First, They Came for WikiLeaks. Then... | The Nation

First, They Came for WikiLeaks. Then...

  • Share
  • |
  • |
  • StumbleUpon.com
  • |
  • Recommended by 0
  • |
  • Text Size A | A | A

In July the Washington Post published "Top Secret America," a series of articles based on a two-year investigation by Dana Priest and William Arkin. The report meticulously documented the growth of a vast secret government in the wake of September 11 encompassing at least 1,271 government organizations, 1,931 private companies and an estimated 854,000 individuals with top-secret security clearance. Secret America, Priest and Arkin wrote, has become "so large, so unwieldy and so secretive" that it is not only unaccountable, it is practicably unknowable—even to the officials charged with administering it. The series elicited much praise from fellow journalists, but from the government there was—nothing. The Post's report generated not one Congressional hearing, subpoena or reform. As far as we know, Secret America continues its work unchecked and unchastened.

About the Author

Also by The Author

President Obama is about to make a major decision regarding US troops in Afghanistan. Progressives must push him to pull out of the quagmire and reinvest at home.

Levi Strauss objects to our story on Haiti's minimum wage increase. We stand by our original reporting and set the record straight on what we did and did not say.

The equanimity with which the government was able to breeze past the Post series is telling in light of the great ruckus caused by WikiLeaks and its slow drip of more than 250,000 State Department cables. The Post didn't tell secrets so much as outline the contours of the shadow world from which they originate; WikiLeaks rips off the veil. It's the exposure of these secrets that has the world's power elite so rattled. Pols and pundits are calling for the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that Assange be assassinated. As a magazine that champions free speech, The Nation defends the rights of leakers and media organizations to disclose secrets that advance a public interest without fear of retribution—or murder. If the Justice Department goes after Assange as an enemy of the state, what's next? The arrest of the editors of the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País, the news outlets that collaborated with WikiLeaks?

By and large WikiLeaks has come to embrace the ethics that guide traditional news organizations' disclosure of secrets, and it should be afforded the same protections. WikiLeaks' critics assert—without evidence—that its leaks have endangered lives, but a senior NATO official told CNN in October that "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the [Afghanistan] leak." Critics characterize WikiLeaks' actions as indiscriminate document dumps, but at press time WikiLeaks had released only 1,095 cables, almost all vetted and redacted by its partner news organizations. WikiLeaks even asked the State Department to help redact the cables before they were released. It refused.

What's really at stake here is not individual privacy, the safety of sources or America's diplomatic leverage—it's the secret state. Over the past decade, our leaders have come to see secrecy as a casual right instead of a rare privilege. The cables released so far illustrate this corruption: routine, even banal, matters of diplomatic correspondence are labeled "NOFORN" (not for release to foreign nationals), "Confidential" or "Secret."

Beyond revealing the unprecedented scale of secrecy, WikiLeaks has also brought to light the antidemocratic actions secrecy protects. In Yemen, for example, the United States conducted secret airstrikes on suspected Al Qaeda targets, then conspired with Yemeni leaders to pretend that Yemen's military had done it (see Jeremy Scahill, "WikiLeaking Covert Wars," in this issue). Here is an instance where America's standing in the world was put at risk. But it's not WikiLeaks that did it. It's the policy of covert action and the lies told to cover it up.

  • Share
  • |
  • |
  • StumbleUpon.com
  • |
  • Recommended by 0
  • |
  • Text Size A | A | A

If you like this article, consider making a donation.

Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.

Comments

[ Post Your Comment ]
Showing 9 comments of 9
Current Sort: last to first
1. posted by: garydchance at 01/01/2011 @ 11:19am

Here is the state hard at work in secrecy for the past decade. Why are they called Fusion Centres? What lessons have been learned after the suicide bomber killed seven CIA agents at the drone operations hut in Afghanistan? Are these lessons being hiddien from the public in the secret government waging a secret war? Here are my comments about what I think is really happening with grave implications for the domestic US public: http://bit.ly/g2GJ3i

2. posted by: Lady Sappho at 12/17/2010 @ 11:51pm

First they came for WikiLeaks, but I didn't consider them a media outlet, so I did nothing.

Then they came for "The National Enquirer", but that's just a tabloid rag, so I did nothing.

Then they came for "The New York Times" but they're just a bunch of leftist elites, so I did nothing.

Then they came for "The Nation", but that's just a neo-Communist, anti-American rag, so I did nothing.

When they finally came for Fox News, there were no journalists left able to report on the scandal.

And so it was that freedom of the press died in America.

Sappho

3. posted by: al loomis at 12/12/2010 @ 5:00pm

"Beyond revealing the unprecedented scale of secrecy, WikiLeaks has also brought to light the antidemocratic actions secrecy protects."

america is not a democracy. the people have no right to 'know' anything. simply because 'rights' without power are not rights, but merely privileges subject to change or termination at the will of the sovereign power.

if you want democratic rights, first get democracy.

4. posted by: desertmom at 12/10/2010 @ 6:37pm

Julian Assange is a journalist. I appreciate all his hard work in trying to enlighten the world to the facts. I also appreciate that The Nation understands and supports this and look forward to more articles along this line.

5. posted by: limoman at 12/10/2010 @ 11:20am

Since TN and it's editors are in support and acsess to all secrets then why not make a page and publish for all to see ALL internal documents of your publication. I for one would be interested in who contributes money how decisions are made as to what to publish and not publish how the money contributed is spent for salaries expenses etc. How about it Katrina? Are you willing to show us just how strongly you believe in transparency?? As the saying goes what's good for the goose......

You here at TN are great at talking the talk but are you willing to walk the walk?

6. posted by: Geogre at 12/10/2010 @ 10:36am

The insane oversimplification of identifying the putative leader (Assange) with the organization and all it does is horrific and familiar. (Remember "Stop Noreiga" and "Stop Saddam?") Of course WikiLeaks must be protected from persecution in its persons, but that does not automatically mean that we offer it a blanket pardon.

There was and is a distinction between the "Collateral Murder" case, where WikiLeaks provided the world with evidence, and the State Department cables, where it is simply sharing for the sake of sharing. There is no suggestion that there is anything illicit in the cables -- only the usual business of diplomacy conducted for the purposes of the State Department, which, in contrast to the Pentagon, is to foster peace. Were this leaking the Xe contract renewals, the shadow world around State defense, then it would be one thing, but showing diplomatic cables? That is not a journalistic leak: that's simply a childish and reflexive act.

Journalists are at least somewhat guided by an informing principle other than, "We have it." I fear that we on the free speech side are put in a bind by this leak and our enemies on the right. We needn't give WikiLeaks universal approval when we say that John Bolton's friends are crazy and evil.

7. posted by: SteveL7777 at 12/10/2010 @ 1:45am

Seems like Governments, banks, and big business can be as heavy handed, as they want to be but when exposed they develop a real thin skin.

8. posted by: lelani at 12/09/2010 @ 10:23pm

Several years ago, I subscribed to The Nation. Your editorial position regarding Wikileaks and Julian Assange has inspired me to re-subscribe. The integrity and courage displayed by journalistic organizations such as Wikileaks, The Nation and Amy Goodman's War & Peace Report stand in stark contrast to the behavior of all 3 of our branches of government. Please continue your support for Wikileaks, government transparency and accountability and free speech.

9. posted by: aussieview at 12/09/2010 @ 7:02pm

1) To add to The Editors point - I believe that WikiLeaks is actually registered as a news organisation in Sweden, so it is more than entitled to the standard "free press" protections.

2) I think our Western governments need to get out of the habit of calling for "offending" people to be assassinated. It doesn't do anyone's nation brand any good - instead of standing up for higher ideals, it just makes us look like the other terrorists out there - only bigger and badder.

3) The staggering fact about the WikiLeaks releases is that no one is standing up to say that these cables are fabrications or lies. So one would infer that they actually reflect the truth: a scary truth as The Editors suggest.

4) Finally, the only people that WikiLeaks puts at risk are America's diplomats - who governments overseas may treat as spies, and America's informants who live within governments, such as the Australian senator who has recently been exposed. The latter are a particular concern - I thought that divulging privileged information to a foreign government was indeed espionage.

Showing 9 comments of 9
Current Sort: last to first

Post Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment