WikiLeaks has taken over the fancy of news seekers all over the world. To some of us, it was a positive and fair use for the technology. Julian Assange has described how he retrieved the information. The problem was that lot information was given to Assange by Bradley Manning, an intelligent analyst, working in California. Manning who voluntarily gave the details of secret documents to Assange, had the access to the security network. He infiltrated into secret documents through SPIRnet, used by the US defense and state department and Joint worldwide Intelligence Communication System for the files of classified top secrets-That was illegal. Freedom of speech, the latitude allowed in the dissemination of information and news and the flexible codes in these matters do not warrant to retrieve and to open to the world news media that is considered secret by the American government. But when it comes to Assange, I do not see what the big deal is and why his life is being threatened-Once a journalist gets news, and especially secret spoken words of world leaders about each other, then it becomes a fair game to write about it. For Assange, it was his greatest opportunity to be famous. There are some postings that have shed light to how American soldiers poorly behaved in Iraqi and Afghanistan- Lot of that has already come out in the independent media. The idea that the exposed secret information that the American establishment considered vital to its reputation, necessary for saving lives and future possible open dialogue in privacy with the leaders of friendly countries ought to be kept in secret and should be unavailable to general public has troubled both Americans and British. Some of the world politicians, bureaucrats and leaders consider their privilege to be sarcastic and critical to the leaders of other country- But they wish those remarks should have remained off the record. The hypocrisy in dealing with the foreign leaders is as old as the history of modern politics- It is part of dealing with difficult leaders and countries. A country may have its laws to save and protect the information, necessary for its national security; that is troublesome when that becomes tricky.
Few years ago, I located on internet some of secret meetings in the state department regarding Pakistan and what they were thinking- Once they were declassified, they were open to the public. Under the Freedom of Press Act, the federal government is obliged to give out the information that does not affect the national security to those who asked for that information. To the embarrassment of some known names in politics and to delight of some, the trove of secret information and private conversation has changed the traditional ways to read news. The internet has been changing the ways of journalism and thinking in the media world- It is a pleasant change. Internet has become part of everyday living. I wonder how I ran business and spent time in reading books and journals; and how I wrote my papers in the university without internet. There are always those who would exploit the technology and use it for their dirty aims and desires- That is the nature of things that anything that is beneficial and worthwhile could be misused. But the WikiLeaks publishing cannot be termed as something diabolical. There is no doubt that it has become a nightmare for some international men, who have said or asked something for their benefits or advantage, embarrassing. The callousness, spitefulness, and self-aggrandizing of some of the world leaders have surfaced that they wished should have never happened; or they wish that they should have not opened their mouth in describing others in the first place? Should public have the right to know what has been revealed? Is it consequential to know how the king of Saudi Arabia feels about Iran or Zardari? Or is it merely an entertainment, such as for Pakistani television commentators? The desire to know more than we ought to know; and the extravagance of exciting news have captured our inquisitive nature. Who decides what should be known to the people? Should that decision be based upon the interests and concerns of super powers? The past restrictions and the possibilities of secrecy have been evaporated due to the miracle of internet. We are living in the electronic world where the flight to imagination is as near to us as a click of a button.
The world is changing faster than as we walk on it. The scientific progress has changed our lives. The home computers, internet, cell phones, solar energy, nanotechnology, superconductors, new medicines, and space technology have transformed us to live, do and act differently. We are fascinated by the new world and respond to it in interesting ways. The thing about scientific progress is that one cannot reverse or even resists it for a longer period of time. Some religious fanatics may not like the scientific progress; but they have to live with it. The Taliban who hate western scientific culture, have to manipulate the science for their vicious agenda through internet- That use of internet by the extremist groups may be objectionable and should be watched, if possible. But once any country, including USA, opposed what was not in their best interest, dilute the real malevolence in the use of this technology. We can find history, science, poetry, names, places, politics, and whatever heart desires. So why should we not know the sentiments and agenda of the world leaders?
Finally, the King of Saudi Arabia called Zardari “a dirty head of state”; and Nawaz Sharif “dangerous”- I think that both men are dirty and dangerous. Nawaz Sharif comes from a menial background; and is a billionaire through shady deals and loans that he never paid back- Is it not that dirty and corrupt? He has no respect for judiciary as he physically harmed the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court; was not playing dirty with the justice. Yes! Nawaz Sharif is a dangerous man like most Pakistani democrats. If a quack performs a heart surgery, would he be considered dangerous doing that? If a draftsman takes the job of a civil engineer and build a bridge, he would be a dangerous man building that bridge? We already know that Zardari is dangerous, including most of the federal ministers, for Pakistan, as a quack performing the major surgery. We have this president oblivious to what is and what to come, except for his and his family’s survival and gain of money and power. Well! The patient (Pakistani voters) has asked for this quack to perform something that he has no clue to how it is done; and the quack does not care if the patient (Pakistan) lives or dies. The Americans wish these quacks to stay in power as long as they are stuck in Pakistan and the region that requires direct western involvement. They need a weak moron and a corrupt gangster like figure who could be pushed around to acquiesce unreservedly on the policies that may be resisted by a strong and honest leader. Yes! He is dirty like most democrats in the country. So Assange of WikiLeaks has to tell us more than we do not know. We know that the military run this country- They can kick out any government any time, any day. We already know that we have nothing more than dirty and dangerous bunch running the country. We love our dirty and dangerous democrats; our people wish to have the right to vote these devils rather than having clean and safe lives.