Wikileaks

[Primula Baggins]

Just saying: this is a fantastic thread, and I have nothing to add to it that could match what I'm taking away from it.

[nerdanel]

I can't write much now, but Mahima, I just wanted to thank you for your post and explain that you didn't put me on the defensive at all. I thought you asked a very reasonable, interesting question, and I wanted to throw some thoughts out in response. I didn't feel that I HAD to explain myself - I just thought it'd be interesting to try to do so, stream of consciousness, and see what came out. Holby raises some interesting points as well, one of which is what the nexus is (if any) between external perceptions of America and the behavior of Wikileaks. I'm not sure there is a direct nexus, which may merit a thread split. But if I type much further, I'm going to end up writing another long post, so I'll leave off here for now.

[eborr]

To return briefly to Mr Lassange(sp) and his extradition under the European arrest warrent. My point is not to argue for the rights and wrongs of either the Swedish or the English legal system, but simply to say that the crimes that he is accused of in Sweden would not be in breach of English law, namely that as far as Iunderstand it the crux of the case is that he had unprotected sex with two women who are now stating they only consented to sex with a condom. We do not have that rubbery distinction. Traditionally in an extradition hearing, extradition occurs when an individual commits a crime in a another juridstriction extradition is only possible if whatever act they committed would also be a crime under UK law, in other words in no circumstances would we extradite 2 consenting adults to Qatar is that Govt. wished to try them for homosexual intercourse.

[nerdanel]

Again, this goes to the ever-elusive nature of the criminal allegations against Assange. However, even assuming that the allegations under Swedish law would not be a crime under UK law, you are incorrect that this would ordinarily foreclose extradition to Sweden.

You are correct as to the existence of the traditional concept of dual criminality. As reflected in many countries' extradition treaties, the crime for which the alleged criminal is sought must be a crime in both the requesting and requested jurisdictions. This would foreclose extradition to Qatar for trial as to consensual homosexual intercourse, as you note.

However, the European Arrest Warrant partially abrogates that practice. Under the Council (of the European Union) Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, surrender is required without respect to the principle of double criminality for thirty-two offences, including rape. See Article 2. In practice, this means that the UK is obligated to surrender alleged rapists to Sweden under a European Arrest Warrant even if the allegations would not constitute rape under UK law. (More troublingly, the same rules apply to allegations of criminal "racism and xenophobia" - whatever that might mean.)

[eborr]

I understand the European arrest warrant and the thinking behind it. which has lead to a number of injustices against British citizens, it came about at the same time as the asymetric extradition arrangements that were agreed with the US.

Both of these I find deeply worrying, as flawed as our justice system is, it's rather better than in some other countries.

Sweden for all it's fluffy blonds, "social conscience" and snowy weather is becoming a troubling place. A number of business that I have dealt with in Sweden operate on what I would consider to be low ethical base, and there is a high degree in cruelty and racism amongst some of the population. Certainly it's present in the fiction of Wallander and in the reality of the election of a member of a racist part to Swedens parliament

[SirDennis]

Beyond everything else it makes some countries look stupid and irresponsible even if some of what is said is true (like Canada having an inferiority complex).

In terms of politeness and teamwork, "everyone knowing" and publicly saying what "everyone knows" are two very different things.

We don't have an inferiority complex. We are just quieter about our strengths than we are our weaknesses. It's called humility... other nations should try it.

[elfshadow]

Leave it to xkcd to shed a little perspective on things. The mouseover is great, too.

[nerdanel]

Beyond everything else it makes some countries look stupid and irresponsible even if some of what is said is true (like Canada having an inferiority complex).

In terms of politeness and teamwork, "everyone knowing" and publicly saying what "everyone knows" are two very different things.

We don't have an inferiority complex. We are just quieter about our strengths than we are our weaknesses. It's called humility... other nations should try it.

The more I learn about Canada's policies, the more I think this is probably true. I've only ever visited Canada briefly (for periods of less than a week), so I don't necessarily know how all your laws work in practice. But there are many, many areas of Canadian policy to which my reaction is, "How can one country manage to be so right?" And yet, you really don't seem to trumpet your "proud tradition of values and principles" with quite the volume of, hmm, other countries I've encountered. I have to tell you, I'm a fan.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

SirDennis, good to see you! Just wanted to mention that Wilma (to whom you were responding) is also Canadian.

[SirDennis]

I knew that

Looking forward to the banking industry leaks coming in January. Hopefully we will hear more about the content and less about the messenger.

Good to see you too VtF.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know that you can necessarily separate the two, at least completely. If you can't trust the messenger, can you trust the content?

[Primula Baggins]

The news this morning says Assange has been granted bail by a British court and will be released in a couple of days; the prosecutors' appeal has been dismissed. He has to give up his passport, wear a tracking device, and check in with a police station every night.

Link

[Hachimitsu]

Hello, I am just doing some back reading and I wanted to say what great posts everyone has been posting.

I had wanted to make a few comments before I continued.

Nerdanel, I think your posts about the Economist article to some degree, explains why people in different places have different views of Wikileaks.

I have said I think Wikileaks is a good thing. While much of what was said, people who paid attention already knew about this, I do think it's important to have a watchdog, especially when, domestically criticism is weak. As a Canadian, seeing during the Bush years how Americans criticizing US foreign policy was treated, it was stunning and shocking. If a government can't take criticism, they shouldn't be leading a democracy. Criticism is a part of the system of Democracy. In my country it's actually quite scary because currently we have a government that has out and said on a press release they are not going to talk about issue X any further. They are a minority government at this point, and thy have the nerve to act that way. Taking from River's book, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

The Prim Minister (or President) rules as a representative of the people. He or she is not a ruler of the people. When self examination or self criticism starts to go, I get very very very concerned what the attitude of any countries leader who has been democratically elected (in actual fair elections). Do they think of themselves as a ruler or do they think of themselves as a representative?

I think that is why ,I find I get quite mixed on the methods and motivations of Wikileaks I do think Wikileaks in the end is a good thing, since it's brings back home to everyone that a healthy democracy involves scrutiny and criticism, and frankly checks on hypocrisy. This wasn't happening, or at least not as much as it should. I do feel if the media and journalists, were doing a good job (in every country), What was revealed in Wikileaks would not be so earth shattering. Also some of the stuff just simply wouldn't have happened.

There were rules and laws in place to prevent some of the surprising things in the leaks, yet no one was following the rules and laws put in place.
If I, as a citizen is expected to follow the law, I would expect my government to follow their own laws too. More so as they are the ones that made the laws in the first place. On a citizen level my watchdog is the police, who is the government's watchdog?

Sometimes governments and people (and this is everywhere), need a check on hypocrisy and propaganda, and I think an independent, external check is best.

About Afghanistan Holby, I fully agreed with the US and other countries going there (Canada is there). I actually don't think they should leave.

Much of the contentions and criticisms I have and that other people I have talked to have, is really on Iraq (yes I know I may seem like a stick in the mud on this). As a young person, I was shocked, witnessing the lead up to the Iraq war. Had all the lofty rules and principles and ideals been actually considered and respected (including not putting servicemen into unnecessary risk, which I think the Iraq war was), I do not think the Iraq war would have happened. I truly believed in that the U.S. truly respected and cared about their lofty principles and that the checks and balances were there. I really did not think the U.S. would violate it's own principles to that degree. When the U.S. attacked Iraq (this most recent invasion), I really had to rethink my neighbouring country. I realized the U.S. own checks and balances were not there.

Had the real reason for the invasion (which I still don't know), had been revealed, through journalism, or a leak or however means, I do not think the U.S. military and all the servicemen would be stuck in the Iraq mess. Which forgetting all the other international criticism and viewpoints, how the heck could the Bush administration justify sending the U.S. military (young soldiers), on a dangerous unnecessary war where many U.S. lives have been lost. For what seems to be no real justifiable reason. That is a domestic viewpoint, which I don't find many Americans publicly stating (at least not on the news I get, and we get a lot of U.S. media here.)

(I guess I think that way because an uncle of mine was drafted into the Vietnam War and we all know how that went. (My uncle is a U.S. citizen.) )

Mind you, just because I criticize the U.S. does not mean I don't cast a critical eye on my own country. Actually I think I do it even more so since I don't want to see Canada make the same mistakes as the U.S. has.

[nerdanel]

Had the real reason for the invasion (which I still don't know), had been revealed, through journalism, or a leak or however means, I do not think the U.S. military and all the servicemen would be stuck in the Iraq mess. Which forgetting all the other international criticism and viewpoints, how the heck could the Bush administration justify sending the U.S. military (young soldiers), on a dangerous unnecessary war where many U.S. lives have been lost. For what seems to be no real justifiable reason. That is a domestic viewpoint, which I don't find many Americans publicly stating (at least not on the news I get, and we get a lot of U.S. media here.)

Just to be clear: I'm not sure what cross-section of United States views you are getting, but this is an exceptionally common, publicly held U.S. view today. Not only that, even in 2002 in the middle of this mess starting, I was part of a vocal minority that was saying exactly this even in my conservative red home state of Virginia (admittedly it was a less popular view then). But the "no justifiable reason" view has been a very loud, very visible part of American discourse for at least four-to-five years. If you're not hearing it, you need to try to look at a greater range of sources, to the extent the topic interests you.

[Hachimitsu]

Oh, I know that the No-justifiable reason part is loud and clear now. But at the time in the early 2000's it wasn't coming across very clearly. Seeing those who dared to criticize basically get their shows canceled, or boycotted was not comforting. things like "We are at war, listen to our president" and attitudes that criticism = unpatriotic was very very disturbing during the lead up to the Iraq war. The whole Valerie Plame thing, people feeling intimidated into putting up a flag in front of their house after 9-11, all of that was just very disturbing to see right before my eyes.

I know that has changed much more now, but even now, it's not mentioned that it was a mistake (at least not as frequently).. But then again, I was so disgusted by much of the news reporting at the time, I did stop watching some U.S. news outlets, like CNN. I mostly watch BBC news and I listen to at least 2 U.S. based podcast on U.S. politics. But I must admit, one of them I listen to has a more current domestic viewpoint. I tried an NPR political podcast and it was far too detailed and way over my heard. (The episodes I listened to went into minute detail of the most recent U.S. Elections, to the point where I couldn't focus. There were just far too many names I did not know, since I am not an American voter.) My younger sis watches some current events programming and some of the hosts do bring it up from time to time.

Speaking directly to Americans, I get the "no justifiable reason" vibe much more clearly. Actually one American actress when she was at a local convention I go to a few years ago, she publicly called Bush a war criminal during at least on of her talks on stage. That particular con gets a lot of American visitors since it's scheduled near the 4th of July weekend.

I would like to find something more broad but no luck yet. Until I get TV going where I live now (It's complicated), I will try and see if PBS has any good podcast programming.

Thank you so much for your response Nel.

Edit:
Just caught up. To Sir Dennis, if Canada does not have an inferiority complex, then, at least in Canada I feel like there is a big problem with citizen apathy. Also, governments are aware of that trying to get away with stuff based on that (ex: the sponsorship scandal). Also, sometimes they just do stupid things like destroying evidence in Canada's biggest terrorism attack so the perpetrators literally get away with it. If CSIS, I dunno, had more sense or confidence, common sense or something at the time, i don't think that evidence would be destroyed.

Nice to see another Canadian on the board

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Assange is bedded down not much above 15 miles from me at the moment.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oh, I know that the No-justifiable reason part is loud and clear now. But at the time in the early 2000's it wasn't coming across very clearly. Seeing those who dared to criticize basically get their shows canceled, or boycotted was not comforting. things like "We are at war, listen to our president" and attitudes that criticism = unpatriotic was very very disturbing during the lead up to the Iraq war. The whole Valerie Plame thing, people feeling intimidated into putting up a flag in front of their house after 9-11, all of that was just very disturbing to see right before my eyes.

Oh, I fully agree, Wilma. But irresponsible leaking of secret information is certainly not the answer, in my opinion. You mention Valerie Plame. Well, I was listening to a show on NPR this morning, and one of the guests was saying that literally hundreds of people have had their cover blown as a result of the documents published by Wikileaks. Hundreds of Valerie Plames! He was saying that in some cases, their names were x'd out, but that information revealing exactly who they were was left in, resulting in exactly the same result as if they were named. That is irresponsible. Leaking all of those private memoranda from the U.S. State Department has done irreparable harm to both the interests of the U.S. and international diplomacy in general, as well as putting people's lives at risk.

Genuine whistleblowing is a brave and valuable thing. I was recently looking at a list of Time magazine's Persons of the Year, and I was reminded that in 2002, the People of the Year were "the Whistleblowers", women who blew the whistle on Worldcom, Enron and the FBI. I thought that was an inspired choice, and that those women were true heroes.

I do not think the same of Julian Assange, or of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier who allegedly stole the documents and providing them to Assange.

[River]

Touching on what Voronwë said, a lot of diplomacy happens behind closed doors and stays behind closed doors. That's the nature of the beast, and when the beast works, wars don't happen. Corrupting that process via Wikileaks and similar helps nothing and no one.

Neither does making a martyr of Assange, which is what Assange and his team are desperately trying to make it look like is happening right now.

[SirDennis]

Neither does making a martyr of Assange, which is what Assange and his team are desperately trying to make it look like is happening right now.

Martyrdom cannot be conferred without a public to do so.

One thing that should not be overlooked is that the public is interested in these leaks, not simply driven by ennui, but by the very real sense that there is no other way to get at the "truth."

For years Big Media have traded their autonomy and objectivity for front row seats to events. Of these, many report "the news" only in such a way that supports their philosophical or political proclivities. The Truth itself, when we get it, is labelled Right or Left Wing, conservative, liberal, or fringe -- the truth is none of these things, it is just the truth.

Now I'm not saying that the leaks are useful, constructive, destructive, dangerous, benign, or that it is even clear what motivates Assange. What is clear though is that having been starved of it for some decades now the public wants free, unadulterated truth from Media. Or at least what appears to be truth by virtue of not coming from "official sources" (which is sad commentary all its own).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree with you completely, Dennis.