In my spare time, when I’m not blogging or practicing guitar, I coach high school debate. This month’s resolution reads: “WikiLeaks is a threat to United States national security.”
Normally, I don’t discuss politics at this blog. But because many secular humanists are passionate about free speech issues, I want to elicit your opinions.
For those who don’t know, WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization founded in 2006 that publishes confidential corporate and government materials. Among the biggest leaks were the LDS Church Handbook, reams of documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands of private diplomatic cables.
The Obama administration has forcefully condemned WikiLeaks as a threat to national security; Vice President Joe Biden even went so far as to call WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a “hi-tech terrorist.” The American public overwhelmingly disapproves of the group, but my friends—if my Facebook newsfeed is any indication—seem to overwhelmingly support it.
Like a ‘good liberal’, I initially toed the ideological line and defended WikiLeaks. In researching this topic with my debate students, however, my position has become more nuanced.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for freedom of the press and exposing government deceit and corruption. Leaking confidential information, even when national security is compromised, can sometimes be justified by the public’s right to know. So I am not categorically against leaks, and I count whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers 
among my political heroes. My problem is with Wikileaks itself.
Julian Assange is not a journalist. By his own admission, Assange doesn’t care about government transparency. He and his organization are driven by a suspect political agenda (not to mention Assange’s own ego). To quote the Wall Street Journal:
The reason [Assange] … 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.
In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies” and “Conspiracy as Governance.” He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. “To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed,” he writes. “Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate,” he writes, and “pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result.”
…
Berkeley blogger Aaron Bady last week posted a useful translation of these essays. He explains Mr. Assange’s view this way: “While an organization structured by direct and open lines of communication will be much more vulnerable to outside penetration, the more opaque it becomes to itself (as a defense against the outside gaze), the less able it will be to ‘think’ as a system, to communicate with itself.” 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.”
Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, “It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it’s our goal to achieve a more just society.” If leaks cause U.S. officials to “lock down internally and to balkanize,” they will “cease to be as efficient as they were.”
If Assange is successful, the US government will actually become less transparent and more secretive as a result of WikiLeaks. And this lack of info-sharing may, in turn, weaken our national security (remember that the 9/11 attacks happened in part because the CIA and FBI were reluctant to share information with each other).
Again, these security risks would arguably be justified if the leaks had some revelatory news value, but they don’t appear to. In the hundreds of thousands of pages leaked about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have learned precious little. They confirmed existing suspicions and detailed the horrors of war, but they hardly merit the all-too-frequent comparison to the Pentagon Papers. The leaking of 250,000 diplomatic cables was especially reckless. A lot of these cables read like petty political tabloid stuff. Sure, it’s interesting reading our diplomats’ frank and often snarky assessment of foreign leaders, but was it worth the damage the leaks will doubtless cause to international relations?
WikiLeaks lack of editorial discretion may do more than merely embarrass US diplomats and offend world leaders. It may also cost several Afghans their lives. In the documents relating to the Afghan War, WikiLeaks failed to redact the names of Afghans who are sympathetic to our presence and collaborating with our forces. Consequently, the Taliban has been combing the leaks to compile a potential hit list. (In fairness to WikiLeaks, they have started to sell leaks to prominent newspapers who have been more careful in what they choose to print.)
All that said, I think many government officials have inflated the threat posed by WikiLeaks. The Pentagon has admitted that there is no evidence that implicates WikiLeaks in the death of a single person, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the effect on foreign policy will prove “fairly modest.”
I suppose the only other thing I can say in WikiLeaks defense is that, long-term, it may actually improve national security by forcing the United States to either (a) better protect confidential information or (b) develop policies that, if leaked, wouldn’t embarrass us!
Time will tell.
In the meantime, I’d appreciate your thoughts.
“Nuanced” is a good word, which I have felt inclined to use more often. It definitely describes the effect that debate can have on a persons views. My views on politics in High school (when I was debating) were much more “nuanced” than how I tend to view issues today. Even still, whenever I go back to judge I come away with a more “nuanced” view of the issue than I did before.
Since I spend far more time studying religion and “Mormonism” these day, and debating it, I find my religious beliefs tend to be more “nuanced” than they used to be; which I think is a good thing.
Anyway, sorry, that tells you nothing about my thoughts on WikiLeaks.
I like the article quite a bit – this SHAFT blog is totally tits, bro.
One thing I’d say is that if the government does become less transparent, Assange and Wikileaks won’t be to blame. That’d be like blaming Muslim extremists for the PATRIOT Act. Or like the redneck that blames his wife when he beats her – “If’n you didn’t talk back so much, I wouldn’t have to do this, Bambi.”
And Assange’s motivations aside, at least he released information more or less indiscriminately, behavior with more objectivism than almost all “real” journalism. Facts are facts, and nobody owns truth. You can’t say the behavior of a public official behaving in their public capacity deserves to be treated as private, no matter how unprofessionally they conduct themselves. The argument has been made that, in this case, the ends justify the means. That argument is self defeating when it comes to government secrecy because, not only is it based on an entirely subjective assessment of the circumstances (and government can only be as just as it is objective), but also one cannot weigh the value of secrecy against its costs without knowing the secret.
I’m also surprised at the logical disconnect in your assertions of blame:
– “…was it worth the damage the leaks will doubtless cause to international relations?”
You cannot blame the observer for the outcome of the actions they observe, and the dissemination of information, specifically undeniable facts, cannot legitimately be blamed for the effects of that information. If damage is done to international relations, then the damage is done by the diplomats whose words cause the offense.
The same can be said of any Afghanis or US soldiers who are targeted or harmed as a result of their alliances, involvement, or behavior. The only possible way to have absolutely avoided that exposure would have been for those people not to have engaged in the actions that caused them to be targeted. Their choice to assume that risk is to be blamed. It would be different if Wikileaks concocted lies, but they haven’t.
In summary, I suppose the easiest way to look at it is the recognition that what has the potential to cause harm are the things that have been done or said, not the fact that those things are now known. A child who exposes a parent’s indiscretion to the other parent didn’t cause the resulting divorce, the indiscretion is its own crime. And everyone knows the only way to keep from getting caught is to stay out of trouble in the first place.
So, Wikileaks cannot be blamed for any resulting harm, Assange’s personal motivations are irrelevant, and the actions of public officials acting in a public capacity aught to be public record.
I’m off to make a sloppy joseph with sharp shredded cheddar and sweet balsamic onion chippies and wash the whole thing down with some Big K Cola, because I am a man of discriminating tastes.
Could you be any more pretentious? I get that this is somewhat of a late-blooming community in terms of real-world social skills, but the tone of many comments on this site points to pervasive geek sexism. I spent my whole early life having to deal with chauvinism, along with every other Mormon woman you know. A community of ex-Mormons is pretty much the last place I want to find casual sexism.
I could TRY to be more pretentious, Amy, but I’m not going to promise anything.
I’ll be sure to warn you next time I decide to engage in casual sexism. God (or nobody?) forbid I accidentally trigger your PTSD memories of what is clearly a unilaterally horrible life for every mormon woman in the world, who you seem to be on a sharing-our-innermost-feelings basis with.
Nah, I’m just messing with you. Seriously, try to laugh it off and have a good day, huh? No harm intended, my apologies if the joke vernacular struck a raw nerve. And remember – words only have as much power as you give them; life might be a little more care-free if you weren’t provoked into action by comments like “totally tits, bro”.
My complaint is totally valid, made even more so by your lame response. Despite the inconvenience that I pose to you by calling you out, it is an important dialogue. The way you chose to respond to me is classic, browbeating sexism. You haven’t shed that from your days in church, is what I am pointing out. The way you tried to invalidate my perspective there is an all-too-familiar mind game that I experienced very often in the Mormon community, and nowadays, never experience in “normal” society. It is really worth a closer look and community dialogue. We should work with each other to make this forum fit for feminist readership, don’t you agree?
“My complaint is totally valid, made even more so by your lame response.”
I don’t disagree with you that the words we choose are important, but then you should probably stray away from using ‘lame’, which is derogatory to the physically handicapped.
Captious, then. Weak. Douche-y. Evasive. Immature.
Is that perfect enough for you to still not listen?
ps-That was rhetorical (realizing that you’re mostly looking for bait to debilitate the quality of meaning in this exchange)!
I hope you take yourself down a peg or two and get past your egocentrism. It is an ingrained Mormon thing, in my view. I think it’s important to be aware of how it affects us as a group and how we can get past it.
Amy – It’s sincerely entertaining to me that you referred to this community as “late-blooming … in terms of real-world social skills,” and then proceeded to be aggressively sensitive to some of the least important exchanges of words in the history of the world.
I think this is an ingrained ex-mormon thing. I think it is important for us as a group to be aware that our individual outrage and self-victimizing sensitivity does far more harm than good. Better to focus on intentions than minutia of language and better to laugh at a joke than to make yourself the butt of it.
I can relate to the government’s need for secrecy.
I think a lot of people who’ve had a dramatic change in their religious beliefs can relate to this need as well.
I, for one, can go about these blogs and risk my anonymous reputation without worrying about what my friends and family might think of my agnostic beliefs (and how they might treat me because of it).
I don’t know how analogous this is to what the gov’t is hiding, but based on how sane the releases have been (except for the ridiculous war files that I’ve seen so far), I don’t feel like anything was being hidden from us that matters.
You point out something I think is important, namely Assange’s intent. Kant and a bunch of other moral theories look entirely at intent. The guy is kind of a jerk, with questionable motives that at times seem malicious, and anti-American. Any positive side effects or impacts from wikilinks can then be brought into question, or ignored.
Honestly though, an impact case will have a lot of weak link stories. Wikilinks => less openness => 9/11 or extinction. I feel like the real impact of wikilinks is minimal. People might think twice about what they say to other diplomats, we got a rehash on a bunch of stuff we already knew about Iraq/Afghanistan. Most of this was just a small hit to soft power of the US, and a minor embarrassment to a few officials.
One positive side effect from all of this is that state departments and intelligence communities will take a second look at the security of their communications lines, so when sending important stuff, it will be less likely to be intercepted, or posted.
In general, I think its mostly hype.
Jon,
You won’t hear me say this often, but I think I agree with everything you said. I think the whole Wiki Leaks thing is a waste on all counts.
I’ve yet to see anything in these memos that was a secret.
Arab Dictators are duplicitous with their people! Who knew?
Saudi Arabia is scared of Iran! My goodness!
Wikileaks, like most journalists I know (my degree is in journalism and I work part time as a sports writer) couldn’t care less about the common good. It’s an attempt to make a name / $, nothing more. Fortunately, they didn’t do any real harm.
I think they need to prosecute the leaker to the fullest extent of the law, which in my mind would be treason.
- “I think they need to prosecute the leaker to the fullest extent of the law, which in my mind would be treason.”
This is an interesting point from a voluntaryist perspective. A friend asked me how I felt about the continued torture of Bradley Manning. While I lament the torture and feel like he deserves more praise than punishment (if he deserves any of either), he sure did voluntarily contract with the US military, and is now finding out what happens when you make that kind of mistake and then do something like he did. I’m okay with the punishment so long as it fits the crime.
It would be interesting to me if treason were to be proven because it would be a very clear illustration of the real nature of the state in opposition to the people.
I don’t mind Manning’s detention. I think some punishment is called for. But I think his solitary confinement constitutes torture and that the death penalty (as per a treason charge) would also be a disproportionate response (one that would play into the WikiLeaks worldview that the US is an authoritarian power).
Can I get your definition of torture?
That term seems a bit harsh unless there is something I don’t know about the situation.
I’ll add my follow-ups as well.
What makes this solitary confinement torture? Is it torture for a state prison to put a disobedient prisoner in solitary confinement?
Torture is, in my view, excessive anguish of body or mind. We could of course debate what constitutes “excessive”, but there can be little doubt that few things are more painful for our social species than solitude. And psychological harms are as traumatizing, if not considerably more so, than physical harms.
I’m okay with solitary confinement only insofar as it serves either rehabilitative or custodial purposes. If a month of two of solitary confinement ‘corrects’ an inmates behavior, than fine. But longer terms of solitary confinement don’t rehabilitate people–they destroy them. They come out as less well-adjusted, more violent, etc. And by custodial purposes, I mean if a person is dangerous, we should keep them away from others. But even when solitary confinement serves the aforementioned purposes, I still think it’s torture–just torture that’s justified for utilitarian reasons.
What do you mean by prosecuting Manning to the fullest extent of a treason charge? Death penalty?! That strikes me a wildly disproportionate, give your admission that the leaks “didn’t do any real harm.”
I don’t think the leaks did harm on a global scale, but they did out members of the intelligence community and informants in Middle Eastern countries. While the world won’t end as a result of his actions, some people will die as a result of the leaks and our interests will certainly be impeded. He certainly violated a trust, one that if violated on a large scale would spell the downfall of our military and society. We need to be swift and sure in executing justice in this case.
I think the death penalty is warranted, only because we have no greater form of penalty. This isn’t just a US citizen… this was an American Soldier, who volunteered for the lifestyle of a soldier and made commitments in receiving top secret clearance. When you make that decision, and then you attempt to give aid and comfort to the enemy, you have chosen your own fate.
It’s clear to every soldier. If he had been a draftee, I’d see some mitigation. BUT this guy made a choice and openly chose to betray an oath that he had taken. Death is the price he agreed to by signing up for the service.
I’m intrigued by your concept of torture being acceptable under a utilitarian framework. What is your take on the ticking time bomb, or KSM scenario? I’d understood you were against waterboarding under any circumstances.
Honestly, I think your broad definition of torture discredits much of your objection to it.
I am okay with waterboarding under those scenarios. My general objection to waterboarding is that, (a) the ticking-time bomb scenario is largely a fiction, and (b) I’m not so sure waterboarding is effective in such situations. But if I could be convinced of its efficacy, I would tolerate it in very rare circumstances. I think it should remain illegal, however, to deter people from abusing it.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Revolutions and Culture Wars Edition! | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Link bomb #5 | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Link bomb #9 | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Link bomb #11 | Main Street Plaza