, are its citizens. The rest of the world gets to experience, first-hand, our policies and behavior. Like most Americans, I love my country, but I still think the only way to defend our integrity as a nation, and a people, is to be truly aware of our actions. We can't hide our collective heads in the sand and just hope for the best. We have to KNOW what our leaders are doing, we have to hold their feet to the fire.
#3 Posted by Mary Rydell, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 09:27 PM
Mike, you're buying conservative talking points. The NYT did indeed link to the climategate emails, although they did not publish them directly. According to their concurrent statements, this was because they were not confirmed as authentic. But if you bother reading the NYT archive (online for your education), you will find plenty of articles about climategate.
Furthermore, there is a world of difference between disclosing to us, the citizens, what our government is doing, or disclosing the private emails or private citizens.
#4 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 04:52 AM
I thoroughly support the leaking of these documents, assuming that Assange keeps his word and removes information that could put lives in danger. I believe he'll do so, too, in light of how well WL did with the first two leaks. Here's why.
The United States is a great country relative to the rest of the world. Regardless of your political or ideological leanings, you most likely agree with that statement. I passionately do. We have faults--many, many faults, in my opinion--but despite them, most citizens of this nation enjoy a level of freedom and prosperity unthinkable to the rest of the world.
We are of course proud of the nation our ancestors built. In the world of nation-building, we are premier architects. We may be the best--after all, our construction became the undisputed global hegemon after the Cold War. And because we've experienced the benefits of American democracy, many of us believe that we ought to encourage the world to follow our lead.
But here, in our wish to export American democracy to the world, do we find the greatest threat to the health of our own democracy. From installing despotic regimes (Pinochet) to merciless drug wars to outright invading sovereign nations (one in the "graveyard of empires"), decades of US foreign policy has made us a lot of enemies.
Why? Because we don't understand the impact of the foreign policy made in our names. We rally behind leaders who say "you're either with us or against us," when that same attitude during the Cold War spawned the generation of Islamic extremists fighting us today. See Chalmers Johnson's excellent book Blowback for a detailed account of this.
This is getting to be far too long, so my point is this: in so many of these cables, diplomats document the many, many negative consequences of the United States acting as the world police. We need to engage in a productive dialogue based around a simple question: Why do they hate us?
It probably won't happen, of course, with bipartisan pushback against Wikileaks overshadowing the content of the cables. But it is a necessary conversation, and one that we must have soon--before yet another policy blunder hurts us in a big way.
"The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults." - de Tocqueville
#5 Posted by Dominic, CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 03:58 PM
Thalia, the quote I used is directly from the NY Times on why they wouldn’t link to, let alone republish the climategate emails. Additionally, the emails may have been private, but they were from public employees on a mail server owned by the government.
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 07:41 PM
A) your quote is from a nytimes blog - Dot Earth.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/private-climate-conversations-on-display/
Why don't you cite it?
b) it's so hard to find stories on climategate on the nytimes. Look at all that typing.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=climategate&more=date_all
3rd) What we are seeing in the wikileaks here is not actual reality, it is the perspective of reality the US government has behind locked doors. It is evidence of how they think, not of what is. Therefore we should be careful with statements like "Oh! Look at Iran! According to wiki leaks they are EVIL."
No. According to wikileaks the US government thinks they're evil and a bunch of people like Egypt and the Saud's are pointing their fingers at Iran and saying "Hey, look at them! They are evil!"
Until wikileaks leaks Iranian documents which demonstrate that they're evil, we cannot claim Iran is evil. We can only claim that America thinks so and that there's a lot of pressure on America to act on this belief. Same goes for the Red Crescent. Don't claim as evidence a US cable of information, which likely came from Israeli sources who have an interest in delegitimizing the ambulances which have frequently become targets. Show the pictures, documents, profiles of those in charge which substantiate the allegations.
∜) Climategate... you still talking about that?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 1 Dec 2010 at 09:39 PM
No, I am not angry at Wikileaks.
Hello CJR staff:
It’s unfortunate that you have taken the first step over the edge: you are now on the slippery-slope.
Today on 12/04/10, I was able to copy this info. from Wikileaks.de, about the release of information that was apparently given to the site:
key figures:
· 15, 652 secret
· 101,748 confidential
· 133,887 unclassified
· Iraq most discussed country – 15,365 (Cables coming from Iraq – 6,677)
· Ankara, Turkey had most cables coming from it – 7,918
· From Secretary of State office - 8,017
According to the US State Departments labeling system, the most frequent subjects discussed are:
· External political relations – 145,451
· Internal government affairs – 122,896
· Human rights – 55,211
· Economic Conditions – 49,044
· Terrorists and terrorism – 28,801
· UN security council – 6,532
Even this bit of information is no longer accessible as a United States Citizen from Wikileaks.org. So, I am presuming that censorship is alive and thriving in the US just like it is in a number of other nations. Is this right? Is this good? Is this a problem? Should censorship be a problem? Then, what information is censored? I tried to access the site on Google. So is Google censoring in the US? Is this move at the request of the US government? Uh, what was the old news that caused a media deluge about Google and China? Of course, there are many views of what information should be accessible to any nation’s citizenry. Where is the balance point? Then on the flip-side of the gold coin: What information should be accessible by corporate media about private citizens? Corporate media are and have been using increasing extremes of marketing strategies to increase sales from the public. There is also a limit when marketing focus and strategy becomes surveillance of the individual. These lines of censorship and surveillance have been crossed already. If I can read an article about how “Nielsen” admits to questionable survey practices in the past, then what are the continuing implications by lesser and better well-known corporate media groups? CJR why aren’t you really addressing the real issues of net neutrality? We’re seeing the epitome of the reality of non-neutrality in action. Uh, why the silence???
Now, back to the info. that I copied from Wikeleaks.de. First of all why didn’t CJR even refer to the facts of this bit of the copied information? There is more factual information and a more reasonable perspective about the impact of this information and the role of the US in the international political arena from the international news writers at the European newspapers. There is even an alluding to facts from the New York Times articles.
Why is CJR honing in onto the pathetic stance of curiosity about “viewer anger” and possible reactive response? How pathetic of CJR? Ryan why don’t you do a good analytical article on mass propaganda and appeals based on the mass emotional mind?
It is very difficult to weed through any of the information from these reports on Wikileaks. It is not garbage. It is not explosive or revealing of national secrets. It does reveal some of the human pettiness of certain individuals. Why is CJR jumping on the “tyranny” bandwagon? Fear. At least Ron Paul has some guts and so does what’s his name from Wikileaks. Most of the releases are quite similar to some of similar excerpts that are included in old Clancy novels. Anybody can go onto the Rand Corp. website and read information that is more relevant. Anybody can go to the War College site and read from the library archives to find information that is more relevant. Why does CJR want to join the witch-hunt? Why does CJR want to focus on group “anger” responses? Does CJR staff feel better by joining the farce?
Reporting of facts is important. Repor
#8 Posted by llisa2u2, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 03:40 PM
What upsets me is that news editors--Bill Keller, being one--refused to publish a disclosure of outrageous government neglect of emergency preparedness; yet, the same editors readily publiss any snide comment traded by State Department officials, Two newspapers offered the excuse there were "no bodies, yet." And, when the bodies finally arrived...floating in the floodwaters brought by Hurricane Katrina, there newspapers STILL didn't expose the problems that led to failure. Their excuse then was, "Well, it's public knowledge now." No, part of it was public knowledge...the least important part, actually, because the most deeply entrenched problems were known only to insiders. And, now, the dirt has been buried even deeper through government classification of programs that once were unclassified. An opportunity thus forever lost. Meanwhile, people who were interested in blowing the whistle on wrongdoing were frightened off...not by government threats, but by the indifference of newspapers. If only they had known that the way to get an editor interested was to report something titillating, with no redeeming public interest!
#9 Posted by Deep Harm, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 05:32 PM
Rights are a privilege and he crapped on his by crapping on his country. Fire is a blessing until someone uses to set your house on fire. I do not believe in selective rights I do believe that Wikileaks had stepped way out of bounds on this one and should be tried for treason and possibly as a terrorist. Even during 911 I was not afraid. I am afraid today. The US with no friends, now that is a scary place. I am pissed that it was even allowed to go this far!
Treason is still punishable by death, right?
#10 Posted by Rodarealist, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 06:38 PM
I am not angry about wikileaks. As a former German I strongly believe that the Holocaust would not have happened in that intensity, had wikileaks existed in 1942. Quote my husband's grandmother (1889 vintage) 'We heard some whispers about camps where they kill people/Jews. This must surely be enemy propaganda. We Germans are the people of poets and thinkers.' Wikileaks could have verified that the whispers were NOT enemy propaganda.
Had wikileaks existed in the early 1990s, German reunificacation criminality with participation of then Chancellor Helmut Kohl and F. Mitterrand could have come out in the open, and my brother in Berlin would still be alive, had we not been gypped through government abuse of power by Kohl & Co. It would have been close to impossible to hide their crimes by shredding documents and making copies disappear.
With a large network of informers in the 'political class' (expression used by Spiegel international) being now revealed by wikileaks I, who has been wronged, wonder, if US networks had known about Kohl's axis of evil corruption.
Hiding the truth will always create victims and animosity. Do we need more animosity in this world?
#11 Posted by If_only, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 07:15 PM
I think many Americans have been shocked by the financial activities of the federal government recently (before the Wikileaks). We are tired of being fooled and having our children die in wars that were started with lies. Americans fear torture being legal even if it is trickily legal like waterbording. Citizens start feeling like their security may be undermined by unintelligent and dangerous diplomats and politicians. Most of us don't trust a lot of the politicians one little bit. I think it is very good that for once some of their secret doings be exposed. I also think it is odd that somebody does something and the government goes to search if they can find a law somewhere to prosecute wikileaks for. Now we are seeing a battle for politicians and whistleblowers and it looks like the politicians have a lot to fear. Personally, I think every single thing the feds do should be "transparent". Up till now it in a consensus for most Americans that the feds/diplomats/politicians are out of contol and do not work for us the citizens. Remember: Government of the people and by the people and for the people. Government should be afraid of its citizens instead of vice versa. I think wikileaks and Julian Assange are like the messiah or the beginners of a new age where war will finally be stopped by all world citizens knowing the secrets of their governments. I truly believe 90% of the people in the whole world are tired of war; tired of upper class ruling everything; tired of tricks and lies by government.
#12 Posted by Julia Simmons, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 07:37 PM
I'm f*!ing fuming.
WIkileaks is an asymmetric nonstate actor which is engaged in information warfare against the United States. As such it is a terrorist organization intent on harming my country and every means at our disposal should be undertaken to *eradicate* them.
It may surprise the reader that I am a liberal progressive. I believe the United States is imperfect, and worthy of critique. I believe, very broadly, in freedom of speech and expression. But I also believe that diplomacy is our only alternative to wars or inaction. I believe that the US' is in the unenviable position of trying to stop terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, etc. Assange and company have damaged our interests, and harmed our ability to negotiate and manage incredibly difficult and muddy situations around the world. Those that blindly support him (sadly, almost entirely on my side of the political spectrum) don't have a f@#ing clue -- like him, they're naive, kneejerk ideologues who don't realize they're playing with fire, and burning the good guys.
#13 Posted by AMouse2011, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 10:18 PM
I'm f*!ing fuming.
WIkileaks is an asymmetric nonstate actor which is engaged in information warfare against the United States. As such it is a terrorist organization intent on harming my country and every means at our disposal should be undertaken to *eradicate* them.
It may surprise the reader that I am a liberal progressive. I believe the United States is imperfect, and worthy of critique. I believe, very broadly, in freedom of speech and expression. But I also believe that diplomacy is our only alternative to wars or inaction. I believe that the US' is in the unenviable position of trying to stop terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, etc. Assange and company have damaged our interests, and harmed our ability to negotiate and manage incredibly difficult and muddy situations around the world. Those that blindly support him (sadly, almost entirely on my side of the political spectrum) don't have a f@#ing clue -- like him, they're naive, kneejerk ideologues who don't realize they're playing with fire, and burning the good guys.
#14 Posted by AMouse2011, CJR on Sat 4 Dec 2010 at 10:19 PM
I'm not angry, just surprised that we have moved that far away from freedom and justice that we would "kill" someone who brought truth, and have no concern about the fact that our elected government officials lie, cheat, spy illegally at the UN, leave nuclear weapons illegally in Europe, have people killed for fun in the Middle East, instruct torture and deny this and allow government staff to put their fingers up our arse at airports.
I have little respect for much of the media, which is cowed by power and gives us garbage for information, so that when you DO get something that allows you to make sensible decisions about your survival, we get scared and want to kill the messenger.
And honestly, is anyone really WORRIED about not being able to work for the federal government? I would consider that a black mark on my resume!
All hail america
#15 Posted by daisy, CJR on Sun 5 Dec 2010 at 09:48 AM
Wikileaks is helping the US be a more open society. So was the late release by the Fede of the deep borrowings at subsidized interest rates by the banks. The mix of actually well done diplomacy and duplicity is instructive to the world - and us -that we are neither often perfect nor always terrible. But have lots of work to do to. The more interesting commentators have looked to the leaked documents for insights into the depth of the problems and the difficulties of responding. We are better off, I think, post leaks. Perhaps this will lead the whole world to demand more, and deliver more, openness, from more governments and financial institutions and scientists and raise te level of discourse.
WE owe a debt to wikileaks, and the fear around making public statements of support for Assange is going to look pretty feeble as historians find this document release the beginning of a new era of critical examination and more informed strategic thinking.
#16 Posted by Doug Carmichael, CJR on Sun 5 Dec 2010 at 01:50 PM
After the talking heads explained there was nothing but junk data, I enjoyed having wikileakds used to reference most new insights into anything.
What folks do understand is that research and investigation are expensive and always were very costly. So now journalism's cost savings have practically eliminated even fact checking ( a lot of work too ).
So with Wikileaks data is dumped on the press who actually have to read it. Unfortunately, nobody jumps out of the data and says "I did it." No, it all works just like you would expect looking at a lobbyist educated Washington. Hell, we can always sell them a weapons system if they are gonna be that mad.
Without Habeas Corpus you too can disappear. Good luck. And if you should think that innocence is a defense, remember this Twitter Terrtoists: You don't have collateral; you are collateral.
#17 Posted by dunnage, CJR on Sun 5 Dec 2010 at 04:19 PM
Democracy means that the public may control the government. They should not have anything to hide. Unfortunately politicians often forget their initial order to represent the needs of their citizens and do crude things instead. That's why they want to ban wikileaks and control everything. They do not want their lies come to the surface. So in their opinion the public shall not control the government. It is rather vice versa. But that is not democracy any more.
Topper from Austria, Europe
#18 Posted by Topper, CJR on Mon 6 Dec 2010 at 06:10 AM
And to top it all off, the biggest knee-slapper yet:
"U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011"
(http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm)
Can you say "1984"?
#19 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 7 Dec 2010 at 03:56 PM
I think Julian Assange is a hero.
Watching the politicians scurry like rats in the labyrinth of lies they have created to start and continue the endless profiteering, empire-building wars without end is somewhat amusing, especially the self-righteous politicians who call Assange a criminal and a terrorist. They have it backwards.
Condemnation of a messenger of truth shows that the perpetrators of these wars, torture, rendition and general fear mongering are afraid when truth gets out and, therefore, must INTER-FEAR with Wikileaks and Assange. They did the same thing to Daniel Ellsberg.
Meanwhile, along with several other people I know, we have asked ourselves what Obama or another one of the power elites threatened Sweden with (or offered) to have Assange brought up on rape charges. What a set-up but not uncommon!
Assange said in an interview I listened to that he's a combatitive person and hates bastards. Many would agree with this line of thinking, even those of us who are not combatitive.
#20 Posted by Dianne, CJR on Tue 7 Dec 2010 at 10:41 PM
in a dark and forsaken world Julian, Bradley along with my hero Daniel Ellsberg are the ONLY light in this Capitalist Prison.
What would Smedley Butler say?
#21 Posted by Darwin26, CJR on Wed 8 Dec 2010 at 01:26 AM
Nice of you to wait till the last sentence to bother asking if there is anyone out there who is not furious with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. I read all the way through waiting for a more even hand but you even gave all the reasons people should be angry. And then it was like, oops we better ask if there is anyone who actually thinks for him or herself and cares a tiny iota about truth, transparency and democracy.
It's the U.S. government that is a bully and the real terrorists in this world - that's what makes me furious. THEY are the ones killing, maiming, torturing and using rendition, extra-judicial assassination including of American citizens, indefinite detention and other high crimes. I'm furious that not one member of either the Bush or Obama administrations have been held accountable for even one of these crimes against humanity - not one! And that is what Julian Assange is angry about and he is trying to do something about it. Are you? Those in our government are not worried about putting lives at risk, they do it all the time with their illegal and immoral wars and when 70% of our budget is spent on the pentagon we end up hurting badly at home. Because we don't have a humane health care plan thousands die. The number of homeless is skyrocketing and children are hungry.Any of you notice how our rights are being decimated? That's what makes me furious. Any of you notice how our government is forcing companies to block internet access to us - freedom loving U.S. of A. (and Columbia students)? The press conference Obama had today did you happen to notice that not one so-called "journalist" asked him even one question about the biggest story of the year "WikiLeaks". Bet you didn't bother cause you are too busy being angry at the messenger instead of at the real criminals.
I revere Assange...and fear for him because of the certifiably insane hate mongering members in our government...and media. That he, at his own peril, is trying to bring us even a little truth, makes him a saint in my eyes. We cannot have freedom without truth and transparency. Wasn't that what Obama promised? What a sad joke.
#22 Posted by Dorothy Reilly, CJR on Wed 8 Dec 2010 at 02:47 AM
Freedom of speech!
It was about time someone let the public know what's going on behind the scenes. As stated we can not have freedom without the TRUTH
#23 Posted by Karla, CJR on Sat 11 Dec 2010 at 04:38 AM
I am saddened that an esteemed organisation like CJR should take this biased approach to such an important media issue.
The question is framed in terms of one side of the argument. It is a debate not Fox and Friends.
Tell us why you are angry - oh - and you wikileaks supporting weirdos can write in too.
CJR: Strong Press, Strong Democracy, Weakness in the face of authority
#24 Posted by John Drinnan , CJR on Sun 12 Dec 2010 at 01:10 AM
Not at all. I think the government is up to some sneaky stuff that they don't want Americans to know, and I think that the world should know what is going on. Our government is full of the wrong people, who are representing our country. Our enemies?? We probably wouldn't have enemies if these crooks and liars weren't bullying and stealing from them. I say lay ALL the cards out on the table, and shoot the bastards with cards up their sleeves.
#25 Posted by Jakball, CJR on Wed 15 Dec 2010 at 01:36 AM