WikiLeaks: a new breed of leak?

WikiLeaks and its documents are here.  What do we do now?

On Monday, Sam highlighted WikiLeaks’ enormous release of secret documents concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan, and US efforts in and relations with both countries.  As he noted, one of the first questions we should ask is whether or not WikiLeaks’ document release is legal.

Obviously, the cat is out of the bag: WikiLeaks and its documents, for good or for bad, are here.  The bigger question now is how governments and citizens will respond.

Leaks, even large ones, are not unheard of (think Pentagon Papers).  To answer both this question, and the earlier one to which Sam pointed, we need to determine if this leak is unlike any previous ones—and whether deserves a unique response as a result. 

How is WikiLeaks different from other leaks?

1. WikiLeaks is a website.  There is no WikiLeaks press room to shut down or chastise.  For this reason, it is in some ways literally, figuratively, and legally untouchable
2. Although Private Manning of the Defense Department (who allegedly leaked all of these documents) is American, WikiLeaks is foreign.  It will be hard for the US to bring the website to court, although it might not want to press charges anyway
3. WikiLeaks didn’t alert the government.  When The New York Times finds itself in possession of secrets, it sits on the information for a markedly long time in order to vet it, weigh the damage that might be caused by reporting the leak against the importance of sharing the information with the public, and notify the government in order to solicit recommendations on the sensitivity of the material

WikiLeaks gave The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel several weeks of access to the documents, but required that they not print anything before this past Sunday.  These publications had enough time to rush through the records and prepare articles for this week, but could not react as they normally would with leaked secrets

4. The fact that WikiLeaks could release the information in conjunction with respected periodicals gave their action the air of legitimacy, and those several weeks of preparation and article-writing ensured that the leak would get noticedWikiLeaks has an agenda.  As Sam put it on Monday: “To WikiLeaks, this is a crusade… they believe they have an obligation to use transparency to expose American wrongdoing.”  They disagree with American involvement in and around the Near East, and hope to influence American policy and public opinion accordingly

When an organization like The Washington Post reports sensitive information, they do just that: report.  They leave editorializing to the appropriate section of the paper.

Naturally, the journalists’ biases influence their reporting and the information they present in subtle ways.  But one has to suspect that WikiLeaks’ prejudices have more overt effects

Whereas, for example, Der Spiegel would presumably withhold information that might endanger informants and their families named in the leaked documents, WikiLeaks might have waived that sort of concern in favor of undermining the war

Already, The Times of London has discovered the names of dozens of Afghan informants (along with their villages and fathers’ names) in the WikiLeaks documents

WikiLeaks checked their documents for this sort of information and withheld some 15,000 documents as a result, but the Afghan Foreign Ministry said many Afghans have been put in real danger—and called the US “morally and legally responsible” for any resulting harm

Clearly, WikiLeaks and its archive are unlike previous intelligence leaks.  It is already being labeled “irresponsible” by many American media outlets.  Who knows what will happen when the other “several million files” are revealed in the future?

-Jonathan

Image of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user New Media Days.

On Monday, Sam highlighted WikiLeaks’ enormous release of secret documents concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan, and US efforts in and relations with both countries. As he noted, one of the first questions we should ask is whether or not WikiLeaks’ document release is legal.

Obviously, the cat is out of the bag: WikiLeaks and its documents, for good or for bad, are here. The bigger question now is how governments and citizens will respond.

Leaks, even large ones, are not unheard of (think Pentagon Papers). To answer both this question, and the earlier one to which Sam pointed, we need to determine if this leak is unlike any previous ones—and whether deserves a unique response as a result.

How is WikiLeaks different from other leaks?

1. WikiLeaks is a website. There is no WikiLeaks press room to shut down or chastise. For this reason, it is in some ways literally, figuratively, and legally untouchable

2. Although Private Manning of the Defense Department (who allegedly leaked all of these documents) is American, WikiLeaks is foreign. It will be hard for the US to bring the website to court, although it might not want to press charges anyway

3. WikiLeaks didn’t alert the government. When The New York Times finds itself in possession of secrets, it sits on the information for a markedly long time in order to vet it, weigh the damage that might be caused by reporting the leak against the importance of sharing the information with the public, and notify the government in order to solicit recommendations on the sensitivity of the material

WikiLeaks gave The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel several weeks of access to the documents, but required that they not print anything before this past Sunday. These publications had enough time to rush through the records and prepare articles for this week, but could not react as they normally would with leaked secrets

4. The fact that WikiLeaks could release the information in conjunction with respected periodicals gave their action the air of legitimacy, and those several weeks of preparation and article-writing ensured that the leak would get noticedWikiLeaks has an agenda. As Sam put it on Monday: “To WikiLeaks, this is a crusade… they believe they have an obligation to use transparency to expose American wrongdoing.” They disagree with American involvement in and around the Near East, and hope to influence American policy and public opinion accordingly

When an organization like The Washington Post reports sensitive information, they do just that: report. They leave editorializing to the appropriate section of the paper.

Naturally, the journalists’ biases influence their reporting and the information they present in subtle ways. But one has to suspect that WikiLeaks’ prejudices have more overt effects

Whereas, for example, Der Spiegel would presumably withhold information that might endanger informants and their families named in the leaked documents, WikiLeaks might have waived that sort of concern in favor of undermining the war

Already, The Times of London has discovered the names of dozens of Afghan informants (along with their villages and fathers’ names) in the WikiLeaks documents

WikiLeaks checked their documents for this sort of information and withheld some 15,000 documents as a result, but the Afghan Foreign Ministry said many Afghans have been put in real danger—and called the US “morally and legally responsible” for any resulting harm

Clearly, WikiLeaks and its archive are unlike previous intelligence leaks. It is already being labeled “irresponsible” by many American media outlets. Who knows what will happen when the other “several million files” are revealed in the future?

Related posts:

  1. Is WikiLeaks WikiLegal?
  2. Pay attention to Wikileaks?
  3. It’s hard to be a saint in the (war-torn) city
  4. Are the lives of compatriots worth more?

July 28, 2010 · Filed Under Foreign politics, International Relations, Jonathan, War

Share

Comments

Leave a Reply




  • Editors

    Jacob Bronsther is a law student at NYU. He has an MPhil in Political Theory from Oxford.

  • Sam Gill is a consultant in DC. He studied Political Theory at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Marc Grinberg is a Presidential Management Fellow. He studied Political Theory at Oxford.

  • John Rood is founder of Next Step Test Prep. He has an AM in Political Theory from Chicago.

  • Luke Freedman is studying Philosophy and Political Science at Carleton College.


  • Writers

    Jonathan Barentine

    Ethan Davison

    Han Li

    Charles Wang


  • Sign up for the TPP Weekly Rewind



  •

  • Share us