Wikileaks and the Public Good
About Carol BellCarol is a graduate of the University of Alabama. Her passion is journalism and it shows. Carol is our unpaid, but very efficient, administrative secretary.
View all posts by Carol Bell →
There has been quite the furor over the public disclosure of documents by WikiLeaks. Some argue that the leak is unethical because it puts lives in jeopardy and compromises certain military secrets. Others assert that it provides accountability and oversight to a government whose reliance on hidden agendas and secrecy makes it answerable to none. From an article on NPR
As WikiLeaks contemplates releasing the remaining 15,000 documents in its Afghanistan archive, it could stand to borrow some basic ethical principles from the organization it appears most in opposition with: the military. For militaries, fighting wars is not a crime, but it’s against the law to target large areas indiscriminately without regard for potential civilian deaths. They have to pick their targets carefully. The same standard should be applied to organizations like WikiLeaks with the same goal: blowing the whistle on specific cases of wrongdoing, while minimizing collateral damage.
Imagine the potential of a more targeted approach — if WikiLeaks specialized only in receiving and publicizing reports of specific war crimes submitted by troops in the field. Instead of dumping 90,000 documents into the public domain and letting the chips fall where they may, the organization would serve as a conduit through which to reveal specific events that militaries might otherwise be tempted to cover up. Such a mechanism would ensure that specific war crimes allegations were made public and properly investigated without undue risk to whistle-blowers. That access point of information would encourage governments to take a stronger lead in investigating and punishing transgressions in the first place — a requirement under treaty law — potentially deterring future atrocities.
Now that information is instantaneous and access is available to most who want it, we can only hope that the ways it is used benefits the greater good. With a little judicious oversight and more careful planning, WikiLeaks could be the well-trained watch dog that the world needs.
A Michael J. Scott
August 13, 2010 at 11:34 am
Agreed!!!! Good post.
Tim Waters
August 13, 2010 at 11:38 am
I wish we had a watchdog when Tillman was killed. That was some cover up. And that poor girl, who they made up a story about her to help with the War effort. I think her name is Jessica Lynch. (Spelling may be off) Remember how it was said she fought to her last bullet. Was sexually assaulted while in custody. Lies! We needed a watch dog there too. relying on just the Military for updates is a folly. So I hope the information is released with a eye for the safety of the troops. I guess I should have just said ditto.
Gwendolyn H. Barry
August 13, 2010 at 11:58 am
It seems as though main stream media is trying to diminish the necessity and value of Wikileaks …. but you know, folks are pissed at Rachel Maddow this week for drawing down on Obama for DADT … another issue in a growing number of them where campaign promises are turned to “poof”. Great point, MH.
TomCat
August 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Both sides are right. We need the watchdog, but before release, information that puts our military people and Afghani civilians at risk must be carefully redacted.
A Michael J. Scott
August 13, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Tom that has been my main complaint against Wiki-Leaks. They just throw everything out there without regard for the lives that could be lost as a result.
fourdinners
August 13, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Look. As long as Tony Bliar ends up being executed for war crimes I couldn’t give a shit.
That man…and I use the term loosely…fucked this country beyond redemption.
You go Wikileaks!
As for security of our troops in Afghanistan etc…bring them home! The bloody war is clearly illegal so bring them all home – fuck what happens there – and release information that can condemn Bliar and Bush et al.
Simples.
Krell
August 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm
There has to be a compromise between a military and government that doesn’t like ANY secrets leaked at all, and has often used security classification to hide information that may expose mistakes or even criminal actions, and what WikiLeaks has done in releasing raw unredacted data. Raw data that may be from several sources that have shown to be unreliable or biased when analyzed by intelligence or even reveal identities.
And one time, America had this thing called an “Investigative Reporter” that would collect huge amounts of information from all angles of the story and come up with a comprehensive news series. You may have read about them in a history book somewhere. There are still a few out there but they aren’t in the mainstream.
Gwendolyn H. Barry
August 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I wonder what the eff we are doing in Afghanistan? And how is Wiki putting any American lives at risk so far? Any more than the Afghani gov (there’s a joke shot for you) is on a daily basis? Our gov was interested in one thing … covering its’ ass. And now with a new CIC, what has changed? War for 9 years? How do you account for it when 10,000 people turn out in a heat wave and stand on the pavement to apply for 489 gov. housing placements? HOW? You think we’ll be bombed if we pull out of Afghanistan? Really?
I am in an accord with Krell. Investigative journalism is needed. What has been applied, includes Wiki … I would argue. Geeze, I mean take a comprehensive look at what they exposed with the helicopter attacks on journalists. The savagery of our military and the cover up. Right now the only non broadcast media making a difference is this kind of Gonzo reporting technology.
Holte Ender
August 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I don’t think that stuff that bring down Governments and Presidents, gets out at all. Nixon being the exception in the western world.
Krell
August 13, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Holte, I read this comment earlier today and have been giving it some thought. Maybe it IS naive to think that power and the outcome of world governments will ever really be “shared” with the majority of those that are ruled by the outcome.
Most people seem to be content to fly “under the radar”, to just live their lives without too many hassles or hurdles to overcome. It does seem to be in the hands of a very few…
Not really making any statements about it being right or wrong, just thinking out loud…
Thomas Retterbush
December 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I am divided about the Wikileaks fiasco. On the one hand, I am against any and all censorship. On the other hand, I don’t like letting the enemy in on our way of doing things, our plans and particularly our list of allies. So what is more important, preserving the freedom of information or preserving the lives of those who may become in danger because of info which may have fallen into the wrong hands? That’s a tough one.