By Ben Wright
The latest headlines in the Wikileaks “Cablegate” scandal have been more and more baffling, resulting in an Obama administration full of inconsistencies and mind-numbing paradoxes.
Let’s take, for example, the Dec. 7 statement from the State Department announcing the theme of 2011’s World Press Freedom Day, the theme of which is “21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers.” The statement later goes on to express concern about the “determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.”
The author of this statement, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Philip J. Crowley, apparently has no sense of irony and is not a comedian. Crowley, apparently, had not been paying attention to the White House’s efforts to silence individuals and restrict the free flow of information.
But that’s not all. Crowley, again, the author of the statement above, said in a Dec. 2 press briefing that Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, “obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist.”
Wait, what?
So here we have the State Department on one hand condemning the efforts of “some governments to censor and silence individuals,” and on the other hand doing just that.
The thing is, though, Assange isn’t a journalist. Assange runs a website that obtains and leaks secret documents. It’s the choice of the New York Times or Time magazine or SCAD District to report on those secrets.
Yet we don’t hear a debate from Attorney General Eric Holder about whether or not the editor of the New York Times is a terrorist for releasing information. In fact, the New York Times went to the White House to seek their approval for printing certain cables, and to see if they felt the disclosure of information would harm national security. The Times ignored some of the White House’s advice and redacted some names, but still sought permission.
But back to journalists with a “particular political objective.”
There’s a frightening implication in saying that revealing the truth in total, without any comment or analysis, is in some way a “political objective.” I doubt the State Department would be singing the same tune if Assange had leaked 250,000 cables from Iran or North Korea.
Telling or revealing the truth isn’t even a free speech argument; it’s simple morality. Even though Assange should be afforded the basic right of freedom of speech, what he’s done isn’t an exercise of that right; it’s simply distributing information that was given to him.
Simply put, Cablegate comes down to the cost of telling the truth. The leak did embarrass the U.S. greatly, but that doesn’t make Assange in any way a terrorist or an enemy of the state.
More embarrassing is the response from the government. President Barack Obama, who ran for office promising transparency in government, is now seeking to charge Assange with conspiracy, which will probably go through.
What remains to be seen is if anything will come of it. The movie, “Fair Game,” which I reviewed at the 2010 Savannah Film Festival, also deals with the disclosure of classified information. Scooter Libby, the leaker in that case, was eventually pardoned in a classic example of Bush-era cronyism.
Will Julian Assange, the “terrorist” leader of a pro-transparency movement, get the same treatment?
Without friends in high government echelons, he’s screwed. In fact, the only people willing to speak out for him are regular citizens like me.
And, lately, we’ve seen how little the men and women in charge are willing to listen to us.
