The Internet: Hypocrisy 2.0 vs Revolution 2.0

Wikileaks frontman and founder, Julian Assange, is still fighting extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges that coincidentally arose shortly after the unprecedented leak of hundreds of thousands of US military documents. 

As the fallout from the Leak spread across the world claiming victim after victim, World Governments, and the US in particular, cowered in fear of the most powerful weapon of all: knowledge. People began to taste what true freedom of information was and the kind of power the collective force of whistleblowers, tech geeks and a listening public could wield. But the euphoria surrounding the power of the Internet to facilitate knowledge and freedom of speech was short lived - at least in the case of the US and its Allies. 

The fall of Mubarak has been hailed as a great victory for the power of the Internet, along with social media like Twitter and Facebook. The role of Google exec, Wael Ghonim, has been highlighted by the media and the group Ghonim allegedly formed, along with other tech savvy young Egyptians, became known as Revolution 2.0 - not unlike the spontaneously formed Anonymous born out of frustration with the vilification of Wikileaks and its enigmatic founder. But why is Revolution 2.0 heroic while Wikileaks irresponsible and even terrorist?

It depends on who the target is, and this shows who really controls the media and the Internet itself. Mubarak attempted to shut down cyber portals and was condemned for it. The same was done to Wikileaks with seemingly no sustained public or State response to speak of. Some Republican senators even demanded that Wikileaks even be named a terrorist group. The current lull, and even silence of Wikileaks, as well as the virtual neutralization of Assange, seem to suggest that it has indeed been deemed a threat though not officially (or legally) so.

Western hypocrisy knows no bounds and the Internet has made it possible for that hypocrisy to spread far, wide and fast. To the credit of the relevant US authorities, it was acknowledged that no laws were broken by Wikileaks. Freedom of Speech was the only 'crime'. But it turns out that Freedom is a commodity which the US seems to have purchased, patented and copyrighted. And they seem to have cornered the market and restricted supply, and only the currency of those who say what is in accord with the American agenda is any good.  

The Problem with Wikileaks (for us, not the The Man)

The next Bond villain?

Wikileaks and its enigmatic silver haired, Bond-villain like leader, Julian Assange, came into our consciousness with a resounding 'WTF!' (as said by governments around the world). I think any true lover of freedom will applaud the intent and actions of Wikileaks, as it seems to be removing the veil of secrecy and hypocrisy worn brazenly by First World nations, and the US in particular.

While Wikileaks seems to have become a much-needed thorn in the side of the West, especially with the latest revelations, there are a few issues and questions that naturally arise:

• Why do Governments condemn Wikileaks instead of their own people who are the ones clearly 'leaking the Wiki'? US senators called for the site to be branded a terrorist organization - wouldn't that make the leakers terrorists too?

• Governments can clearly leak what they wish for their own purposes (which makes said Governments complicit in terrorism if US senators get their way - see previous point). This latest leak is more problematic for the Middle East than the US as it has the potential to divide the Region (based on the 'fact' that Saudi Arabia has been asking the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities). This leak definitively supports a Western agenda and works in favor of the US who would like nothing more than a divided Middle East. Quite honestly, this latest leak actually has the US coming out looking pretty good - but not too good. But good enough. Look at this BBC condensation of the contents and judge for yourself. 

• No doubt the credibility and agenda of Wikileaks will be questioned. Surely conspiracy theories as to its true origin will (or already have) arise. Is it truly an independent body, or part of the West's propaganda machine? The bit of info that most supports the latest US mission most of all - and no doubt will take centre stage in Western media outlets - is the alleged acquisition of North Korean WMD's by Iran. The now, Twosome of Evil (Iraq was after all saved by an American Bootoscopy), is really being set up for an all-out Iraq style US invasion and just in time for the fresh NK/SK conflict. Coincidence?

• If Wikileaks is truly independent, how can it be sure that 'leaks' are truly 'leaks' and not political PR and power plays (see point 2)?

• Will Julian Assange reveal that he is the Anti-Christ by 2012, and is Obama going to be consumed with jealousy as a result?

That's all I've got. Feel free to add what you will. I gotta take a leak.

[EDIT: check this link for at least one differing view on the Leak courtesy of Ahmadinejad]