Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
Le 3 décembre 2010, Democracy Now ! a organisé un débat entre deux activistes qu’on pourrait classer comme des critiques du système, l’un favorable à la récente action de Wikileak, l’autre défavorable, – respectivement, Glenn Greenwald, de Salon.com, l’autre Steven Aftergood, de Secrecy News, tous deux de formation juridique et spécialisés dans ce domaine.
Nous nous attachons surtout, ici, à la partie du débat concernant les réactions officielles aux USA, directes et indirectes, après l’“attaque” massive de Wikileaks. Democracy Now ! note d’abord, avant de commencer le débat :
«WikiLeaks is coming under attack from all sides. The U.S. government and embassies around the world are criticizing the whistleblowing group for releasing a massive trove of secret State Department cables. The WikiLeaks website is struggling to stay online just days after Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure. The U.S. State Department has blocked all its employees from accessing the site and is warning all government employees not to read the cables, even at home. "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange…»
Nous donnons maintenant la fin du débat, au moment où Amy Goodman, de Democracy Now !, donne des détails sur deux documents obtenus par son organisation, exposant les réactions officielles d’autorités du système. Les deux personnes impliquées dans le débat réagissent. On observera que ces deux réactions sont d’une certaine façon inattendues, notamment par rapport au reste du débat, et d’une certaine façon complémentaires ; tout en notant brièvement son désaccord avec cette “politique” (de Wikileaks), c’est Aftergood qui définit le mieux l’action de Wikileaks ; Greenwall, lui, tend à minimiser l’action de Wikileaks, tout en l’approuvant, en observant que les réactions du système ainsi exposées existent en dehors de l’action de Wikileaks.
Amy Goodman: «I’m going to interrupt, because I want to get to some memos that we’ve been getting from around the country that are very important and interesting. University students are being warned about WikiLeaks. An email from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, that we read in headlines, reads—I want to do it again—quote, “Hi students,
»“We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
»“The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.
»“Regards, Office of Career Services.”
»That’s the email to Columbia University students at the School of International and Public Affairs.
»Now, I want to go on to another memo. Democracy Now! has obtained the text of a memo that’s been sent to employees at USAID. This is to thousands of employees, about reading the recently released WikiLeaks documents, and it comes from the Department of State. They have also warned their own employees. This memo reads, quote, “Any classified information that may have been unlawfully disclosed and released on the Wikileaks web site was not ‘declassified’ by an appopriate authority and therefore requires continued classification and protection as such from government personnel... Accessing the Wikileaks web site from any computer may be viewed as a violation of the SF-312 agreement... Any discussions concerning the legitimacy of any documents or whether or not they are classified must be conducted within controlled access areas (overseas) or within restricted areas (USAID/Washington)... The documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or stored on your USAID unclassified network computer or home computer; they should not be printed or retransmitted in any fashion.”
»That was the memo that went out to thousands of employees at USAID. The State Department has warned all their employees, you are not to access WikiLeaks, not only at the State Department, which they’ve blocked, by the way, WikiLeaks, but even on your home computers. Even if you’ve written a cable yourself, one of these cables that are in the trove of the documents, you cannot put your name in to see if that is one of the cables that has been released. This warning is going out throughout not only the government, as we see, but to prospective employees all over the country, even on their home computers. Steven Aftergood, your response?
Steven Aftergood: «It’s obviously insane. I mean, if they’re not allowed to read the cables on WikiLeaks, they shouldn’t be allowed to read the cables on the New York Times or other sites. It’s obviously ridiculous. You know, this whole “cablegate” was intended as a provocation. Bradley Manning said it would give thousands of diplomats heart attacks. The system has been provoked. It is—you know, it is outrageous. It’s kind of disgusting. The question is, is it good politics? I don’t think so.
Amy Goodman: «Finally, Glenn Greenwald, your final response?
»Glenn Greenwald: «I think that that response is not one caused by WikiLeaks. I think that response is reflective of what our government is and the egos that prevails. And it’s every bit as severe as it was before WikiLeaks existed. And it’s WikiLeaks that is devoted to subverting it. And I think those memos, those disgustingly repressive and authoritarian memos, and the mindset in them, shows why WikiLeaks is so needed.»