It use to be loose lips were the only thing that could sink ships. Now, acute muteness brought on by Asperger's syndrome wouldn’t get in the way of puncturing the greatest boats on earth. A few keystrokes and a USB can make a once incredibly tight vessel leak like Sasha Grey on a creepy old guy’s face. Wikileaks is the world’s first publisher dedicated to the collection and dissemination of classified international information and a proud facilitator of such “whisper-less” [or "silent"] leaks.
However one feels about them or their founder Julian Assange, it doesn’t change the fact that WikiLeaks is pretty fucking good at what they do and are only getting started. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS) slightly less than 1% of the information it has gathered has been released. The only thing that would stop them from growing at this point would be direct action. Government’s are surely trying. The US Supreme Court and Justice Department are currently attempting to throw together a case solid enough to charge the founder and possibly other members of WikiLeaks. Nations are finding it difficult to try them with something stickable however. This is mostly because Wiki Leaks technically doesn’t “seek” information. It merely encourages the general public to leak information, which it in turn publishes.
Having a pretty strong “OH SHIT” button certainly doesn’t hurt them either. Assange himself described the mechanism in an interview with 60 minutes last year. He claims encrypted back ups of yet to be published intelligence have already been placed in the possession of around 100k people. Should anything happen that “Prevented their ability to publish” the encryption key would be released and his throngs would be expected to pick up the ball. He states “if a number of people were imprisoned or assassinated” as some, but not all of the situations that would trigger the release of the once secret information.
Another, lesser mentioned weapon in the WikiLeaks arsenal is Assange’s mouthpiece [on the internet]. He uses it almost effortlessly to sell what him and his organization are doing as a solely a moral endeavor. Math however indicates otherwise. In 2010 WikiLeaks took in 1.3 million and had expenses of roughly 500k. Also, With 99% of the information not yet available to the public it is evident that these leakers are more concerned with strategy than transparency. Some including Assange claim that most of the withholding is out of responsibility and a careful effort to redact any personally identifiable information. However, the group’s first major dump “The Afghan War Diaries”, contained personal information of Afghan nationals that were cooperating with US authorities.
Though none of the cables retrieved from the “Afghan War Diaries” were at a clearance level higher than secret, (roughly 500k personnel had the same access at the time of it’s leak) and there isn’t any technical “wrong doing” to be found in them, the impact was considered damning.
Both the diplomatic and not-so-diplomatic community rely heavily on candid information from nationals. When sources in a theater such as Afghanistan are publicly revealed, they face the threat of not only their [own] mortality but loved ones’ as well. There are fatwas on civilians who cooperate with American authorities period. I.E. Cooking, sewing, cleaning and entertaining US troops can and has gotten families dismembered and left in the streets to die. Imagine if your public found out you had a conversation with a State Department official where you described your local tribal leader as a fraudulently pious poppy kingpin who likes burning young boys and girls with cigarettes before he sodomizes them would get you.
Faith in a government’s inability to keep secrets of cooperators not only negatively effects military operations, but diplomatic missions as well. Diplomacy, unlike military action should universally be viewed as sacrosanct. Diplomats are the first and last line of defense in preventing international conflicts and they run on sharing information about their respective work climates and the perception and personality of it’s nation’s key political actors. Even in the most civil of situations, your boss finding out you called him a narcissistic pussy hound easily plied with food and drink, will get you at a minimum fired and excommunicated.
Though it is any reasonable intelligence organization’s responsibility to marginalize, discredit and stop Wikileaks, governments must not let direct action against such entities be the focal point of their work. No matter how damaging the information put out is or how “moral” or “immoral” the organization that released it’s leadership is, the blame of the leak should fall directly on the source, it’s leadership and it’s system.
Whether they will admit it or not, America’s “99%” were calling for nothing but blood and safety by noon on September 11th 2001. It was and still is Widely accepted that broader and quicker information sharing between state, local and federal authorities would have greatly reduced the chances of the attacks from happening. This inter-agency cooperation, bipartisan-ship and a need to make the public feel safer after the towers went down, made networks like the one Bradley Manning had access to possible.
Washington seems bent on pointing the finger at Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks. With minimal effort, one could argue this as “buck passing “. The punishment of Manning should be compulsory but any actions against Assange and his team should be embarked upon with with great caution. WikiLeaks’ case will be a precedent setting decision on publishing, journalism and free speech that will have an effect on the world only historians decades from now will be able to understand.
Is Wikileaks itself a good idea? Perhaps. Ideally, it is always good to have checks, balances and oversight, wherever you can get it. Whistle blowing is an extremely important part of human progress, but whistle blowers must carefully examine the motives of the vessels they open up to and vice-versa.
Here’s a quote on moral transparency from a former “special operator” and intelligence professional who wishes to have his privacy respected
“It is easy to pontificate on transparency as some transcendent ideal that holds primacy over all other concerns, when the release of this information doesn't f*cking affect you. My identity, personally identifiable information, and the details of every mission I have participated in is stored somewhere in these repositories of classified information. The public does NOT have a right to know this sh*t. The cavalier manner with which journos release this information can arguably be seen as a form of profiteering at the expense of the personal safety of US servicemen and local national sources.”
I think we can all agree blindly trusting ones government is stupid, but trusting it less than an x-men villain who looks and acts like Ellen DeGeneres in a Bill Maher costume is multitudes more retarded.
- Derick Freire
This article was written based on the resources listed below coupled with the real life experiences and opinions of author Derick Freire.
WIKILEAKS: IMPACT ON PUBLIC POLICY AND JOURNALISM (CSIS.ORG)
How Will New WikiLeaks Revelations Affect Diplomatic Candor? (PBS.ORG)
The National Interest: A Brave New WikiWorld (NATIONALINTEREST.ORG)
The National Interest: The Info Sharing Pendulum (NATIONALINTEREST.ORG)
The National Interest: Leak Fatigue (NATIONALINTEREST.ORG)
The National Interest: The Many Costs of Leaks (NATIONALINTEREST.ORG)
The National Interest: WikiLeaks and the Arabs (NATIONALINTEREST.ORG)
WikiLeaks Making the Gathering of Afghan Intel harder (BROOKINGS.EDU)
WikiLeaks: Fruit of an Unhealthy Tree (BROOKINGS.EDU)
