A general survey of University of Wyoming student body showed a general ignorance when it comes to the topic of WikiLeaks. Most students claimed to have a general idea of what the organization is but nothing beyond the general idea of “it released a bunch of documents that have to do with war and stuff.” To shed some light on an entity that has sparked heated debates for the better part of the past decade, first it has to be understood what WikiLeaks is.
WikiLeaks claims to be a non-profit media organization whose aim is to present the public with classified information and news leaks. Since its debut in 2006, WikiLeaks has
received a mixture of commendations and criticisms. Although the group has published revealing documents concerning religious groups such as the church of the Latter Day Saints and Scientology, the hottest deliberations have been over documents concerning United States State Department and U.S. Army files.
The release of an estimated half a million government documents brought to light issues questioning freedom of the press and national security. The most prominent disputes are over whether or not the entity maintains the right to release classified and secret information and whether transparency or secrecy takes precedence.
A popular argument in favor of transparency above all else argues that it is the people’s right to know the ins and outs of government operations and it’s the media’s right, and in part, duty to publish any leaked information when given the opportunity. Should the media air whatever laundry it finds, dirty or otherwise? It is doubtful anyone would argue outing the Scientology scam was not the media’s place.
As a networked fourth estate WikiLeaks bypasses the framework on which traditional media bases the balance of exercising freedom of the press responsibly. There is a happy medium somewhere in between the far ends of the secrecy/transparency spectrum. In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt advocated investigative reporting but stressed the importance of practicing it conscientiously:
“It is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck rake, speedily becomes, not a help but one of the most potent forces for evil.”
A century after Roosevelt gave this speech, WikiLeaks was born and the question of whether Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, and his associates were contributing to the greater good or simply muckraking. It is often argued that exposing certain truths or information for the greater good is an honorable act but what is the greater good in this scenario, does it even exist?
Marc Wall, Former United States Ambassador and Senior Visiting Scholar in Global Studies at the University of Wyoming, agreed freedom of the press is an important staple but in regards to WikiLeaks Wall claimed the cons greatly outweighed the pros.
“Not only was it embarrassing,” said Wall, “it was also harmful and could have put some peoples lives in danger.”
Having experienced the effects of WikiLeaks firsthand, Wall said by releasing sensitive information, the organization compromised a trust that informants relied upon diplomats’ to keep. In addition to jeopardizing U.S. national and operational security, Wall explained that the breach effected the sharing of information. The lack of communication within the U.S. government is often presented as one of the reasons the events of 9/11 took the nation unaware.
“One of the things we learned after 9/11 is that the sharing of information between different [agencies and branches] was too stovepiped,” said Wall. “So the procedures that were put in place to disperse information throughout [these agencies and] military channels stopped after WikiLeaks.”
The more recent releases by Edward Snowden have caused the largest chasm in diplomacy then previous releases. The claims that the National Security Agency has extensively been monitoring communications of French citizens caused uproar in the international community. Americans demand a certain level of privacy and expect those in power to respect their rights.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll conveyed that six in ten Americans believe Snowden’s exposure of U.S. surveillance programs has put our national security at risk.
Shouldn’t people be outraged at the fact our own government is “spying” on its citizens and demand a change? Yes and no.
Although disclosures in the past have contributed to a change in politics or policy, it all depends upon the context. The Pentagon Papers discovered and released in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg were combined with a huge movement against military involvement in Southeast Asia and a significant youth rebellion.
Today there are a number of advocates that oppose America’s involvement in the Middle East but not on the scale of the Vietnam War era. At present many Americans want to know that the government is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure the U.S. interests and protect American citizens. On the flip side, WikiLeaks advocates pose the question of how much liberty are Americans willing to forfeit for security? Wall exerted an equilibrium must be found, the populace cannot have its cake and eat it too.
“[It is] like Obama said, ‘you cannot have one hundred percent privacy and one hundred percent security,’” said Wall. “We have to figure out a way to strike that balance.”
