Wikileaks and the Long Haul

Like a lot of people, I am conflicted about Wikileaks.

Citizens of a functioning democracy must be able to know what the state is saying and doing in our name, to engage in what Pierre Rosanvallon calls “counter-democracy”*, the democracy of citizens distrusting rather than legitimizing the actions of the state. Wikileaks plainly improves those abilities.

On the other hand, human systems can’t stand pure transparency. For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities. (If Aaron Bady’s analysis is correct, it is the damage and not the oversight that Wikileaks is designed to create.*)

And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that can’t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency.

As Tom Slee puts it, “Your answer to ‘what data should the government make public?’ depends not so much on what you think about data, but what you think about the government.”* My personal view is that there is too much secrecy in the current system, and that a corrective towards transparency is a good idea. I don’t, however, believe in total transparency, and even more importantly, I don’t think that independent actors who are subject to no checks or balances is a good idea in the long haul.

If the long haul were all there was, Wikileaks would be an obviously bad thing. The practical history of politics, however, suggests that the periodic appearance of such unconstrained actors in the short haul is essential to increased democratization, not just of politics but of thought.

We celebrate the printers of 16th century Amsterdam for making it impossible for the Catholic Church to constrain the output of the printing press to Church-approved books*, a challenge that helped usher in, among other things, the decentralization of scientific inquiry and the spread of politically seditious writings advocating democracy.

This intellectual and political victory didn’t, however, mean that the printing press was then free of all constraints. Over time, a set of legal limitations around printing rose up, including restrictions on libel, the publication of trade secrets, and sedition. I don’t agree with all of these laws, but they were at least produced by some legal process.

Unlike the United States’ current pursuit of Wikileaks.*

I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want.

The Unites States is — or should be — subject to the rule of law, which makes the extra-judicial pursuit of Wikileaks especially nauseating. (Calls for Julian’s assassination are even more nauseating.) It may be that what Julian has done is a crime. (I know him casually, but not well enough to vouch for his motivations, nor am I a lawyer.) In that case, the right answer is to bring the case to a trial.

In the US, however, the government has a “heavy burden”, in the words of the Supreme Court, for engaging in prior restraint of even secret documents, an established principle since New York Times Co. vs. The United States*, when the Times published the Pentagon Papers. If we want a different answer for Wikileaks, we need a different legal framework first.

Though I don’t like Senator Joseph Lieberman’s proposed SHIELD law (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination*), I do like the fact that it is a law, and not an extra-legal avenue (of which Senator Lieberman is also guilty.*) I also like the fact that the SHIELD Law makes it clear what’s at stake: the law proposes new restraints on publishers, and would apply to the New York Times and The Guardian as it well as to Wikileaks. (As Matthew Ingram points out, “Like it or not, Wikileaks is a media entity.”*) SHIELD amounts to an attempt to reverse parts of New York Times Co. vs. The United States.

I don’t think such a law should pass. I think the current laws, which criminalize the leaking of secrets but not the publishing of leaks, strike the right balance. However, as a citizen of a democracy, I’m willing to be voted down, and I’m willing to see other democratically proposed restrictions on Wikileaks put in place. It may even be that whatever checks and balances do get put in place by the democratic process make anything like Wikileaks impossible to sustain in the future.

The key, though, is that democracies have a process for creating such restrictions, and as a citizen it sickens me to see the US trying to take shortcuts. The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us “You went after Wikileaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.”

Over the long haul, we will need new checks and balances for newly increased transparency — Wikileaks shouldn’t be able to operate as a law unto itself anymore than the US should be able to. In the short haul, though, Wikileaks is our Amsterdam. Whatever restrictions we eventually end up enacting, we need to keep Wikileaks alive today, while we work through the process democracies always go through to react to change. If it’s OK for a democracy to just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing, the idea of an internet that further democratizes the public sphere will have taken a mortal blow.

228 Responses to “Wikileaks and the Long Haul”

  1. WikiLeaks Legitimacy in Terms of Information Ethics « Drawer2.0 Says:

    […] secrecy, which is essential for diplomatic contacts (one of many articles/essays to this issue by Clay Shirky). So some of the information exposed by WikiLeaks in the Cablegate leak probably crosses this line, […]

  2. Mike Says:

    @RLinton “Why haven’t we had any “leaks” regarding private correspondence with Assange’s lawyer or all material which his lawyer most likely has in his possession regarding this case?”

    and

    “Had he shown some intestinal fortitude and started with a country like China or Russia, I have no doubt their organization would have been hunted down and tossed in a cell in Siberia with little resembling a trial.”

    Your post seems to confuse the leakers with (one of) the publishers of the leaks.

  3. Clive Rich Says:

    Very good and thought-provoking blog. I agree that complete transparency undermines countries’ abilities to negotiate in the normal way because it creates a climate of mistrust and also undermines the essential of good negotiating – that the other side must believe that you mean what you say! Sometimes disclosure can be the best thing to help a negotiation process forward, but only if it is deliberate

  4. Weekly round-up: Best of the web « The DIG INDIA blog Says:

    […] on Wikileaks and how it’s impacting the media scape from interactive media commentator Clay Shirky, author Umberto Eco and Wired […]

  5. Adrianna Says:

    One of KGB’s main goals during the Cold War between Communism and Capitalism was subversion: the infiltration of open free capitalist societies in order to slowly turn them around into an oppressive regime, where no freedom of speech, no personal integrity and opposition to those in power would be possible. It is said that that process typically took 20 years – the education and brainwashing of one generation.

    I think what we see now in the reaction of the USA’s power elite is beyond Adropov (KGB’s head) wildest dreams of turning the country of freedom into an oppressive regime. US citizens say that they have never been so afraid of their government as they are now.

    Who has interest for the US citizens to be afraid? For all of us to be afraid? Whose who sell “security” at the expense of our freedom and their accountability.

    Is the USA slowly becoming a closed, oppressive regime, where the personal freedom and integrity are sacrificed for some imaginary “national interest” that serves those who have put themselves in a position to exploit?

    The only way to fight organised crime is to expose it, the only way to fight absolute power is to keep it transparent. It is encoded in the nature of organisations that closed organisations become abusive, while democracy can only work in transparency.

    The observation is that US citizens are asked to sacrifice their personal integrity (why do they squeeze my breasts at the airport, why all the humiliation?) and freedom in order to allow the exploitation to continue. They are tricked to believe this is the ‘national interest’, while it is the interests of corporations and political bureaucracy for which most of the population works. Just as in Communism national interest was defined by the interest of the Communist Party, in the US ‘national interest’ seems to be equal to the interest of the elite at the expense of the average citizen.

    These cables must be translated into action. Who will investigate and prosecute Shell, Pfizer and the other companies, who hide behind “state security” and “state interest” to exploit both the US citizens and those weaker states and people, who do not have the means to defend themselves?

    Those, who hold power must be transparent and must be accountable.

  6. Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and Propaganda « Merry jeremiad Says:

    […] else, often Glenn Greenwald in particular. Some other pieces that I have liked are here, here, here, here, here, and […]

  7. Jamie Riden Says:

    1. No-one has ever been successfully prosecuted for publishing leaked documents – as opposed to leaking them in the first place. That’s down to your first amendment rights.

    2. I wouldn’t have published some of this material, some of it might be ill advised. On the other hand, I don’t want anyone publicly demonised with calls for his assassination, kidnapping and rendition when he hasn’t broken any law. Free speech never was convenient for everyone.

    3. Claiming that wkileaks and Assange don’t publish their internal workings, documents, secrets is fatuous at best – they are not elected, they don’t require me to pay taxes, they don’t represent me on the world stage. Governments operate to completely different standards, hence FOI legislation and such. FOI does NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE CITIZENS, FFS.

  8. Anonymous Says:

    For years, they’ve been telling us, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” and for years, they’ve been hiding behind “National Security” and National Security Letters, which they’ve used to gag even librarians.

    Now the shoe is on the other foot, and apparently they’ve had PLENTY to hide. We need more Wikileaks like organizations, and fewer lower-anatomy orifices, the likes of Senator Lieberman.

    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

  9. Koala Says:

    According to Clotaire Rapaille who is a psychologist / marketing researcher, we tend to view the word through the prism of culture codes. For example the code for a car in US is IDENTITY, the code for an alcholic beverage is GUN. Also each country has its own cultural fault line, there is a constant tug-of-war across this fault line, and people tend to cluster in one side of this cultural line.

    The cultural fault line in US is between freedom (as in letting go) and prohibition. This is why Clinton had so much trouble in his second term, and a scream could finish Howard Dean.

    Now let’s look at this Wikileaks debacle; someone looks as if they are “letting go” and immediately “the other side” forms, and they want to “contain things”.

    But intellectually this is not the issue here. We are talking about technology, evolution, not *choices* per se. There is no way to contain anything electronically, and no single person is “freeing” anything. People who are working, thinking using computers who are used to certain things are just doing something that comes normal to them. MANY people are contacting Wikileaks releasing stuff because technologically it’s so easy. If it can happen, it will happen.

    A generation that is used to Googling stuff for everything wants to Google and find all details about its government.

    Previous generations built a government structure based on technology they had.

    We need to build another form of structure that is built on today’s technology. Not yesterday’s.

  10. Why WikiLeaks Matters « A Tale Told by an Idiot Says:

    […] . . I’m deeply ambivalent about some of what WikiLeaks does, and what this affair portends. Governments need to keep some […]

  11. BJ Long Tapered Pipe Cleaners 300 Product And Product Reviews | vacuum cleaner 4 u Says:

    […] Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky […]

  12. Blogging and Affiliate marketing | Internet Marketing Information Says:

    […] Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky […]

  13. Mirjam Eikelboom Says:

    Citizens who don’t like the crack-down on Wikileaks can now sign a petition at Avaaz.org

  14. The WikiLeaks debate « billheinrichdotcom Says:

    […] Clay Shirky’s blog has some really interesting analysis on the debate. The Guardian is all over the story. Over at the Atlantic Alexis Madrigal has a very comprehensive running post. […]

  15. Wikileaks oder die Krise der Netzphilosophie « Freunde der Zukunft Says:

    […] Shirky entdeckt den Wert der secrecy, der Öffentlichkeitsvirtuose Jeff Jarvis ist angesichts des […]

  16. Travel in Istanbul - Wordpress Video Tutorials Says:

    […] Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky […]

  17. Wikileaks and other things | The Ego Chronicles Says:

    […] if anyone still hasn’t read Clay Shirky’s article on wikileaks, please do so, here. It’s not that long, and it is written and reasoned well enough that anyone from any side of […]

  18. LSDI : Wikileaks: un po’ di imbarazzo per gli ambasciatori è una tragedia, 15.000 civili uccisi in Iraq una statistica Says:

    […] avremo gettao via la libertà di parola in questa frenesia di illegalità. Come Clay Srky, sono profondamente dubbioso su alcuni aspetti dell’ attività di Wikileaks e di quello che questa vicenda preannuncia. I […]

  19. dante. Says:

    This was a well-said, well-thought out argument that I can definitely say I’ll be forwarding to those in my social network.

    I agree wholeheartedly for the nedd for balance, as well as the fact that our government’s reaction has been a bit against protocol. I don’t support SHIELD, but I do agree that some degree of confidentiality is necessary for the process of foreign policy and political negotiation to take place.

    What we need is dialog, acknowledgement, and resolution — not death threats and illegal censorship.

  20. WikiLeaks Live Updates 12.08 « BrothersFiasco Says:

    […] Shirky’s blogpost on the issue, was quoted approvingly the Guardian’s unusually long editorial today. […]

  21. WikiLeaks Live Updates 12.07 « BrothersFiasco Says:

    […] Internet guru Clay Shirky has an interesting post on WikiLeaks and how America’s pursuit of the site opens it up to the charge of hypocrisy: The leaders of […]

  22. Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber » Blog Archive » 5 Aspekte der aktuellen WikiLeaks-Revolution Says:

    […] USA, jedes Unternehmen mit Einschüchterung zum Abbruch der Beziehungen zu WikiLeaks zu bewegen, ist ohne gesetzliche Grundlage weder demokratisch und noch rechtens […]

  23. Wikileaks an asset for the democracy brand | Caledonian Mercury: Scottish news, stories and intelligent analysis from Scotland's first truly online newspaper Says:

    […] as marketer Ian Thomas says, Wikileaks really raises the game here – expanding the ambition of this informational […]

  24. Wikileaks an asset for the democracy brand | Caledonian Mercury - Pat Kane Says:

    […] as marketer Ian Thomas says, Wikileaks really raises the game here – expanding the ambition of this informational […]

  25. esmeyny Says:

    This is an excellent and interesting blog entry.

    But I want to point out that Assange is a foreigner in a foreign country. He has no democratic say in the actions of the US on foreign soil (and, incidentally, neither have I or the civilian population of Iraq).

    The printing presses of Amsterdam today are restricted by libel laws, it is true, but they are neither restricted by libel laws of the Church nor of the US.

    Even you take it for granted that the US citizens can decide “democratically” on a law for foreigners in foreign countries. There is nothing democratic about US citizens deciding the fate of foreigners or wikileaks.ch, or .se.

  26. Pigsaw Blog » Blog Archive » Bookmarks for 7 Dec 2010 Says:

    […] Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky"Like a lot of people, I am conflicted about Wikileaks. […] The key, though, is that democracies have a process for creating such restrictions [on Wikileaks], and as a citizen it sickens me to see the US trying to take shortcuts." Sharp insight, as usual. (wikileaks democracy analysis government law ) […]

  27. CONTROVERSIES@B H OBAMA :who? record_BIRTH SHALL BE ISSUE IN USA & GLOBE FOR YEARS TO COME IF US DENY ISSUE:OK? | Best Pet Supplements Says:

    […] Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky […]

  28. Wikinomics of Leaks « 6 to cut, 4 to sharpen Says:

    […] more frightening is the reaction governments that are already hostile to liberties will have. Clay Shirky points this out: The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us “You went […]

  29. Roberto Guareschi Says:

    Simon Jenkins wrote this recently in the Guardian:

    “Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can only default to disclosure“.

  30. FRAMING JULIAN ASSANGE – SWEDEN, SEXUAL ASSAULT RAPE ALLEGATIONS, THERMONUCLEAR INFORMATION SHARING AND A LEAKY CONDOM SCANDAL « Horiwood's Blog Says:

    […] Shirky says international actors should be free to communicate freely: This post from Seattle Journalist Clay Shirky, which does a fine job of weighing the democratic impulse to make information free and government […]

  31. RLinton Says:

    The thing that puzzles me most about this WikiLeaks debacle is the presumed central tenant of “transparency” which they claim to champion. Yet, as we speak, their founder has been arrested and there is serious debate about the charges. Why haven’t we had any “leaks” regarding private correspondence with Assange’s lawyer or all material which his lawyer most likely has in his possession regarding this case?

    Obviously, it behooves Mr. Assange to keep certain “secrets” and confidential material regarding this case private so that he is not revealing his strategy to the prosecution. Yet, presumably by his doctrine, sovreign nations are not allowed to maintain secrets for very similar reasons.

    If his idea is to move into an era of completely transparent government workings, I’m afraid he’s a bit off his rocker. Any country that walks out naked on the international stage will be quickly devoured in that arena. Further, if he assumes complete personal secrecy will be a part of this New World order, I can tell him he’s dead wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, the public posting of -anything- is fair game. (Note – Wikileaks own posting of Sarah Palin’s private emails.)

    There are many other countries in the world where lack of any sort of transparency is a true problem. The US government is flawed for sure, but at the bottom of a long list. The only reason WikiLeaks has gotten this far is it’s EASY to mess with the democratic country that has free speech. For qite sometime they have been posting everything from Sarah Palin’s personal emails (as much a sI am loath to defend her) to classified documents on Iraq and Afghanistan. Had he shown some intestinal fortitude and started with a country like China or Russia, I have no doubt their organization would have been hunted down and tossed in a cell in Siberia with little resembling a trial.

  32. David Says:

    Once the dust settles from this incident, we still need to find ways to lower the likelihood of future leaks. I put this article up to help shed a little light into what was happening inside the US State Department’s IT security program prior to the leak: http://blog.sharpesecurity.com/2010/12/04/thoughts-around-wikileaks-cablegate-and-internal-state-department-security/. Hopefully others will react to similar warning signs before they are hit with similar leaks.

  33. The Most Important Aspect of the WikiLeaks Debate « Derek DeVries – Imprudent Loquatiousness Says:

    […] the US and other foreign governments.  Some of the best I’ve read comes from Clay Shirky (“WikiLeaks and the Long Haul”), Jeff Jarvis (“WikiLeaks: Power Shifts From Secrecy to Transparency”) Evan Hansen […]

  34. Master Card sestřelen | Atlara's Blog Says:

    […] jí to nelíbí, bude to katastrofální prohra pro svobodu projevu,” varoval Shirky. Jeho komentář v této věci souhlasně cituje mimořádně dlouhý redakční komentář dnešního deníku […]

  35. Leaking wikis: they only work if they stop being publishers « Richard Stacy @ Stacy Consulting Says:

    […] Shirky, Richard Stacy, social media, social media revolution, Wikileaks Clay Shirky has just published some thoughts on Wikileaks.  He makes some very good observations, not least the importance of ensuring that we […]

  36. Il fenomeno Wikileaks e l’Operazione Payback | Says:

    […] Rodotà Vittorio Zambardino Noam Chomsky Dan Gillmor Mark Lee Hunter Clay Shirky John Naughton Evgeny […]

  37. Patricia Says:

    Very, very well-voiced article.

    I read a tweet earlier today that said, “KKK can accept payments through Mastercard & Visa but Wikileaks cannot?” If war is imminent, indeed, Wikileaks takes the KKK off the map.

    I’m all for democracy, but leaving us open to this kind of terrorism is . . . un-American.

  38. Ken Arromdee Says:

    Look at it this way: Suppose that instead of leaking documents he was launching missiles, and assume he was in a country not interested in arresting him or extraditing him for this activity. Also assume that we’re not interested in declaring war on this country. What would we do?

    We’d invade, of course. We’d send in soldiers or Marines or bombers with the aim of catching him or killing him and preventing him from launching any more missiles. He’s doing things to us that would be acts of war if he had been a government, and while there are still certain things we shouldn’t be able to do to him, democracy is irrelevant. Enemy soldiers (or soldier-like attackers) don’t get the benefits of our democracy; they can’t vote that we don’t kill them and they certainly can’t expect us to follow the laws of their home country in going after them. And the laws of *our* country let us kill them, or if we don’t, let us use all sorts of underhanded methods to catch them. You’re allowed to subvert the democratic process to catch wartime enemies–that’s what war *is*.

    We don’t refer to soldiers as “assassins” because they kill enemy combatants. And don’t think that because he’s not actually launching missiles he’s not an enemy combatant.

  39. Politically Motivated, or Just Convenient? The Charges Against Julian Assange Says:

    […] I think we can't know." "It may be that what Julian has done is a crime," said Clay Shirky, an Internet and technology consultant and author, referring to Assange's role in the dissemination […]

  40. webament Says:

    Please join the debate on wikileaks:

    http://webament.org/forum/topics/debate-on-wikileaks

  41. How secret are these cables really? « Christopher Schwartz's Weblog Says:

    […] for good reason; on the other hand, it is indeed being undermined. The blogger Clay Shirky sums up the need for WikiLeaks in this regard very well: Over the long haul, we will need new checks and balances for newly increased […]

  42. Robbo Says:

    “For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon.”

    Interestingly, the UK coalition government has forced both parties to very publicly drop pre-election committments. The general reaction has been ‘so what, compromise is inevitable’, and general requests to those who won’t accept compromise to ‘grow up’. So I think honest negotiation can actually withstand a bit of publicity, but of course the dishonest variety can’t.

    Incidentally I can’t help a small smile at the governments saying ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear’ to its citizens, while acting as if they themselves have a great deal to fear from exposure of what they routinely hide.

  43. Ichiro Furusato Says:

    I believe it was Gore Vidal who said that the most important role of the press was to tell us what our government was doing. That members of the press are among the loudest of those braying for Assange’s blood is a tragedy, but hardly surprising the press is largely owned, freedom now only a dream.

  44. WikiLeaks and American Grief, Stage One: Denial « The New Print Says:

    […] Clay Shirky, as usual, has an opinion I cannot help but agreeing with, as it expresses concern for how a technology is being used or abused by human actors in the short run, while acknowledging that the technological and social shift is the more relevant factor that all parties will have to wake up to very soon: I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want. […]

  45. Mike Says:

    S writes “We should be hearing from the U.S. State Department about their immediate plans to hire great minds from Google and other tech companies to create the world’s most secure communication system. ”

    I’m sure we will, just as I see guys on tech forums ordered by their corporate bosses to come up with such systems. They all forget that there are human elements somewhere in the chain. If the brain can perceive something through eyes, ears, touch, … then you can’t lock it down with a computer system. Want to stop people copying stuff, then they’ll take a screen-shot. Want to stop screen-shots, then they’ll take a photo and run the image through OCR – that’s just consumer off-the-shelf solutions.

    Basically we now have a more public arms-race type of escalation on data security and infiltration. My solution: make humans better. Educate them, make them feel part of a healthy system of government…

  46. Free Blog Hosting Services For First Time Bloggers - Wordpress Video Tutorials Says:

    […] Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky […]

  47. gmulder Says:

    Thank you for making a very important point. Apart from the central point that governments should act using the law they created and stand for and not in the manner of a Hollywood secret service, I would like to stress that the discussion is needed whether we can still accept the amount of secrecy currently shielding democratic governments from those who put them in power.

  48. Nick Says:

    Your argument appears to sanction the unlimited jurisdiction of U.S. law and with that U.S. interpretations of Jurisprudence. It is precisely this interpretation with its projection of imperial pretensions that WikiLeaks and others object to. The cables have demonstrated the propensity for the U.S. to act as global policeman, global judge and executioner, arguing a case which wraps this in a framework of global lawmaker legitimises the other self appointed roles.

  49. S Says:

    The majority of discussion and focus has been on Mr. Assange who did not write the documents or leak the documents.

    The brunt of the U.S. government’s focus should be determining how to better secure their communications. We should be hearing from the U.S. State Department about their immediate plans to hire great minds from Google and other tech companies to create the world’s most secure communication system. We need it, because it isn’t Mr. Assange we need to worry about. Ironically, some of the leaked documents further highlight the mounting efforts of China to hack into corporate and government networks. And even Google has publicly acknowledged China has had some success in this regard.

    As difficult it is to acknowledge, we must credit Mr. Assange with highlighting the lack of security in our protocols. Would it be better to have a country like China quietly taking advantage of these flaws in our system without our knowledge? Perhaps less embarrassing in the short run, but critically damaging in the long run. We are all too focused on the messenger. It is an unfortunate human tendency. We need to move forward and focus on allowing our government employees to deliberate privately without fear of having internal discussions released into the wild.

  50. Bucket List Says:

    The Us Should seriously consider their next move on Assange.
    And in what light they wish to be seen by other countries.

    There are simply two ways of handling this situation,since as promised,the code for the “insurance” file WILL BE POSTED online,just minutes after the wrong choice is made by the US Gov.

    If that will be the case,a specified List of US Government heads will roll inside the Bucket neatly cut and sliced.
    The end result in opening “The Pandoras Box” will be severe for the US,and WILL lead to a war,the the US will not win.
    As we see it,as of today,war is Imminent.

    I guess one could call it WWIII,since the documents clearly show the errors of the US GOV. including several war crimes not just conducted in Guontanamo bay,but also on US soil.Not even mentioning conspiracies agaist ita own people.

    These are hard times we are all living through.
    And we hope the US makes the right choice… if not the consecuences will be severe and vital.

Comments are closed.