Dear Wizer #1: WikiLeaks

Dear Wizer,

WikiLeaks?

Signed,
Uncertain

Dear Uncertain: WikiLeaks is an operation looking for notoriety as a purveyor of secret documents. The documents are usually reports and memos detailing our country's low opinion of other country's bad habits.

The name WikiLeaks is poorly chosen because it means, literally "Quick Leaks". Most of the time, the leaks are very long in development, and not delivered quickly. In fact, last time I looked, the site was down.  In addition, I would think that WikiPedia would have some sort of trademark position on the name, but I digress.

It's not unusual for the president's administration to take issue with organizations wanting to tell the truth (cf: Obama vs. Fox News). Whether the truth was exposed illegally is probably without question (I don't doubt we have a lot of laws for hiding the truth). The laws must be followed. Still, The Wizer applauds truth in all its forms, and the internet is the best system yet for organizing and making truth available. So in many ways, WikiLeaks is necessary, and in many more, inevitable.

Is this bad?  Is what WikiLeaks is putting out "some serious bad JUJU"? Let's examine that. There are very good reasons to keep secrets from our enemies, especially the ones that are not already US Congressmen. Some of these secrets' exposure will cost lives. Certainly it's dangerous for the spooks in the field who have  had their cover blown. As part of the damage, we've likely had some very helpful information outposts now hopelessly compromised.

But there's a little explored upside, too. Now, with all our cards and some of theirs on the table, everybody knows what we are thinking. That hasn't happened since Reagan. It's a big-time reset button, and is probably about time we started dealing in true facts. Most of what we do outside of this country has little to do with the business of running our country.It deals instead with our country's meddling with other countries. Don't get me wrong, we need to keep an eye on things in Teheran, Hanoi, and, obviously  Marin County CA, but it's what we do with this intelligence that counts, and sometimes (perhaps most often) we do more damage than good. Like handing a bag of money to a dictator, or sliding a weapons contract under a door.

The truth doesn't necessarily change any policies. It will take votes (and a good many of those) to change things. But what the truth will do for us is shine a brighter light on our leadership as to how we are conducting our business with the rest of the world. I for one fea that less than a cloak and dagger organization with loose tethers to American reality.

I don't know what this guy (Assange) 's motivation is, and I don't think motive is relevant here. For all I know, he just wants to be rich, mysterious, and famous. He's got his 15 minutes already. For the most part, I didn't find any one piece of the information leaked as being all that interesting. So, the Saudis would like us to bomb Iran? big surprise there. The Yemeni want to provide cover for our ops? Sure, maybe one good movie can be made from that. In my view it's hardly important for anyone to understand Assange's goal, unless they intend to stop him. Is stopping the truth something we should endorse? No; but it's a losing battle in any case.

I do think Assange has done something of significance though: he broke through one of the false barriers to truth, and others will rush in to capitalize on it. Apparently there's a market for it (or there wouldn't be 100 news stories a day on the subject). Can Google-Leaks be far behind?