Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was involved in a notorious case of "extraordinary rendition" to his native Syria by the U.S. government. Faulted for its indirect role, Ottawa paid him $10-million in compensation.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been labelled a "hero," a "terrorist" and a "provocateur." How would you characterize him?
He is someone who is trying to do things differently, given the oversecrecy atmosphere we have been living in after 9/11. He is trying to introduce a new form of journalism. I wouldn't call him a hero, I wouldn't call him a villain. I think maybe we should invent a new term for him.
Has government overreliance on secrecy created WikiLeaks?
I'm not saying WikiLeaks wouldn't have existed if governments kept doing business the usual way, but they did give an incentive. Every time you say "secret," people want to know about it. It is natural. People want to know what is happening behind closed doors.
I'm not against secrecy. It is understandable that governments have to keep things secret, but, in a democracy, that should be the exception, not the rule.
You say governments should keep some secrets. Who gets to decide what?
Right now, everything is in the hands of the executive. It should be a balance. The judiciary should have a say. Every time now you launch a lawsuit against a government because they've abused their national security laws, the judiciary has not been willingly complicit but it has been willfully blind to this.
A phrase associated with WikiLeaks is "radical transparency"; some see this as everybody having access to everything, no matter the consequences. Would this be a good thing?
I don't agree with that. No one wants that. Diplomats need to be comfortable talking knowing that this will stay confidential. WikiLeaks realized they made a mistake. They have partnered with more experienced mainstream media. They say, "Here's the information, we don't have the manpower to analyze this, go and do it yourself." I think that was a good partnership.
I agree that raw information, written out of context, can give the wrong message.
Might WikiLeaks' massive dump of information have the reverse effect and increase government secrecy rather than lessen it?
I think it is having the opposite effect. There are now other websites starting. Every time governments have done that, it has always backfired.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the WikiLeaks document leak was "an attack on American foreign policy interests … and the international community." Is this an overreaction?
The public is viewing this as an attack on freedom of speech. That is the perception, whether it is true or not. I think it is already backfiring. They are going to make him a martyr and that will probably give birth to a thousand Julian Assanges.
We are living in the century of information. Everything is going to be open book. Maybe that's good for government. I think we have to go back to the principles of democracy. Talk to the people. Recently, the State Department has started using Twitter. That's good! Our Prime Minister has used YouTube. Good!
People want action. The government has to use the Internet, social media, to embark on a frank debate, to try to become more transparent, to regain the confidence of their citizens.
Governments have attacked Mr. Assange, attacked his character, attacked his Wikileaks income. Do you fear for his personal well-being?
Well, the CIA could do anything. Everything is possible, but I really doubt the U.S. would embark on a physical elimination of Assange.
Mr. Assange is quoted as saying he has an "insurance policy" against physical harm, imprisonment or a debilitating attack on WikiLeaks - the release of an encrypted "key" to a "thermonuclear device" of new, damaging documents in retribution. Has he gone too far?
Assange is fighting against a system. I have my own personal experience of this. It is not easy. Whether he is justified in this or whether he is going to do it or not, he is using what he has. There is a vacuum to be filled. The governments leave this for others to fill, and the results can be unpredictable, like we are seeing with WikiLeaks.
You received a big settlement from the Canadian government over your case. As a man of some means now, would you contribute to WikiLeaks, an organization reliant on donations?
No. I would not, no. I have taken the decision where my donations would go. Mostly to human-rights organizations.