WikiLeaks: Heroes or Villains?

[Sir Brian]

Since we’ve had some great discussions on several of the virtues of chivalry, I thought I would solicit you fine folks for your thoughts on this entire hullabaloo over WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and the people (hackers) perpetrating all those “payback” cyber attacks?

I consider it simply espionage. He isn’t some noble martyr out to right some grievous wrongs, he is a spy and nothing more than a fence who deals with stolen information instead of material goods but he is nonetheless a fence and nearly every society has laws against receiving stolen goods. The “whistleblowers” that uploaded the information to WikiLeaks did so illegally. They “STOLE” the information and dispensed it. America has methods of disseminating information and it can be garnered legally via the FOIA. Essentially any and all information not obtainable under the FIOA or the Privacy Acts has been deemed sensitive for a reason and it certainly isn’t the province or the privilege of a select few sanctimonious and biased activists to determine what secrets are safe or even appropriate to disseminate to the general public.

As for the hackers I have a more draconian view, cut their hands off. 

What are some of your thoughts?

[Sir Edward]

It's really hard to say. I have mixed feelings on it. I agree, the information is typically stolen by illegal means, and some of it can be sensitive in nature. However, sometimes it takes a strong whistleblower to instigate change for the better. A lot of injustices and unethical behavior can routinely be gotten away with until someone blows the lid on it. And from what it sounds like, wikileaks takes time to verify the validity, and redact portions of it, before putting it online, to maintain some level of both credibility and responsibility in how they handle the information.

Now having said that, I haven't gone and read anything on their site, so I can't really formulate an opinion on how well they achieve those goals.

It's quite possible they've crossed the line from being a useful method of getting the truth out to something else entirely, but again, I haven't read enough to make an opinion on that.

Aside from the current debacle, I think it has the potential to be a force for good, if used responsibly. I just wonder how far is too far.

[Sir James A]

As with Sir Edward, I've not read any of the site itself, though I do know a fair bit of the mess around it. Bear with me if my understanding of the content is way off base, as I'm going on what I've read in articles on the subject....

The information posted requires a clearance for a reason. It was not legally acquired through FOIA, and is not something to be distributed publicly; especially posted online. It was a gross abuse of power for those with access to that information to do what they did with it; it would be like having your bank publish your social security number, account number, name, and address, if someone working there found out you paid money to a group that they don't agree with.

There's the whole line of "if it's that important, it should be protected" logic, but as an IT security guy, there's ALWAYS somebody who puts their password on a sticky note or who transfers files through their thumb drive, loses their laptop with sensitive data ... there is always some bonehead who compromises even the best of security protocols.

My understanding of it is that the content was not to blow the whistle on anything illegal, but to publish the information of those who aid us in our mission to be a country of freedom, opportunity, power, and prestige. And that at least a few of those who had their personal information posted have been forced to flee their country or have been murdered.

The site will costs not only the lives of people who are helping us as a country, it also hurts our credibility. We can say "we will protect you if you help us" ... but they can now say that they may be revealed anyway, and killed ... as well as potentially their spouse, children, parents, and so on. That WILL cost us critical information in the future as to the operations in other countries which are at war against us, whether implicitly or explicitly. We will lose potential new allies as a result, allies in countries who do not agree with us, but have citizens who do.

While there are not a large number of people I'd be in favor of brutal executions for, there is a lot to be said for setting an example, and harsh punishments as a deterrent. Assange is one of them I think should receive a rather brutal execution, constitutional or not. Not some cop-out lethal injection, not some cushiony life in prison ... I'm talking Iron Maiden, Drawn and Quartered, Spanish Horse level punishment.

There is only so much that only respect will protect you; without some level of fear in betrayal, you leave a gap in your armor, so to speak, as those who do not respect you also do not fear you, and you pose no real threat to them. Our justice system is so lax that many people laugh at the consequences, as there is very little to truly fear any more. Steal something from a store here? Pay a fine, maybe a little jail time, slap, back out. Steal something from a street vendor overseas? Chances are you can lose your hand.

A semi-related side story - I did a report on Pershing back in high school. He is a quasi-modern iconic hero to many for this story, considering his enemies at the time are at the heart of our anti-terrorism war still (http://www.veterans-coalition.org/BlackJackPershing.jpg).

Extremely offensive and overly brutal ... and yet amazing in it's effectiveness. The question is, who has the courage to do it and take the heat, and would it lead to another 42 years free of terrorist attacks?

[SirNathanQ]

Personally, I think that anything that endangers lives unnecessarily or is a threat to ANYONES national security should stay confidential. When those hackers did was on the order of treason, no matter what country he's in or belongs to. He has no good reason for putting that stuff up there other than to be malicious.

[Sir Edward]

All very excellent points, but if I may play devil's advocate for a moment-- One problem with state secrets, as necessary as they are, is that it becomes very easy to hide wrong-doings and unethical behavior. For instance, what if it got leaked that there was an institution of slavery, torture, and murder of innocent US citizens occurring within our own government. Wouldn't we want to know? During WWII, most Germans claimed they had no idea about the concentration camps, for instance.

Here's an article I stumbled across last week:

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release "Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”"

I'm not saying that what was done was right, but I think it's worth considering what it can take to expose wrong-doings within any large institution, such as a government or large corporation.

[Sir William]

VILLAINS.  I would agree w/you, Sir Edward, unless or until it is found that some of the information leaked directly led to the loss of life- I would find that unconscionable, no matter how 'noble' the cause.  The term 'collateral damage' is used to mitigate human sentiment regarding lives lost during a campaign...you can call it what you like- but see how far you get when using that term amongst the bereaved who would tell you that there's really no such thing.

[Sir Brian]

I certainly will acknowledge the immense inner turmoil someone would go through in such a case of discovering your government is involved with heinous crimes against humanity. However the American government is not the regime of Stalin, Hitler, Castro or Kim Jong where the government has scant hope of being changed except through a coup or fortuitous death. Typically though, those truly despicable crimes perpetrated by a previous government can be rooted out and dealt with and steps taken to ensure it will be less likely to happen again. Our government is no different than many other free and democratic governments in that it has its moments of great compassion and nobility as well as moments of treachery and brutality the scales are balanced by the majority voice of the people.

As for that article I emphatically reject what any of those individuals have to say on the matter based upon the fact that they are all just as guilty of espionage as Private First Class Bradley Manning. All of them had been entrusted with state secrets and they revealed those secrets thereby breaking the law for their respective countries as well as the laws of the countries affected by the dissemination of that information.
The thing is even though some were intelligence advisors they were still only cogs in the wheel of the entire intelligence picture ~ i.e. the left hand so to speak being critical of the right hand’s methods.

Whistleblowers against corporations that are “cooking the books” or endangering the environment is commendable because although a corporation can have some far reaching influence they are still just a privately owned business and not some rogue nation with a supply of thermal nuclear devices or other WMD which is kind of the root of this whole misguided conception of those that support WikiLeaks and their ilk in that they naively consider state secrets to be of the same biased concern as corporate secrets.

As to the earlier allusion to what a person should do if they find himself/herself immersed with a wicked and utterly controlling government that is engaged with all sorts of nefarious acts including genocide, well I would hope they would find the courage, resolve and resourcefulness to take whatever actions they could, like Oskar Schindler.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler

[Sir James A]

Our government is no different than many other free and democratic governments in that it has its moments of great compassion and nobility as well as moments of treachery and brutality

Well said, Sir Brian. I am in favor of whistleblowing against corrupt corporations/privately owned firms, but there are some things in government of a nation that are not to be questioned or known by citizens.

Do we REALLY need to know every thwarted terrorist attempt? If they published all of them, I bet we'd see daily news of it. And it would very likely cause severe racial tensions. Some things are kept "under the rug" because it keeps things under control. Granted, there are absolutely some things we need to know, and I'm willing to bet that we don't know all we should. But I think we have it better than most countries do.

"Torture" is a hot-button topic, and I don't feel it should be discussed if we are doing it. There's the possibility to discover future attacks and prevent deaths by acquiring information in ways that aren't civil; do we give known terrorists who hate our country and it's citizens their civil liberties at the expense of the safety of the people? If we don't/aren't doing it, it doesn't mean that they won't torture captured soldiers of ours.

Does the death toll truly matter for a country we're at war with? It didn't historically, should it now? It's war ... casualties are an expected result, and they are little more than a random statistic for 99.9% of the country (though to the 0.1% related to them, they are, of course, everything). Who are we to judge every shot fired, or attack made? We have a chain of command in the military for that purpose; questionable actions are judged by superiors. When did we become the superiors?

Generally speaking, nobody sits over my shoulder and says "I don't think you should have put a line break in the code there" ... and if it's someone who isn't a knowledgeable software developer too, I'd politely tell them I know what I'm doing and what I do is based on my training and knowledge acquired from doing my job well for the last 17 years. If they have a valid reason to make that judgement call, I expect it to be backed up with a valid fact or proof, otherwise, they're talking out of their tail.

My biggest discrepancy is with the posting of personal information; names, addresses, etc. If the information posted is generic and not specific to a person, it should still be acquired by legal means; FOIA, etc. After a certain amount of time, classified documents become declassified and are legally available.

Our judgements on a single decision made on a single subject (including reading leaked government documents) are going to be with tunnel vision; chances are we don't know 99% of the circumstantial and contextual events and information which influence the decision. It's a bit like a random stranger asking you "Red or blue?". We'll probably have an opinion, but we won't know if they're asking what color is their car, their socks, their underwear, what their kid's favorite color is, what color the ocean is, what color fire is ... it needs some context.

(Edit to address Sir Edward's question - In my opinion, it depends on the subject matter of the information. If it's abuse of anyone we're not at declared war with (implicitly like the mexican drug cartels, or explicitly like terrorists), it should be known; if it's corruption of ANY type, especially abuse or misuse of authority/power, it should be known - and should be dealt with)

If I'm wandering too far off course, let me know. I tend to ramble on about these things since I have family history in the military and government.

Also, the plot thickens even more....

"a new website that is rivaling with Wikileaks is expected to unveil itself on Monday, 12/13/2010. The name of the new website is Openleaks.Org, and is created and maintained by former Wikileaks members. CNN reports that these former Wikileaks members are unhappy with Julian Assange and the way he ran Wikileaks. They say he "weakened the organization."

(http://www.suite101.com/content/facebook-and-twitter-respond-to-wikileaks-hacker-group-a320061)

[Sir William]

Excellent points, Sir James...especially about the racism, it is bad enough as it is...although I must say it is a different feeling when you're not the number one race being profiled.

[SirNathanQ]

I'm going to go w/ SirJames on this one, it's frikkin war. Whaddya expect? Isn't eliminating threats to American lives the the POINT!?!
I think people these days have gotten too "soft". Theyre giving more rights to burglars than homeowners in court, we have to let the guy running around on the streets with a gun shoot at us first, and we seem not to be able to prioritize innocent American (or any other innocents for that matter) over the COMFORT of terrorists!
If you ask me, citizens don't need to know every government secret. Remember how many cities were lost throughout history from some disillusioned citizen opening the gates or surrendering a tower? And this almost always leads to the wanton killing of everyone in the settlement! Truly no good can come out of treasonous actions like that.
One might argue that my example has no relevance to the modern world, but what if everything was open to everyone and his brother? With troop locations and missions exposed, how long do you think it will take for the casualties to start piling in? With exact designs of the dollar, how long do you think it will take to flood the economy in counterfeits? With databases open, how long will it take for identity theft to become rampant (as in more than it is already)? Truly, if there are things that we personally don't want the world knowing, our government can be entitled to some privacy too.     

[Sir James A]

Someone on another forum I frequent posted this. I'm reposting it because I feel it's a GREAT summary that goes beyond anything I could try to cobble together on why classified information about military and government actions should not be public:

Have you ever heard of Operation Bodyguard? Probably not straight off the top of your head without going to Google. Operation Bodyguard was meant to confuse German forces by thinking that the Allies were going to land at Pas la Calais. Leading this "invasion" would be British General McNair and American General Patton. The planning and implementation of this took months, and more than a few people died just setting it up. This diverted enough of the Germans that it made success at Normandy a possibility. Notice I didn't say that it was a sure thing.

Now, would you be surprised to know that there were several leaks that put the whole thing into jeopardy? You say that American citizens have a right to know everything the government is doing. Knowing the far more terrible toll that the allies would have suffered if the full force had been at Normandy can you still think you have a right to know everything?

Even if it causes chaos? Can you still say that?

Another great point was made over a number of posts, which I'll try to paraphrase.

Not only has Assange considered himself and his minions above the law in every single way, AND stated that the rape charges against him are "a favor to the US" ... he's ignored the fact that the charges were brought against him BEFORE Wikileaks was public, and are being pursued with more vigor due to the additional threat he is. So, apparently, everyone else in the world should be 100% transparent, yet, he is above and beyond any legal or moral reproach, and should be granted asylum and protection.

[Sir Brian]

If this administration does not pursue Julian Assange for violations of the Espionage Act then they will send a clear message to what few allies we have left and our growing number of enemies that this nation is in its death throes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

I was watching Fox news last night and they were discussing that Assange should be covered under the freedom of the press which totally pissed me off how the media never really stands up to condemn their own even when they are a fringe and rogue outlet like WikiLeaks when they are clearly in violation of disseminating classified information which is exempt from the first amendment. – Not to mention the first amendment is applicable to American citizens and not globally adhered to.

I also love how the media is lamenting about the treatment of PFC Bradley Manning and the conditions in which he is being detained.
1.)   This isn’t some posh civilian situation or criminal investigation. This is under the UCMJ and your rights are far more restricted. – Which PFC Manning volunteered to serve by!
2.)   The conditions that perfidious little a-hole is being kept in is far better than spending months deployed out in the field and he at least has a dry, reasonably warm and safe place to sleep. Three hot meals a day and he can probably take a crap on a real commode instead of digging a cat hole and hoping you don’t get bitten or stung by something nasty while squatting.

He should be court marshaled for treason during wartime and executed by hanging or shot by firing squad.
His betrayal although not dealing with ongoing military operations was far more damaging to the US foreign policy efforts and poses as a very serious threat to American lives, his fellow soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines because essentially ALL wars are a result of failed diplomacy and the game of diplomacy is tough enough without some sanctimonious pieces of crap showing all the other players in the game what cards you are holding!

[Sir James A]

I was watching Fox news last night and they were discussing that Assange should be covered under the freedom of the press which totally pissed me off how the media never really stands up to condemn their own even when they are a fringe and rogue outlet like WikiLeaks when they are clearly in violation of disseminating classified information which is exempt from the first amendment. – Not to mention the first amendment is applicable to American citizens and not globally adhered to.

I saw this link pop up on another forum (http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/), which seems to reflect upon how things are reported on Fox (which I don't personally watch, so I have no opinion). However, if they're saying that publication of stolen classified documents counts as freedom of press, then whoever is doing their "fact checking" needs to be replaced.

It's very much espionage as Sir Brian says, and seems to be setting a precedent for 21st century style espionage ... steal and publicly distribute. Even if Assange was a US citizen, rights can be forfeited based upon actions; just as the right to remain silent is waived by speaking, the right to freedom of speech should be waived if it involves publicly distributing stolen classified material.

And there is a whole other set of rules that apply to be tried in a civilian court of law vs a martial court of law. Martial court doesn't grant a lot of the rights that a civil court does. I HOPE they end up in martial court, assuming that they aren't somehow killed by someone before making it to court.

[SirNathanQ]

IMO, I think we should send him to the cold steel company testing area. That'll teach 'em! 

[Sir William]

Since when is Julian Assange part of the press?  Because he owns a website that dispenses illegally obtained classified information?  Hardly what I'd call a newsman.