I started out supportive, although I didn’t like WL’s disdain for privacy, but have gradually begun to grow quite suspicious.

My posts on the subject over the last few months:

http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/07/31/chris-floyd-on-wikileaks/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/07/29/wikileaks-forces-outing/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/06/27/more-on-assange-and-wikileaks/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/06/23/assange-avoiding-traveling-to-us/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/06/09/wikileaks-role-in-julius-baer-case-linked-to-soros-sachs-israeli-intelligence/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/05/21/australia-confiscates-passport-of-wikileaks-founder/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/04/16/reports-suggest-wikileaks-may-be-front/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/04/08/iraq-war-firing-on-old-women-and-taxis/

No, in fact, it’s not my place to judge them. The anti-imperialism of the non-Afghan is a cultural and historical phenomenon that is separate from that of Afghans. Jamil can speak as an insider, I cannot. I know there are 101 reasons why someone might collaborate, or might pretend to, and under what pressures and constraints from opposing sides. Political anthropology is packed with stories about middlemen, brokers, intermediaries, local chiefs in colonial situations. It is also why I personally cringe any time I hear anyone speaking in serious terms about Hamid Karzai being a puppet. It is far too simplistic, cartoonish, and not respectful of a wide variety of contradictory facts, like the same contradictions he tries to manage (successfully, for him to be in that position for so long). The U.S. may have wanted a puppet, and expected a puppet, but they have clearly been let down.

The anti-imperialism of the non-Afghans and that of the Afghans mostly coincides in putting an end to the foreign occupation, which is of benefit to both sides for very different reasons. I don’t want to see any Afghan killed, collaborator, guerrilla, whatever–I want to see them left to solve their problems in their way. And they can: they have been ruling themselves for millennia before the U.S. even existed.

Some will still come away from this saying “Max Forte supports Islamic extremists” –or any of the other idiotic variations proffered by vacuous patriots whose chance for developing a sense of self was probably beaten out of them in childhood, then kept out by drugs and peer pressure, and then replaced by a military sense of self. As I said before, the Bush logic still reigns with too many: you are either with us, or against us. Well, I am definitely against you…but that tells you nothing at all about who I am with. No problem: the right wing knee jerk knows which assumptions to make, and then take as fact. They argue from faith, not facts. The people who are most deluded by American propaganda seem to be Americans themselves…and perhaps Albertans(?). It seems as if blowback is the only blow Americans are capable of delivering in the end.

It was Assange’s point that the release of these records are to serve the anti-war cause. Otherwise, yes, I too am for as much transparency as may be legitimate and reasonable.

Yes, collaborators are identified by name, and location.

Many thanks for your comments, and the strong points you raised.

- Your thoughts about the danger of the data being used as an argument for the war are not that relevant: every piece of information that could ever be released to the public will always be an “ideological Rorschach”. Although Assange is obviously opposed to many aspects of the war itself, it seems to me that his main goal is to push for larger transparency for its own sake (educating the public so that they can form their own opinions). You seem to feel that Assange will have failed if the case for war gets stronger. I don’t think so.

- The above does of course make your points about the human cost of this transparency all the more important. If WikiLeaks loses sight of the danger the documents could pose for Afghan citizens who aided the coalition troops, they will have failed the most basic ethics requirements. I’m hearing a lot of conflicting reports about this; in your opinion, are any “collaborators” identified in the data that has been released?

- In your own comments section you seem to wish for Assange to disclose his sources. You do know that that’s kind of an impossible ask, right? I don’t need to tell you that Mannings chances in court will fall dramatically if the entire world knows that he’s guilty, not to mention the negative effect it will have on future whistleblowers. The identity of sources is not irrelevant, but there’s a very good reason journalists can shield that information from public knowledge.

- On crowdsourcing: of course every bit of information always has to be contextualized as fully as possible. However, this has to be done by independent experts, which isn’t what happens now: our context is continually being shaped by governments and (media) corporations. I don’t know if a lack of context is preferable to a false context in all cases, but I think we’ve seen quite enough of the latter.

Thanks for the great article!

http://www.joshuaproject.net/index.php

I agree with Max on Wikileaks.

My concern is that some items claimed to be leaked are readily available online.

Wikileaks recent dump is a triumph for the awful mainstream media: Assange has now been blessed by the media/givernment elite.

Yes, a lot of material I write ends up on Cryptome but that is John Young’s decision whether to post/publish or not. Cryptome has been around a long time and is a great service. I hope John Young has an heir apparent for the project. John’s candor is something I really appreciate as it is so rare these days.

I very much hope that, yet again, I will be proven wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/26/wikileaks-data-bolster-suspicion-iranian-ties-extremists/