Wikileaks

It’s been interesting to watch the "debate" about Wikileaks. It has basically been reduced to two positions – one where Wikileaks is good and must be protected. The other position is, of course, the opposite of that, namely that Wikileaks is bad and must be stopped. The fact that the extremes of the latter view have been expressed by the ever idiotic Sarah Palin is a good indicator of just how debased this “debate” is.

As always, reality is always slightly more complex than polemical debate positions would suggest. I believe that Wikileaks has done some good work, particularly in showing the cost of prosecuting the war on terror. Have the leaks jeopardised the lives of soldiers? Possibly – but nowhere near as much as the decision to put them into a war zone in the first place. And the whole Cablegate thing really is a load of stuff and nonsense – all it has done is show the terminally naïve that diplomats are not always diplomatic behind each other’s backs. Thus far, there has been nothing damaging enough to provoke the sort of hysterical reaction towards Wikileaks by some. Embarrassing governments is not in itself a bad thing; in fact, it could be argued that in a democracy it is a very positive thing.

Of course, the fact that nothing damaging has been released so far doesn’t mean that they won't release such material in the future. I do wonder what sort of editorial control Wikileaks has – if it has any at all. But that’s something for the future. In the here and now, I would like to point out that the reactions of the pro-Wikileaks brigade to the accusations against Julian Assange are just as hysterical and tribal as the reactions to Wikileaks of its detractors. Yes, the timing does seem a little suspect but in all honesty does anyone actually know – other than the accuser(s) and the accused – whether a crime actually took place? I find that I literally can’t comment because I just plain don’t know – but surely most other people watching this saga unfold are in exactly the same position as me?

Besides, even if Assange is eventually found guilty (and in a credible display of justice, not in a stitch up kind of way) then what impact does, and indeed should, this have on the work undertaken by Wikileaks? Surely the output of that organisation should be judged on, well, the content of that output? I mean, an individual’s non-criminal actions can be viewed in such a way as to make them distinct from any crimes they do commit. Thus, Rosemary’s Baby remains a great film despite the reprehensible crime of its director.

The point I’m trying to make is that Wikileaks itself is neither good nor bad. The best way to assess it is to watch what it brings into the public domain, and judge it based on that. The content it places in the public domain then can – and should – be assessed, debated and dissected in through public debate. But that debate is only going to be meaningful if we can conduct it in a slightly more critical way than in broad, binary terms of “good” versus “bad”.