Going Rogue: What Happens Next to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?

WikiLeaksVia the First Church of Mutterhals:

Just a short time ago many Americans had never heard of Julian Assange or Wikileaks. It’s understandable, this past summer was action packed with quality TV programming and most of us can’t be bothered to pay attention foreign goings on. But now you literally cannot flee news of Assange, a man who is quickly becoming a modern day folk hero for the disenfranchised and fed up.

While liberals argue whether or not Assange is a rapist and conservatives call for his head, the rest of us marvel that someone finally stood up and did something about the shitty state of the world that didn’t involve complaining about injustice on a blog or staging a meaningless protest only serving to garner the organizer some much needed attention. People like Assange and Bradley Manning and those involved in hacking Wikileaks opponents are heroes in the truest sense of the word; despite the very dire consequences they face for their actions they forge ahead, because it’s the right thing to do.

It may sound heartless and cruel, and it probably is, but I think the best thing that could happen would be for the US to try Manning and Assange for treason and sentence them to death. Not because I think either of these men are deserving of such a fate, but because this would be the thing that sets off actual change in the world. Not the team Obama brand change, nor the false promises of the tea party and their republican overlords, but an actual shift towards real freedom. Making them martyrs could possibly spur a movement of governments beholden to the people and not the other way around.

The Wikileaks saga also shows the divergence of opinion between young and old regarding what citizens should be allowed to know about their government. Most people my age and younger believe that everything should be out in the open and that transparency can only make us stronger and better informed. Most people older than me believe the government should operate in secret, only letting us know the bare minimum, and rarely even giving us the full, complete story on the little bit that they afford us.

It’s hard countering that argument only because this is how it’s been for so long. These people look at the government as some sort of benevolent god, always with his sons and daughters best interests at heart and operating under complete knowledge and ability. I look at governments the way I look at people; probably corrupt, definitely incompetent and with their own self interests front and center. Given that, the only thing keeping them honest is the will of the people.

This is what happens when the press stops doing its job, when most of the citizenry is uninterested in anything other than gossip and nonsense, and the least qualified candidates are afforded credibility. It was bound to happen, I just had no idea it would be this awesome to witness.

, , , , , , , ,

  • akbar

    this is a good article, and i support a lot of the arguments, especially concerning radical transparency…

    but we must never invite the death of our heroes for minor political gains…i’m sorry but we must always hope and pray for their victorious liberation…otherwise, we have become politically bitter and cynical…

    • Andrew

      Define “hero.” Also define “victorious liberation.”

      While you’re at it, maybe you could define “minor political gains,” “sorry,” “must,” and “pray.”

      • akbar

        i would suggest, with so many requests for definitions, that you consult an english dictionary…first of all, most of the words used were done so in their most commonplace ways…it is obvious that i support assange’s work, making him a hero to me (here i go, pandering to your empty critique), and the main thrust of my very short comment was a suggestion that we ought not call for the death of people we admire, there is something quite glaringly contradictory in this…that supersedes ‘any’ political aim, in my humble opinion..when or if you respond, perhaps you could define “define”..and we could fall down into the Wittgensteinian rabbit hole of the limitations of language…however limited it is, it does seem quite useful to most, who don’t go seeking ambiguities where there are none…

        • Andrew

          http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

          The fact that you know what you’re talking about when you use unspecific rhetoric does not mean that your meaning is obvious to others. When you mentioned “heroes,” you used a term that here in the U.S. most use to refer to the military and CIA personnel that are supposedly threatened by WikiLeaks’ leaks. I don’t use the term that way, so hopefully you can see why I questioned your usage. If you don’t recognize that the “commonplace ways” most of the words I mentioned are used are vague if not Orwellian, then perhaps your interpretation of my requests for specificity as an “empty critique” was a bit of projection on your part. It isn’t difficult for one to misinterpret your original comment to mean that you thought WikiLeaks was “politically bitter and cynical[ly]” releasing documents for “minor political gains” which were not warranted considering the threat they might pose to U.S. intelligence community “heroes.” I’m glad that’s not what you meant, but much of the language you used is ambiguous no matter how strongly you feel it shouldn’t be.

  • akbar

    this is a good article, and i support a lot of the arguments, especially concerning radical transparency…

    but we must never invite the death of our heroes for minor political gains…i’m sorry but we must always hope and pray for their victorious liberation…otherwise, we have become politically bitter and cynical…

  • astraea

    I most heartilly agree, and believe the conciousness of people is being changed, the worm is now changing thanks to those people.

  • astraea

    I most heartilly agree, and believe the conciousness of people is being changed, the worm is now changing thanks to those people.

  • DrDavidKelly

    It certainly has sparked a great deal of debate and I do think it will usher in a new age of journalism. I see the launch of a Wikileaks rival site as a good thing – the more the better. But what of Assange? I think calling for his execution and possible martyrdom as primitive and distasteful. As with many things, I think what we will see is a marginalisation of Assange, a shift of focus that will erode this spectacle to mere amusement. I mean so far the leaks haven’t proven to be anything earth shattering. It is not so much the content but the procurement and dissemination of it that has us excited. But I am amazed time and time again at our ability to simply pass over such things: “gee honey it says in the paper that a leaked document confirms that space creatures are real, The US government orchestrated 9/11, JFK was killed by Nixon and … wow a special on Jim Beam and Cola! Honey what’s for dinner?”

  • David

    It certainly has sparked a great deal of debate and I do think it will usher in a new age of journalism. I see the launch of a Wikileaks rival site as a good thing – the more the better. But what of Assange? I think calling for his execution and possible martyrdom as primitive and distasteful. As with many things, I think what we will see is a marginalisation of Assange, a shift of focus that will erode this spectacle to mere amusement. I mean so far the leaks haven’t proven to be anything earth shattering. It is not so much the content but the procurement and dissemination of it that has us excited. But I am amazed time and time again at our ability to simply pass over such things: “gee honey it says in the paper that a leaked document confirms that space creatures are real, The US government orchestrated 9/11, JFK was killed by Nixon and … wow a special on Jim Beam and Cola! Honey what’s for dinner?”

  • Andrew

    Define “hero.” Also define “victorious liberation.”

    While you’re at it, maybe you could define “minor political gains,” “sorry,” “must,” and “pray.”

  • Hadrian999

    I’m actually more curious whats next for the source of the leak, pretty sure that kid is boned

  • Hadrian999

    I’m actually more curious whats next for the source of the leak, pretty sure that kid is boned

  • jahbless

    God bless wikileaks… God bless mother nature

    • Who+dares+wings

      Which Jewish owned media company does this site belong to?
      http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/

      Julian Assange is either a dupe or an intelligence asset. There’s not going to be more govt transparency.
      There’s going to be legislation introduced to curb i the free flow of information on the Internet at the national and international levels. There’s plenty of it already in place. This Wikileaks thing is
      psyops game theory, not a Hollywood movie with a feel good ending. Freedom becomes automatic with awareness. It’s never been bestowed, or protected. Wake up from your slumber!

  • jahbless

    God bless wikileaks… God bless mother nature

  • akbar

    i would suggest, with so many requests for definitions, that you consult an english dictionary…first of all, most of the words used were done so in their most commonplace ways…it is obvious that i support assange’s work, making him a hero to me (here i go, pandering to your empty critique), and the main thrust of my very short comment was a suggestion that we ought not call for the death of people we admire, there is something quite glaringly contradictory in this…that supersedes ‘any’ political aim, in my humble opinion..when or if you respond, perhaps you could define “define”..and we could fall down into the Wittgensteinian rabbit hole of the limitations of language…however limited it is, it does seem quite useful to most, who don’t go seeking ambiguities where there are none…

  • Daemonwulf

    an what if Assange is just another tool for the system, putting out low-level information so the regime has an excuse to shut down web sites?

  • Daemonwulf

    an what if Assange is just another tool for the system, putting out low-level information so the regime has an excuse to shut down web sites?

    • Innit?

      Get a new bleat, your hypnotised diatribe has disabled any ability to feel. Resulting in the entropy which is clearly well entrenched in your soul.
      You cry out for the truth, for someone to have the courage of your convictions, and when that person arrives, you decry him as another tool of the system.
      You and your ilk are the system. Hypnotised into regurgitating this rotten, poisonous crap.
      Julian Assange is genuine, he is true and he is a man who does what he says he will do.
      This can be felt by anyone not yet hypnotised into submission like yourself.

  • Nkfura

    I would like to believe that it would be so easy to cause government entitities to buckle under the truth. The martyrdom of Assange and Manning may spur some people to be more involved. I think most people know that governments carry out many distasteful and outrageous activities. Just like taking a tour of a hot dog factory. If you saw how they are made you would never have eaten one. Anyway, imo, if wiki-leaks had been releasing documents in a targeted fashion it may have had greater effect. This will just prompt the government and other parties affected by wiki-leaks to defend themselves vigourously with new legislation regarding the internet, create disinformation, and further erode what little freedoms we have left. These “aggrieved” parties are not as stupid as many would believe. When one does not have much money or power one has to be very careful what one divulges. This isn’t “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”.

  • Nkfura

    I would like to believe that it would be so easy to cause government entitities to buckle under the truth. The martyrdom of Assange and Manning may spur some people to be more involved. I think most people know that governments carry out many distasteful and outrageous activities. Just like taking a tour of a hot dog factory. If you saw how they are made you would never have eaten one. Anyway, imo, if wiki-leaks had been releasing documents in a targeted fashion it may have had greater effect. This will just prompt the government and other parties affected by wiki-leaks to defend themselves vigourously with new legislation regarding the internet, create disinformation, and further erode what little freedoms we have left. These “aggrieved” parties are not as stupid as many would believe. When one does not have much money or power one has to be very careful what one divulges. This isn’t “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”.

  • Confused

    “It may sound heartless and cruel, and it probably is, but I think the best thing that could happen would be for the US to try Manning and Assange for treason and sentence them to death. Not because I think either of these men are deserving of such a fate” wtf? treason? wikileaks is based in sweden… Assange is australian. how would they be tried for treason? Manning maybe but Assange?

  • Confused

    “It may sound heartless and cruel, and it probably is, but I think the best thing that could happen would be for the US to try Manning and Assange for treason and sentence them to death. Not because I think either of these men are deserving of such a fate” wtf? treason? wikileaks is based in sweden… Assange is australian. how would they be tried for treason? Manning maybe but Assange?

  • Cameron Macleod

    an ownest man is a rare thing, beacos they kill them, all my life i’v allwase qwoted to peapol, ther is no place on this planet for a ownest man, and i am 48 yearts old, i praye to(my) god that im rowng. sorry for my speling im diclexic

  • Cameron Macleod

    an ownest man is a rare thing, beacos they kill them, all my life i’v allwase qwoted to peapol, ther is no place on this planet for a ownest man, and i am 48 yearts old, i praye to(my) god that im rowng. sorry for my speling im diclexic

  • Joy Breeze

    Just want to say how much I agree with you. When the Pope, despite protecting his paedophile priests, has every government fawning over him but Manning and Assange are hunted down and imprisoned in solitary confinement, it should make people question their own ethics, but as you say, the majority are more interested in gossip and nonsense.

    • Andrew

      Another example is the Obama administration’s claim that the president has the right to declare any American a terrorist and have them assassinated without judicial oversight.

      Laws are for little people.

  • Joy Breeze

    Just want to say how much I agree with you. When the Pope, despite protecting his paedophile priests, has every government fawning over him but Manning and Assange are hunted down and imprisoned in solitary confinement, it should make people question their own ethics, but as you say, the majority are more interested in gossip and nonsense.

  • Andrew

    Another example is the Obama administration’s claim that the president has the right to declare any American a terrorist and have them assassinated without judicial oversight.

    Laws are for little people.

  • Sam

    I don’t know how old you are Stacie Adams, but I’m in my 6th decade and I and my fellow ‘crumblies’ fully support radical transparency. We tend to overlay it with reasoned arguments about practicalities etc, which may be why you mistake our profound wishes for openness and honesty with reluctance to learn the truth.

    However, I believe this ‘secrets for the sake of security’ line has been far too overspun. One could use the argument against government that they try and sell us ID cards with: if you’ve got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from being databased (i.e. having all your personal details out there).

    On another point, Assange and his colleagues may be impeded, by fair means and clearly foul, from going much further with Wikileaks. But, the experience of my advancing years tells me that he is simply the first. There will be many others who follow in his footsteps. Honestly, I think the game is up for governments all over the world. There’s a new day dawning and covert, manipulative and patronising government has lost the war.

  • Sam

    I don’t know how old you are Stacie Adams, but I’m in my 6th decade and I and my fellow ‘crumblies’ fully support radical transparency. We tend to overlay it with reasoned arguments about practicalities etc, which may be why you mistake our profound wishes for openness and honesty with reluctance to learn the truth.

    However, I believe this ‘secrets for the sake of security’ line has been far too overspun. One could use the argument against government that they try and sell us ID cards with: if you’ve got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from being databased (i.e. having all your personal details out there).

    On another point, Assange and his colleagues may be impeded, by fair means and clearly foul, from going much further with Wikileaks. But, the experience of my advancing years tells me that he is simply the first. There will be many others who follow in his footsteps. Honestly, I think the game is up for governments all over the world. There’s a new day dawning and covert, manipulative and patronising government has lost the war.

  • Who+dares+wings

    Which Jewish owned media company does this site belong to?
    http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/

    Julian Assange is either a dupe or an intelligence asset. There’s not going to be more govt transparency.
    There’s going to be legislation introduced to curb i the free flow of information on the Internet at the national and international levels. There’s plenty of it already in place. This Wikileaks thing is
    psyops game theory, not a Hollywood movie with a feel good ending. Freedom becomes automatic with awareness. It’s never been bestowed, or protected. Wake up from your slumber!

  • http://www.matterofprinciple.net Genie

    http://cryptome.org/

    a good source to learn about wikileaks

  • http://www.matterofprinciple.net Genie

    http://cryptome.org/

    a good source to learn about wikileaks

  • Jwoww

    You say you look at people as incompetant, yet you want our government to tell them everything and essentially leave it to them?

  • Jwoww

    You say you look at people as incompetant, yet you want our government to tell them everything and essentially leave it to them?

  • Innit?

    Get a new bleat, your hypnotised diatribe has disabled any ability to feel. Resulting in the entropy which is clearly well entrenched in your soul.
    You cry out for the truth, for someone to have the courage of your convictions, and when that person arrives, you decry him as another tool of the system.
    You and your ilk are the system. Hypnotised into regurgitating this rotten, poisonous crap.
    Julian Assange is genuine, he is true and he is a man who does what he says he will do.
    This can be felt by anyone not yet hypnotised into submission like yourself.

  • Andrew

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

    The fact that you know what you’re talking about when you use unspecific rhetoric does not mean that your meaning is obvious to others. When you mentioned “heroes,” you used a term that here in the U.S. most use to refer to the military and CIA personnel that are supposedly threatened by WikiLeaks’ leaks. I don’t use the term that way, so hopefully you can see why I questioned your usage. If you don’t recognize that the “commonplace ways” most of the words I mentioned are used are vague if not Orwellian, then perhaps your interpretation of my requests for specificity as an “empty critique” was a bit of projection on your part. It isn’t difficult for one to misinterpret your original comment to mean that you thought WikiLeaks was “politically bitter and cynical[ly]” releasing documents for “minor political gains” which were not warranted considering the threat they might pose to U.S. intelligence community “heroes.” I’m glad that’s not what you meant, but much of the language you used is ambiguous no matter how strongly you feel it shouldn’t be.

  • Grooveboss

    if the armed forces want to keep things so secret, maybe they should stop writing secret stuff down like a 12 year old girl in her journal. they are just taunting us with their power to kill

  • Grooveboss

    if the armed forces want to keep things so secret, maybe they should stop writing secret stuff down like a 12 year old girl in her journal. they are just taunting us with their power to kill