Decide On Assange

Is Julian Assange
worthy of your
Senate vote?
This website is neither for or against Julian Assange and is not affiliated with Wikileaks or any other political party.
To help you Decide on Assange, we have gathered several arguments, or Belief Bytes, for and against his run for the Senate. You’ll need to decide if you agree or disagree with each Belief Byte based on its supporting evidence.
In an attempt to control bias, the Belief Bytes and the order you view them will be randomly selected from an evolving collection of curated and crowd-sourced contributions.
Start Deciding
BeliefBytes

The Guardian, not Assange, enabled the release of uncensored US Cables. Assange is neither reckless nor dangerous.

Initially, WikiLeaks and major worldwide newspapers carefully redacted personal information from the US State Department cables before publishing only a fraction of them. For several months, newspapers published stories at a reasonable pace that allowed them to redact and release cables with WikiLeaks' help. However, an unfortunate chain of events involving Guardian journalists left the entire un-redacted database of cables exposed online. He wasn't reckless in WikiLeaks, he won't be in the Senate.

Beginning 28 November 2010, The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde worked with Wikileaks to minimise any harm to people mentioned in the cables (by deleting informants names etc.). Months later, an unfortunate chain of events resulted in two Guardian journalists unwittingly publishing the password for an encrypted file available online that contained all the unredacted cables. How all the cables became published in an unredacted form is disputed. The full explanation from WikiLeaks can be found here, while the Guardian's account is here.

Aware that foreign intelligence services could now find and use the unredacted cables to harm people, but ordinary people could still not read them, Assange decided to publish all of the cables without redaction. The cables were quickly mirrored across the Internet in a form easily searchable by anyone with an Internet connection. While WikiLeaks blamed The Guardian, The Guardian denied any wrong doing and pointed to former WikiLeaks employees who may have had a part in ‘leaking’ the entire volume of cables.

Assange's participation in Parliament constitutes a contradiction of his - and WikiLeaks' - anarchistic politics.

Assange is (or at least, at one point, explicitly identified as) a political anarchist. He argues that government and the state operate on a foundation of lies and secrets - what he calls ‘conspiratorial government’ - that leaking can help to undermine and reveal. This is also the principled basis upon which WikiLeaks is founded.

Anarchism is not - as popular opinion, or the media, would have us believe - merely the pursuit of ‘chaos’ and ‘disorder’, but a sophisticated ideology premised on opposition to externally imposed hierarchy. One of its most famous adherent, Pytor Kropotkin, describes it as “the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.”

This is the social vision that motivates Assange, and provides the inspiration for WikiLeaks. Assange describes ‘transparency activism’ as WikiLeaks' operational principle, claiming the organisation's modus operandi is to “get out suppressed information into the public.” This aim of ‘setting information free’ has an explicitly anarchist political aim: to undermine the capacity of what Assange calls ‘conspiratorial government’ to keep secrets. Through the use of new technologies - especially computers, encryption technologies, and the Internet - WikiLeaks has positioned itself to undermine the capacity of the state to maintain conspiracies. As Assange told Time in 2010, when deceptive organisations are placed under public scrutiny, they can either “reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavours, and proud to display them to the public”, or they can “lock down internally and balkanize, and as a result of course, cease to be as efficient, open and honest, or the can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient”. WikiLeaks aims to ‘split’ these conspiracies by “eliminating important communication channels”. By revealing secrets through leaks, hierarchical organisations are less able to conspire. Leaks thus help to “carry us through the mire of politically distorted language and into a position of clarity”, with the hope of inspiring citizens towards “a course of ennobling and effective action.”

In participating in the upcoming Federal elections, WikiLeaks - and Assange himself - is fundamentally contradicting its ideological and operational principles. Perhaps they can bring more transparency and accountability to state institutions. But to do so by participating in the hierarchical structures they condemn, and which produce such barbarism as they've been set up to reveal, seems contradictory. Assange's reflections on ‘conspiratorial government’ (written when he participated in the ‘Hacktivist’ movement) can be found here.

Assange has catalogued the real cost of war to help lead towards peace. That's the kind of accounting our Senate needs.

The Afghan and Iraqi ‘warlogs’ that WikiLeaks leaked created new clarity for the events of those wars. American citizens were shown a more accurate view of the expense of war in both financial and human losses. It's time Australia deployed the same idea of accountability in its own Senate.

Although the ‘warlogs’ were reported on by various media agencies around the world the utility of that kind of information continues to be explored. However, independent researchers recently used the Iraq ‘warlogs’ to show that the public reporting of deaths probably missed around 60% of the casualties that are confidentially recorded by the US army. Wikipedia is a decent place to start understanding if these documents changed public perceptions of war and if they caused harm for locals or soldiers.

Not even Wikileaks Party members trust their own politics, how can everyday Australians?

Julian Assange's Victorian Senate running mate, Leslie Cannold, recently quit the WikiLeaks Party, complaining of power struggles, white-anting and a failure to live up to its democratic ideals.

Leslie Cannold announced on Wednesday the 21st of August that she was resigning as the party's second Victorian Senate candidate.

Her resignation came after it was reported that the WikiLeaks Party had directed its preferences to right-wing parties; the Shooters and Fishers Party and the white nationalist Australia First Party. Both parties are now preferencing ahead of the Australian Labor Party, The Liberal Party of Australia and the Greens in the Wikileaks Party's NSW Senate race.

In her resignation statement on Wednesday, Leslie Cannold hit out at the failure to lodge Senate preference forms in WA and NSW in line with the National Council's instructions, stating “This is an unacceptable mode of operation for any organisation but even more so for an organisation explicitly committed to democracy, transparency and accountability.”