Many American security scholars were happy to write about human rights abuses by those who are not American or their allies. During the "War on Terror", few wrote against Americas actions and those who did were treated with suspicion that they may be supporting terrorism. Wikileaks is one of those organisations. The problem is the fact that Wikileaks has provided clear cut evidence that supports years of war crimes yet to be addressed. These crimes are not being addressed because the diversion is at the messenger. Allegations without substance are made against Wikileaks as an organisation or its founder, Julian Assange. Delaying the spotlight resting upon American shoulders, is nothing but old fashioned propaganda. Fortunately, with nearly everyone on this planet being an internet user, most are smart enough to know when they are being lied to. Wikileaks and the support of some media outlets has assisted in giving the population an opportunity to decide whether Wikileaks is what the United States government has painted them as.
Propaganda against Wikileaks in comparison to Cold War propaganda.
The problem is that many countries in alliance of United States have been shielded from knowing what is happening to the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deaths are more often assumed to be a mistake rather than a deliberate act of hatred. This was until earlier this year when the Iraq video "shook the world" into a new understanding. It was the precipice that we were being lied to. We were being lied to about the amount of civilian deaths, the conduct we believe our soldiers are upheld to and the accountability within government. For those never touched by government corruption or knew it existed, were suddenly awoken to this. Those who thought that America were not as bad as other countries in upholding human rights, suddenly realized that it was only because America was monopolizing the UN. Not only that, they were collecting data on the general secretary, Ban ki Moon. So invasive was the espionage, it was described in some news commentary as "frightening". Yet Hilary Clinton and other US government commentators have described the leaks as "an invasion of privacy".
There is yet more to be said as US continues its diversion from their actions. Three major leaks have demonstrated criminal behavior, the same word they used to describe Wikileaks founder. Yet these statements tend to fall at the wayside as the facts from the leaks as bare and raw data stand alone beyond the propaganda United States has utilised. For most the reactions seem to leave more questions and one of the most burning:
When is the United States going to be charged for war crimes?
Upon the release of 251, 287 United States Embassy cables, congressman Peter King has requested Wikileaks to be place upon the terrorist list. He stated that the organisation, "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".
The problem is that he has not defined in legal or even layman's terms exactly how leaking diplomatic cables is a terrorist act. Whilst terrorism is not officially defined by United Nations, in "Measures to eliminate terrorism", terrorism is defined as:
"criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them"
First, dependent upon which jurisdiction defines leaking United States diplomatic cables as a criminal act is the beginning of the problem. A little over a month after 9/11, United States introduced the Patriot Act to as a measure to deter acts of terrorism in America and around the world. United States have pumped billions of dollars into intelligence that the Washington Post reports as, "out of control". Whilst the patriot act combined with a heavy intelligence community, might be successful within United States at defining Assange as a criminal, much is still yet to be questioned about the agents that broke their own laws to obtain monopolize the UN. Sadly, the suggestion that Julian Assange is a terrorist or Wikileaks is a terrorist organisation is simply a diversion from the real crimes committed.
Second, provoking a state of terror must be towards the general public, not the United States government. If revealing corruption by governments causes wide spread panic, it is more likely to stem from the governments responses or tightening up of laws surrounding freedom of speech. Its as relevant as someone shooting their parents and then gaining sympathy for being an orphan.
Third, Wikileaks has published such a vast range of documents that have revealed many aspects that have supported both ends of the political spectrum. Whilst there is a great deal of information exposing United States, all information is presented in a raw format even devoid of personal opinion to accompany the release. It is certainly a stretch to suggest there is political motivation in raw releases.
If United States did decide to consider Wikileaks a terrorist organisation, they risk diluting the meaning for concern when there are real and far more dangerous threats to the population. Other media organisations may avoid publishing even the slightest criticism against governments, creating another chilling effect. Without that, governments cannot properly evolve from their mistakes which in most cases leads to the eventual fraying of foundation. Any government that begins to see general civilians as threats, create them and thus losing the wide support that they once had, lose the very power that they were trying to protect. If United States is to take any action surrounding the leaks, it is to identify the mistakes and learn from them. Its more about not acting badly in the first place than trying to cover it up.
