The more I learn about Julian Assange, the more I like Terry Jones.
They're both inconsiderate, irresponsible idiots in my book, though each started with good intentions and the belief that his actions were righteous and courageous. But Jones had the grace to back off when he saw that his Koran-burning threat stunt was endangering innocent lives around the world. Assange is using the threat of further, more dangerous WikiLeaks revelations to fend off prosecution on, among other things, rape charges.
There is a place for whistle-blowing, and shedding light in dark places sometimes requires great courage and controversial actions. But if you want to be a hero rather than a two-bit blackmailer, it’s wise to break no more laws—civil and moral—than absolutely necessary.
One who lays his life on the line for the sake of others may be a hero, but the sacrifice of other people’s lives, even for a great cause, is a less clear path. That’s why the right to make such decisions is generally given to regulated, designated authorities, like the military or police forces. Being made up of human beings, they may make disastrous mistakes, and can be corrupted, but on the whole they are safer holders of that power than unregulated, untrained individuals and mobs. There’s a good reason vigilante action is feared—and illegal.
A perspective in today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653113548361870.html
Wow. Terry Jones is looking better and better. Assange didn't even start with good intentions. It's definitely worth reading the whole article. Here are a couple of quotes:
Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal. The reason he launched WikiLeaks is not that he's a whistleblower—there's no wrongdoing inherent in diplomatic cables—but because he hopes to hobble the U.S., which according to his underreported philosophy can best be done if officials lose access to a free flow of information.
Mr. Assange's idea is that with enough leaks, "the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller."
So, Assange wants to make America slower and stupider. Haven't our entertainment obsession, prolonged adolescence, and compulsory schooling done enough?
A completely different view here.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html
Several people left interesting counter comments on the WSJ article (more civil than most comment boards). However, I agree that using threats to avoid investigation is not the usual route of an activist with good intentions.
Of course, I couldn't make sense of the direct quotes from Assange in the WSJ article, so I don't think I will read the original articles from which they were drawn, which makes it hard to draw any real conclusion regarding his motivations.
"Jones had the grace to back off" was true until a few days ago: Apparently, he thought a kangaroo court was a better, more honorable pretext to burn a Quran.
Now we have protests in Afghanistan turning violent. In our infamy head-to-head, I think Jones has overtaken Assange.
I think they've both proven that they will advance their own agendas without regard to the cost to others. Which hardly makes them unique, I'll admit.
I still think the press doesn't take enough of its share of the blame. Without media coverage, Jones would be nothing. I like the approach of the spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in declining to comment further: "Terry Jones had his 15 minutes of fame and we're not going to help him get another few minutes," he said.
