WikiLeaks - Hero or Troublemaker?

[Sophus]

No thread on WikiLeaks yet?

In case you haven't heard already, WikiLeaks is a controversial website which "publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misconduct."

Here is the founder at a TED Talk arguing why the world needs WikiLeaks:

[youtube:bh2tnvjo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do[/youtube:bh2tnvjo]

I'm curious to hear your answer to the question "should WikiLeaks be stopped?" What are the dangers of allowing WikiLeaks to stay open or the risks of shutting it down? Is it protected by the First Amendment? Or is it encouraging treason?
 

EDIT: You know what, this probably belongs under 'Media'. My apologies....

[pinkocommie]

Did you follow the reaction to this on Pharyngula?  It was one of those posts I got sucked into reading the comments for.

I think transparency is a good thing.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm curious to hear your answer to the question "should WikiLeaks be stopped?"

Is it possible to stop WikiLeaks?  It isn't US based.
You can counter false information with facts.
I don't think you can silence anything once it is on the web.

[Sophus]

Did you follow the reaction to this on Pharyngula?  It was one of those posts I got sucked into reading the comments for.

I think transparency is a good thing.

Thanks ! -I missed that one but just read through a good portion of it. Interesting stuff... (a couple of loons too) That argument - that releasing some of these files will jeopardize soldiers lives - is one I hear often from people in the military. How exactly would that work? Perhaps I'm ignorant of it because I haven't been through every single WikiLeaks file. I don't understand how people will die because of this. What I have seen is this. Civilian Afghan lives could be in danger.

I'll be very dissapointed if they did in fact "fan the flames" on Climategate. This is all their page concerning those emails read, however,

This archive presents over 60MB of emails, documents, code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a hacker 3-4 days ago (at the time of this submission).
This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.

In what way did they supposedly "fan the flames"?

Is it possible to stop WikiLeaks? It isn't US based.
You can counter false information with facts.
I don't think you can silence anything once it is on the web.

Absolutely true (as far as retrieving already released files go). Yet that hasn't stopped the Pentagon from demanding them to be "returned".

[Will]

Wikileaks is both hero and troublemaker, but above all it's necessary. People often complain about the corporate media, the fact that it's profit driven, it has numerous conflicts of interest when it comes to honestly reporting the news. I couldn't agree more. The only way to remove as many conflicts as possible is to remove the connections between the money and the news. While public news is a good start, PBS and Democracy Now, they don't have the resources to gain access to a lot of the big stories. What Wikileaks does is create an army of reporters and informants, all anonymous, so that the infrastructure of the news organization is massive and extensive and no worry about corporate money influencing the story.

Here are some stories broken by Wikileaks that were not discovered or released by other news organizations:

- Standard Operating Procedures for Guantanamo Bay, along with the fact the Red Cross was denied access to the prisoners/kidnapping victims
- Scientology OT level scamming
- Sarah Palin's emails revealing she was trying to evade public record laws
- Austrailian internet censorship lists
- Petrogate in Peru
- Toxic dumping in Africa
- Collateral murder
- Afghan war diary

[Tank]

At the very least it should be there to show that anything can be 'outed' in the end.

[karadan]

The risking lives excuse is always a hollow one I feel. The ego of any military is usually rather fragile. Normal instinct is to cover up things which go wrong, or 'deal with internally'.. I've always felt the US top brass have a method of blanket secrecy whatever the secret and anyone breaking this rule is a villain, no matter the motive for whistle blowing.

In short, Wiki leaks is a thorn in the side of any government or military and is a direct threat to their self imposed status quo. Because of this I think wiki leaks is fantastic. No entity should be above challenge or questioning. All secrecy is, is the method by which governments and organisations stay unaccountable for their actions.

At least the people in charge will start to question their own decisions in the knowledge that they might one day be held accountable for them.

[wildfire_emissary]

If they stop WikiLeaks, another organization of the same type will probably replace it.

[SSY]

As long as the leaks are truthful, and verifiable, I think they are a great thing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have mixed feelings about this.

This "risking lives" argument may be trumped up by the Pentagon for PR reasons, but it is still a legitimate argument, assuming the enemy takes the time to read this enormous pile of data.  And successful military operations do sometimes require secrecy, not to mention deception -- not that I think that's the case here, but you get my point.

On the other hand, secrecy is offensive to freedom, in the long run, and is too often used not to shelter sensitive data but to shelter officials from the fallout of their screwups.

[karadan]

But the people doing the leaking are doing so because they feel a lot of stuff should be public knowledge. They still have a job to do, though, and knowing what they do, are best suited to choose which information is revealed. I doubt any conscientious whistleblower would purposefully reveal launch codes, for example. I'm sure governments would start jumping a little bit harder were that the case.

[humblesmurph]

WikiLeaks is great.  Bringing truth to the masses can only be a good thing.  I don't worry much about the military secrets angle.  I would think traitors would have a more direct way of getting info to enemies.

[Will]

This "risking lives" argument may be trumped up by the Pentagon for PR reasons, but it is still a legitimate argument, assuming the enemy takes the time to read this enormous pile of data.  And successful military operations do sometimes require secrecy, not to mention deception -- not that I think that's the case here, but you get my point.

I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us. If anyone is guilty of risking the lives of our soldiers and the informants on the ground, it's the corporate contractors, the neoconservatives, the Pentagon, the House and Senate, and the White House. Wikileaks could never hope to put the soldiers in anywhere near as much danger as those actually responsible for the unnecessary wars.

If this was World War II, a war only gone to as a last resort to stop real, actual threats, I might be willing to put stock in the risking lives argument. That simply isn't the case, though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

For the record, I was, and still am against the war in Iraq; however, I regard the war in Afghanistan as justified in its inception, and hardly a war of aggression; "war of vengeance" would appear to be a more-apt description.

If anyone is guilty of risking the lives of our soldiers and the informants on the ground, it's the corporate contractors, the neoconservatives, the Pentagon, the House and Senate, and the White House. Wikileaks could never hope to put the soldiers in anywhere near as much danger as those actually responsible for the unnecessary wars.

Agreed.  As pointed out above, there are civilians at risk too.

If this was World War II, a war only gone to as a last resort to stop real, actual threats, I might be willing to put stock in the risking lives argument. That simply isn't the case, though.

It does risk lives -- civilians who are simply trying to deliver vital services to their provinces; civilians who are trying to educate Afghani women; civilians who are trying to impose a semblance of order in a country that has been torn by war for two generations now.

I should note that I don't regard our military men as expendable, either.

[Reginus]

I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

I'm not very caught-up on this story, so I'm wondering if you could give me a specific instance of a released document that would likely put soldiers or citizens in harms way.