All one has to know is the degree to which nuclear war was averted through diplomatic back-channels and secret communications during the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962 in order to begin to understand how dangerous, stupid and wrong the entire concept of Wikileaks is. The latest dump of secret, near-secret and supposedly secure government messages on a wide range of topics has the same general effect as a group of small, noisy children running amuck, screaming and banging pots and pans, while adults are trying to address urgent issues of war, commerce, human rights, and terrorism in the same small room.
Not all the illegally released materials are vital, of course. Some, as the New York Times notes, are historically valuable; others are helpful to understanding the political dynamics in the world. On the whole, however, their net effect will be to disrupt delicate international relations and make diplomacy more difficult than it already is.
The man behind Wikileaks is beneath contempt, a Messianic criminal and fool named Julian Assange. He claims to want to stop wars and the deaths of innocent people, but his tactics are the direct descendants of the bombs set by idealistic, misguided and cruel anarchists a century ago. Disrupting a crucial governmental function does not reform it, it just makes things worse, and in unpredictable ways.
I am proud to say that I knew that no good would come of Wikileaks when it first raised its ill-begotten cyber-head in 2007, not that I was the only one, or the first. Back in 2007, it was obvious that a man so naive that he believed government transparency in all things was an absolute good was the equivalent of an infant at the controls of a tank, and that he would inevitably cause random harm and chaos, all while childishly giggling and clapping his hands.
If you see this guy, tackle him, sit on him, make a citizen’s arrest and wait for the Feds to arrive. At this point, that is about the best we can do.
Oh yes,,,I forgot to mention: he’s also a fugitive from a rape charge. As is often the case, the individual who has no respect for governments has no respect for law, society and other human beings, either.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m on your side on this one, Jack. All he’s succeeded in doing is giving valuable intelligence to terrorists, undermining our countermeasure efforts and putting men far better than himself at risk.
Wikileaks: The Only Talking Point You Need
“Revealing crimes committed by the State or its agents (under the euphemism of “State secrets”) does not hurt American interests, endanger American lives, nor is it treasonous or otherwise criminal. What hurts American interests, continually endangers Americans both at home and abroad, and is criminal to the highest degree, is committing those crimes in the first place. Ever hear that old adage, “don’t shoot the messenger”? Yeah. Same thing. There are only two reasons why anyone would react with hostility when an organization like Wikileaks makes these secrets public: Either they are criminals afraid of being brought to justice, or they are in ignorant denial.”
Crimes? Sure…real crimes. The vast, vast amount of information leaked does not amount to crimes. Revealing unfiltered piles of secret material that makes diplomacy more difficult and harms our relations with foreign nations is wildly irresponsible and destructive as a method of revealing specific crimes. The argument that there is no place for secrecy in diplomacy is unsustainable. Your argument is abstract at best—it doesn’t deal with either the reality or the true motivations behind what was done. At worst, it is simplistic.
Yeah… if a crime is committed in the forest and no one hears about is it still wrong?
What “crimes” are you speaking of? Secrets aren’t crimes, and apparent hypocrisies and lies in the jungle of international relations and diplomacy are squarely in the realm of utilitarianism. Your comment is an argument; it’s a platitude.
Dangerous to whom?
The legit governments in the US have harmed me far worse than any foreign person or entity in property confiscated, incarceration and threats …
The only information that is dangerous is the knowledge that thinking for one’s self is wrong…
and clearly this author thinks we should be quiet and swallow the pabulum that politicians have pre-digested.
Go ahead.. i have other plans
To use a technical term: baloney. Individuals cannot manage foreign policy, which is managing chaos and nitro, and requires governments, while working with foreign governments requires trust and secrecy. You can deny that, like you can deny that the earth is round and the sky is blue: I’m not going to argue with you. But what you represent as principle is simply ignorance.
For those who think this is a good thing, put your money where your mouth is. Publish all your information on the internet. I want to see your SSN, bank account numbers, those of your children and spouse. I want a diary listing what your really think all day long about your boss, the head of your company, and your spouses best friends and relatives. I want you to tell what you really think about your neighbor with seemingly endless money, an exotic car, and friends galore over for loud parties every weekend. I want it all out there for everyone to see. What? You say this will cause too much harm to you and your relationships? Others might take this information and use it to harm you? Good, now go to the back of the room. If you have no problem with it, please post the website in the comments below ;’)
As we insiders say in the ethics business, “BINGO!”
When I start stealing your money to fund wars, espionage, the imprisonment of innocent people, and torture then I’ll happily post all of my personal information on the internet.
I have to ask…”stealing” to start wars? Imprisonment of innocent people? (Tell me you’re not talking about terrorists!) What are you talking about?
As for torture–our system has dealt with that pretty effectively, I think, without the help of a slash-and burn leaker. I don’t see the nexus between a well-intentioned but ethically inexcusable intelligence policy and intentionally harming beneficial diplomatic efforts. Do you?
Um, not everyone arrested and tortured was a terrorist. Though, without breaking through state secrets, we wouldn’t know that.
Uh, what? How has our system done anything about torture? By not punishing any of the torturers? Only stopping the program after it was illegally disclosed. What did the system actually do on it’s own?
Do we know that all the diplomatic efforts are beneficial and legal?
So far as the documents show lies to the American people and/or illegal conduct, they definitely should be made available. Information about where specific troops were on specific days, what actions they took, who supplied them, how they were supplied, etc… should definitely not be disclosed. That part of the information is dangerous without being important to disseminate.
Assange is extremely naive and dangerous, but you seem to paint the idea of disclosing secrets with too wide of a brush. The specific secrets matter. Assange, unfortunately, went for everything, and is being righfully demonized.
1) It doesn’t matter whether they were terrorists or not, so I won’t argue the point. Nobody should have been tortured.
2) The torture didn’t come out because of Wikileaks—it came out the right way, through FOAA and good reporting. It has been dealt with because we have shined light on it and the torture advocates have lost the cultural argument.
3.I think punishing good faith policy decisions during war time is always a terrible idea—ripe for political hypocrisy and abuses, and a disincentive to leadership.
4) There is no way to protect some secrets and allow others to be revealed—Assange proves that. I repeat: make the whistleblower and the messenger accountable, and require open identity and access. If the whistleblower isn’t willing to come forward, then he isn’t really dedicated to doing the right thing. Then we reform the secrecy process. This isn’t the way.
I’ll echo Jack on that one, Michael. The only difference is one of scope. It’s both bad and stupid for a man to post such things in public view to his own discredit. It’s an act of treachery for someone to further act on that stupidity to needlessly offend people and place that goofball’s family is jeopardy as well. But when this is taken to the international stage… well, wars have erupted over less. This Swedish pervert has, for reasons of sheer ego, threatened the foundations of world order in a time when those international relationships are critical in restraining the machinations of rogue states and terrorist sponsors.
I was sort of hoping someone would pony up on this one. I just bought a 24 pack of microwave popcorn.
I’m not a utilitarian. Ends don’t justify means. Every action the government takes that infringes upon the equal rights of every individual to life, liberty, and property is a crime.
You claim that individuals cannot manage foreign policy, yet they do. All collectivist terminology (government, society, the public, etc) is hogwash. All groups are comprised of individuals. I believe that after thousands of years of human civilization it is apparent that individuals working within the context of governments cannot manage foreign policy as their only tools for doing so are violence and fraud. It is a happy coincidence that allowing individuals to be free to voluntarily interact with one another free from the institutionalized violence of government agents is both ethical AND produces good consequences to satisfy the utilitarian crowd.
I apologize, Patrick; I misjudged you. I’m afraid you’re just misguided. Good luck with that theory—there are plenty of bearded guys wandering around with signs who believe it too.
Jack,
Although we disagree, you’re clearly an educated man with a bright mind. I understand the attraction in using condescension and ad hominem when speaking in opposition to another individual however it’s really unnecessary and does little to advance mutual understanding. Though, I suppose it can make one feel a certain smug satisfaction in “sticking it to” the other guy. I hope that in future communication we can rise above such cheap forms expression.
Peace,
Dan
Peace, baby. I have no idea, frankly, what the proper way is to argue with intelligently expressed fanaticism…and I mean that in the nicest way, Dan. Even if your jaundiced view were justifiable by something other than —what? Bitterness? Anger? Really bad professors?—It can’t be applied to Assange and be judged to be fair. He undermines diplomacy by the few countries actively trying to keep despotism and death at bay, knowing that the worst nations will derive immediate benefit. I’m genuinely sorry about whatever happened to you to make you see the US this way, and I assume, since you obviously aren’t a fool, that I might have reacted similarly. I mean no disrespect when I say I’m very, very glad I don’t know whether I would have or not.
Why are all of Jack’s arguments appeals to ridicule and ad hominem attacks? Is this one of this satire sites like the Onion?
Dear Jake—I hope you liked the version of your multiple “sick joke” comments I posted. I didn’t think I needed to post all three. [By the way, only first time commenters have to wait for moderation—after they get one OK, they’re post are not screened. I will only screen out comments that are obscene or off topic, not ones that are just critical or obnoxious.] I’d love to do a satire site, and I could do a hell of a funny one; unfortunately, Ethics Alarms has a rather strict mission.
As I just wrote Dan, I have no idea what the right way is to respond to commenters who vociferously argue a position that I find ethically and logically indefensible while basin g the arguments on a world view so alien from mine that there is no basis for real engagement. I could just ignore such comments, and maybe I should. Personally, I don’t view telling someone whose conclusion is off the wall that his conclusion is off the wall as an ad hominem attack. When I detect fanaticism, I’ll call it. Also not ad hominem. Some of my best friends are fanatics. Because I take your comments toheart, Jake, I just read through my last 50 responses. Not only isn’t “every” response ad hominem, I’m not sure any are. I’ll plead guilty to being hard on commenters who adopt a “the U.S. is the personification of evil” position, like Dan, because it is unfair and insulting, and fanciful…and I think it is a toxic opinion that undermines our society. I’ll also be hard on the periodic “who are you to judge?” advocate, because that attitude is anti-matter to the objective of Ethics Alarms and, not coincidentally, my profession, AND any hope we as a society has of actually moving toward a more ethical culture. If you want to defend that position here, swell, but the gloves are off. That attitude is toxic to ethics, and is, in a real sense, “the enemy;” I admit to having little tolerance for it.
You have your clearance now….please use it wisely.
As a matter of clarification, I’d like to state that I certainly don’t believe that the U.S. is the personification of evil (see prior comments regarding collectivism. I’m an individualist and certainly something as abstract as “the U.S.” can’t be the personification of anything). I believe that initiating force is wrong in accordance with what is widely known as the “non-aggression principle” or NAP. It is very similar to the “harm principle” as articulated by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty”. Having said that, I believe that ALL individuals and institutions that operate on a paradigm of initiating force regardless of stated intentions or goals are evil. There are FAR worse places to live than the U.S. I enjoy being American. I love the culture and landscape of my native country. However, because I love it I feel that I have an obligation to reject the ideas that threaten my homeland and speak out against them.
I was wondering the same thing, Jake. I believe Jack is more interested in appealing to people clearly on “his side” than to people in the middle, like me, who have opinions that oppose his point of view but are still willing to take a look.
Well, what can I say: your belief is wrong, Duane. I have no interest—none whatsoever—in dictating anyone’s opinion or preaching to a choir. I take positions, but this is not an advocacy blog in any way—except to the extent that it advocates looking at issues, events and daily life from a consistently ethical framework rather than emotional, ideological, political or popular one. This is an area where there is often no way to be certain what is “right,” but I insist that the analysis not be based on knee-jerk nostrums or rationalizations. Jake’s comment took the popular route of attacking me rather then adding something to the debate. I presume he was reacting to my (admittedly less polite than it should have been) initial exchange with Dan (who is a smart and nice guy), in which I correctly concluded that he was seeing an issue through a particular ideology—a formula that will dictate an answer. I can’t argue with that approach—it’s just antithetical to ethical analysis; it assumes the answer. If it fits the answer the formula spits out, it’s “right.” Dan’s an anarchist; that’s his formula. I can’t talk him out of his formula, and more than I can talk a Catholic out of Catholicism. An ethical analysis often (not always) allows many valid and disparate conclusions regarding any problem. I’m interested in “appealing” to people who want to a think critically about right and wrong, not to promote the One Great Solution. That’s just not a “side.”
There are many regular commenters who disagree with me frequently, and even usually, and their arguments are welcome. Presumably they read ethics commentary because it challenges them to think critically about their own points of view. That’s all I am trying to so.
If you disagree with something, say so, and why—that’s all I ask. I do not appreciate speculation on hidden motives for offering the opinion.
The problem is that the great majority of the information leaked has nothing to do with torture (which we were well aware of before the rise of Wikilinks, thank you very much), genocide, or anything that most people would deem to be heretical to the spirit of this country and well worth leaking. It’s mostly just under-the-table diplomacy (and not the selling slave children in exchange for lower tariffs kind either). It’s the difference between telling your teacher that your best friend plans to kidnap her, and telling her that he happens to have an extreme crush on her.
(I will be honest though, stuff like Afghan corruption and the mixed results of our counter-terrorism ops aren’t so much secrets as much as common sense).
Jack, you should check out the blog by Law and Business Ethics professor Gary Chartier. The two of you have similar academic backgrounds, but very opposing viewpoints.
http://liberalaw.blogspot.com/
Thank you, Dan, I will. Sources and ideas always welcome—even if I don’t always sound like it. Working on it…
I discovered civility late in life. Bear with me…
Perhaps before we move too quickly into whether or not government itself or other vital government activity (eg: taxation, trade restrictions, etc) are legitimate, we should focus on what has actually happened in this case. Some 250,000 documents have been released by someone in the State Department (presumably) who felt that the public needs to know. Slightly over half are not given any confidential classification, and none are top secret.
These are diplomatic cables: there are no secret informants or covert ops guys in the field. The information contained within them will not place anyone directly in danger. This information came from lower to mid level diplomats who write terse and blunt summaries of conversations they have with foreign counterparts, leaving out the diplo-speak. Some involve petty things, like the personal unpleasant-ness of a politician. Others, however, outline more sinister dealings our government has had with, shall we say, less than reputable countries.
(Sorry, trying not to ramble, just want to make a point)
This information has the potential to embarrass, not to kill, maim, or otherwise cause direct harm. In the long run, it may even reduce overall harm by keeping the system honest. Case in point: Hamid Karzai. He was described in a Guardian article (pulled from the leaks) as “an extremely weak man who did not listen to facts but was instead easily swayed by anyone who came to report even the most bizarre stories or plots against him.” I now know this. I now find him to be a poor choice for a leader. Netanyahu was described as making worthless promises. That is useful knowledge for the average citizen to know when making their own mind up about international policy. And the reason it is important for a regular citizen to have good facts? to make good decisions; because last time I checked, we still vote for our leaders.
Rhett, these strike me as rationalizations all. The State dept. employee who revealed them violated his duty of confidentialty, and Wikileaks just magnifies his offense. If he wasn’t willing to keep secrets, he shouldn’t have taken the job; if he felt he had to blow the whistle, he had an obligation to reveal his identity.
Rhett: The cables come from somewhere; foreign governments will be able to track down sources, and punish them. It interferes with US intelligence gathering, but most of all, it undermines trust. Assange has probably sunk Clinton’s effectiveness at State; that’s not good for anybody. My bottom line: a Wikileaks in the months before WW II, when FDR and Churchill were engaged in secret efforts to undermine the Nazis (and help England and the USSR survive ) in contravention of Congress, might have led to Hitler ruling the world. Secrecy is often, though not always, necessary. When Assange starts releasing secrets from one of the dictatorships or authoritarian governments rather than the chief force for peace and human rights in the world, I’ll consider regarding him as something other than an anti-American, irresponsible renegade.
Nothing much I can add to your observations, Jack, except to reiterate that these documents DO, through their content, sources and identifications, threaten the stability of an already unstable world situation. It also threatens what’s left of America’s credibility under the present administration. I’ve heard it from credible sources that Assange could easily have been taken into American custody and his website erased from cyberspace had only the order been given. Nobody, it seems, who’s experienced in this field can understand why this wasn’t done six months ago! BTW: Julian Assange is not Swedish, but Australian. My error from previous. But he is a pervert… as is his prime American source, PFC Manning. No surprise there.
Pingback: Is WikiLeaks Ethical, Criminal, or an Immune Nuisance? | UsefulArts.us