Wikileaks, wicked or what?

Are our secrets safe in their hands?

Assange, does this man threaten the world? Assange, does this man threaten the world?
Wikileaks, what have we learnt? Some say nothing useful, for example to compare the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler, as one US diplomat has done, is that going to cause the sky to fall in? We learn that Gordon Brown was thought of as being 'unstable', did the US need a diplomat to tell them that? I challenge anyone to find a single revelation as opposed to confirmation here. On the other hand we have learnt a great deal about the reporting of this. Some reporters are playing it straight and simply relaying the more memorable tit-bits. For others this is a heaven-sent opportunity to get on their high-horse. This is so hypocritical-going-on-funny it's hard to know where to start.

In the Spectator Rod Liddle writes -

I find the Wikileaks man Julian Assange a self important and potentially dangerous gimp.

And in the Guardian Jonathan Powell writes -

It is very difficult to conduct diplomacy effectively when your confidential deliberations are made public in this way. Mutual trust is the basis of such relations and once that trust is breached, candid conversations are less likely.

We may wonder what these, and other reporters would do, if they were in sole possession of this data? The MSM loves to portray itself as the natural outlet for secrets that the public have a 'right to know', are they a little miffed that Assange got there first? Generally the MSM lives in the same bubble as the people, especially the politicians they report. The political folk, and their hangers-on, may be bothered by these leaks but more sensible types, taxpayers, voters and buyers of newspapers could not give a stuff.

'Mutual trust', says Powell; trust is a funny thing and the MSM is in no position to pretend it's the final arbiter on trust or anything else. A large section of the MSM makes a living from ignoring: trust, confidentiality, the candid aspect of the conversations and communications of some not very important people, the lives of footballers and back bench MPs are not that interesting. Powell also says -

Following 9/11, Tony Blair had regular fortnightly video conferences with President George Bush. On one occasion, after a series of leaks of letters from the British side recording previous sensitive discussions, Bush stopped in mid-sentence, looked down the camera at the young official taking notes at the No 10 end and said: "Write that down carefully. I want to read it right when it is leaked."

Again this is not at all surprising but is funny. Blair was PM when the biggest assault on the privacy of UK citizens began. It was his Ministers that wanted an ID card system and supporting databases that would have exceeded the power and intrusion of even those in use in China. It was his Ministers, civil servants and civil authorities, who arrogantly thought that they could devise a system that would be 100% secure. Wikileaks have told us what we had long suspected, our world leaders, pillars of the 'international community' are shallow and pathetic. Their opinions are not superior to ours, they should be grateful we tolerate them.

So three cheers for Assange who is no more a self important and potentially dangerous gimp than people who are named in the leaks, or those like the reporters, who are not.