Wikileaks and Afghanistan

Earlier this week internationally recognized news organizations suffered heavy criticism from the anti-secrecy organization Wikileaks for redacting the name of a nation surveilled by the NSA. Even Glenn Greenwald voiced his support for redacting the country’s name for fears “that doing so could lead to increased violence.” Following this, the Wikileaks Twitter account (widely assumed to be run by Julian Assange directly), engaged Mr. Greenwald with vitriolic language and slurs, culminating in the account claiming that it would release the name of the target nation in 72 hours. 

72 hours passed, and Wikileaks did not released the name. 3 hours after the deadline the account posted the following tweet:

We have moved our publication on the identity of NSA "SOMALGET" country X to another date for media cycle reasons.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 23, 2014

Bizarrely enough a mere hour and a half later, the handle did in fact publish the name which turned out to be Afghanistan.

STATEMENT: WikiLeaks statement on the mass recording of Afghan telephone calls by the NSA http://t.co/CYXBvjKJHj #afghanistan #nsa #snowden
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 23, 2014

While it is unclear if this in fact is true, it is certain that this action appears to be a desperate attempt at gaining attention. Anyone who has followed the news and has a memory beyond the last minute is probably more than aware of the strife in Afghanistan, and the widely varied sources of violence. It was only a few months ago when the Taliban, one of the most significant insurgent groups in the country attacked the United States Consulate in Herat, killing 3. Months before this, the Taliban set off a car bomb, murdering a US diplomat and four other Americans. 

The Taliban are not the only group which has attacked American and International interests in Afghanistan:

In September 2012 there were widespread riots over the film “Innocence of Muslims”, even though many of the rioters had not in fact seen the film clip. 

In February 2012 there were riots for a week over American troops dumping Korans in a garbage dump and burning them (the ones responsible were disciplined by the US Army). 

On April 1, 2011 the United Nations compound in Mazar-e Sharif, was stormed and as many as ten foreigners were murdered (some may have been decapitated) in response to the burning of a Koran a week and a half earlier by an American pastor. The riots continued throughout the country for a week following the attack on the compound. 

Earlier in 2011 thousands demonstrated in Qalat after young Afghan children alleged that foreigners had ‘disrespected the Koran’. 

What is clear from this brief catalogue of recent events is that Afghanistan remains a very tense place with unrest possible at any moment and for any reason. Something like what Wikileaks has alleged can prove to be deadly, even for innocents or civilians whose presence in the country is entirely innocent and well-intentioned. 

I do not know if Afghanistan is the country redacted by Glenn Greenwald, but if it is, the callousness of Julian Assange is horrifying. It would truly demonstrate how egomaniacal Julian Assange is and how little he values a human life that is not his own. 

Who's afraid of the NSA? The Roles of Government and the Corporation

Throughout the series of NSA surveillance scandals, what has surprised me the most is the public's response. While out and about I have heard people talking politics, something that has rarely happened to me in America. Everyone cares, and everyone has an opinion. While overhearing these shockingly loud (perhaps Americanesque is the best term for this phenomenon) conversations, I have also noticed something which troubles me. People are angry with 'the government' for this perceived slight, yet at the same time are ok with voluntarily giving the exact same personal information to big corporations (Facebook, Google, Apple, etc). Why would people be afraid of the government and not of the corporation, when they are doing very similar, if not the exact same things? Who is accountable to whom?

The role of government in its citizens' lives is relatively straightforward. It exists to protect its citizens, and to provide services. Its legitimacy may be derived in a variety of ways, which is dependent on the form of the government. In America, our representative constitutional republic holds elections where we either directly or indirectly select decision makers for ourselves. The government is not out there to 'get us', it has no reason to individually seek out and destroy certain parts of our society unprovoked. All the government asks is that we participate in the democratic process, fund it by paying our taxes, and do not try to overthrow it or create civil disorder. Government's role in its citizen's lives can be quite different than this, especially when it is not a democratic institution and it does not derive its authority from a popular mandate. It is also common for government officials and legislative bodies to work to maintain or augment their power, primarily in the form of being re-elected, but occasionally by other means. However, even with this potential case of abuse of power, the persecution or repression of individuals is not a guarantee.

Contrast this with the relationship between citizens and corporations. A corporation's sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders and owners. It does usually provide some sort of service to its customers (whether this service is essential, useful or even beneficial is another matter), but its motivating factor is profits. The customer has something which the corporation wants (money), and is ACTIVELY trying to get. This is not the symbiotic (and often mutually beneficial) relationship between a government and its people. 

So why be afraid of one's government? Sure there are many examples of dictatorial regimes around the world suppressing even the most basic voting rights of its population, but this is a far cry from the domestic situation in the United States. The United States of America was not created to oppress people, or to exploit them, but to free them from the colonialism of the British. The true problem is when corporations impose their interests on elected officials or other governing bodies. By exerting their influence (whether this is through political contributions or PR campaigns), they can corrupt the role of government as steward of the people. This does NOT make a government inherently evil or malevolent, but is more than anything a reminder of the motivation of for-profit companies and the potential for abuse, especially if they work to affect political change. Before blaming 'the government', consider the other potential perpetrators who have more to gain and more reasons for acting against your interests.