The WikiLeaks Controversy

Recently I listened to the DOHA debates on WLIW. They were debating the non-profit organization WikiLeaks.

The basic question presented in this debate was "Is the world better off with WikiLeaks?" Actually it was a motion rather than a question. But for purposes of this article, I pose it as a question. And I will be as objective as possible in presenting arguments for and against the actions of WikiLeaks. At the end of my article, I will express my opinion.

The speakers at the debate were Sir Richard Dalton (former British Ambassador: Iran), Carne Ross (British Diplomat), Carl Ford (CIA military analyst) and Scott Gilmore (Canadian Foreign Service.)

Sir Richard Dalton and Carne Ross spoke for the motion. Carl Ford and Scott Gilmore spoke against the motion.

WikiLeaks basically operate like any news publishing organization. The have reporters and correspondents seeking out and reporting news. They also have the policy of protecting their sources of news. Apparently, their goal is to seek the truth and report it. They seek transparency in government. They seek accountability in government.

That's not the controversy about WikiLeaks. We all want honest government. We all seek transparency. Today many of us seek transparency with regard campaign donations. We seek honesty in the purpose of wars. Our soldiers who fight those wars deserve honesty with regard to why they are risking their lives. This principle applies to all wars we have fought, all wars we are fighting and all wars we will fight in the future.

But what happens when a reporter knows that releasing certain information will harm a cause; put informants, agents or soldiers in mortal danger; harm negotiations between two nations? Is it still the duty of the reporter to release this information to the public? Is it right to publish confidential negotiations between two nations hence jeopardizing the chances of those negotiations succeeding? Is it right to reveal the names of our informants in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Should information that is confidential and sensitive be published simply because someone leaked the information to WikiLeaks? Or should there be boundaries beyond which no reporter should venture?

The argument for Wikileaks deals with the right of the people to know the truth.

The argument against WikiLeaks is that information that puts our people, our soldiers, our CIA operatives in mortal danger should not be reported. Information that jeopardizes negotiations with other nations should not be reported.

These were the basic arguments presented in this debate.

Here is my opinion. If WikiLeaks insists on revealing sensitive confidential information that endangers any US citizen serving our nation in any capacity without first seeking the consent of our military and CIA, the world is better off without WikiLeaks. If WikiLeaks has information about a injustice, information that would put our people in mortal danger; that injustice should be reported to our Justice department; not to the world. Revealing the truth is good only if it is revealed in cooperation with the government.

£â'¬â'¬