FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Parliament of Leakers

It sounds like a plumbing deficiency with a moral purpose: one leaks at times because one just has to. The condition is biological, innate. The suggestion in the case of politics is that a party that specialises about this will be formidable, and, in the scheme of things, unprecedented.

In an interview with the Australian network SBS, Julian Assange promised that his role in parliament would be one of cheeky uplift and exposure. The skirts on the political establishment are going to be lifted, baring all. Australian politicians will be given an open cheque to leak. Leak with secure channels via USB sticks, or any convenient system that may avail itself. In fact, leak with anything you’ve got.

“One of the first things that we will do when we have someone in the Senate is go and give every senator a secure USB communications system where they can convey to WikiLeaks information about corruption within Australian political parties and so on that they’ve observed but can’t reveal.”

The suggestion is significant, if only to allow political representatives a direct channel to an agency where disclosures will be documented and, to use the lingo of WikiLeaks, scientifically published. The truth will set you free, or at least some people.

The idea of the leaking process in politics is a long one, and deserves mention. Some of these, for instance the case of Valerie Plame, involved an engineered government leak on the part of the Bush administration. (Yes, even that most secret of entities would, when pressed, drizzle with strategic menace.) Where there is a resounding abuse, we can also hope for the resolute leaker to spring and burst.

Former FBI agent W. Mark Felt, an informant given the suggestive, tumescent inspiring term “Deep Throat” remains one of the greater celebrities of the Watergate affair. It is hard to divorce the context of President Richard Nixon’s resignation from that destructive moniker. What is wedged deeply will have to eventually come out.

The shadows of history are long on the subject of venerable leakers, though they tend to assume a role outside Parliament or the political body of the time. Radicals, incipient or practising, tend to assume the role. A political opponent of Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor of Massachusetts, leaked his letters to a ready and able Benjamin Franklin, resident in Britain in the early 1770s. These were subsequently published in the eager presses after Franklin disclosed their contents to agitating colleagues in the colonies. The governor, it seemed, wasn’t too keen with the meek response of local authorities to rebellious colonists. After his conspicuous embarrassment, Franklin was given his marching orders to return to the New World.

What is being proposed now in such platforms as those of the WikiLeaks Party is a general challenge to the presumption that a leak is itself ipso facto illegal. It’s bringing what is otherwise considered a dirty act into the open. If you have material, expose it. If you have damning evidence, reveal it. Do, as Assange argues, “cut through the crap.”

A problem with the security culture of most states is that disclosure of material, however important, unless done in officially recognised channels, will be treated as an illegal act. Disclosure from representatives and servants tends to be treated as criminal at first instance. Defences are paltry and weak, only covering instances when made within the organisation.

For that reason, various approaches are required. One is legislative: decriminalise public service whistleblowing altogether, and enhance protections in the private sector. The assumption as it stands is that, irrespective of what good is done in revealing an abuse, the discloser will face punishment. This is the archaic version of the gentleman’s code, honour among thieves. Breaching the pact might have been necessary, but it was still egregious to the rituals of secrecy. The second is, and it is of little surprise that Assange has moved to the front on this, a matter of machinery and tactics. If you give a senator a communications device, the heart and mind will follow.

The introduction of such disclosure protocols within a forum such as the Australian senate will formalise the process. From the illicit rear guard, the measure will constitute an accepted vanguard of policy. Perhaps what is so troubling for the secrecy tarts and trolls is that they can’t ultimately accept that emerging fact: a Parliament of resolute, determined leakers, guarding the mendacious and the abusive against themselves and others.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail