Resolved: WikiLeaks is a threat to United States National Security

At this point in the debate, all major arguments have been introduced. Accordingly, in my third and final segment I plan to first address the most controversial points this debate has presented, and then quickly discuss why I have won each contention. I will not introduce any new major arguments or evidence, and hope my opponent will do the same, as I will not have a chance to respond. Before I begin, I would like to take one last look at the resolution which can be reworded to read "WikiLeaks is likely to inflict pain on the interests of the United States" by inserting the definitions I presented in the opening round. Logical reasoning yields this statement synonymous with "The United States would be better off if WikiLeaks did not exist." Keep this interpretation in mind as I continue my argument. The first all-encompassing argument is that concerning the Afghan Sources. First, I would like to reestablish that these sources were, in fact, leaked; I have provided three sources that attest to this fact. I will elaborate specifically on how this directly harms our national security later, but the existence of these leaked sources is undeniable. The second argument that has drawn the most attention is the alleged redaction process. I do not doubt that WikiLeaks claims that this happens, but (in lack of a less clichï¿½ expression) actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to people's perception of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks obviously was not using this process (or it was extremely ineffective) when they released the identities of foreign sources and the social security numbers of U.S. soldiers in July. Whether they have started to implement or are planning to implement such a process frankly does not matter. People know WikiLeaks for what it has done, not what it plans to do. The governments that have begun to pull back from relations with the U.S. will not suddenly decide to reengage because WikiLeaks claims it will redact information that it decides is harmful. No matter what WikiLeaks says, potential informants (assuming they even know that such a process is being conducted) will not suddenly accept this and reenlist with the United States. Even after WikiLeaks begins to follow up on their claim (assuming they do at all), the untrustworthiness WikiLeaks has given us will remain. But, consider this, if WikiLeaks ceased to exist, or better yet if it had never existed at all, none of this would be a problem. CA1: Reduced likelihood of detrimental foreign policy decisions. Neither of the examples my opponent uses to support this point are legitimate. As I stated in the second round, my opponent has oversimplified the Iraq war situation. Our belief of a presence of weapons was one of multiple reasons we decided to attack, another of which I elaborated on in the second round. The evidence he presents is nowhere near solid; its basis lies in conspiracy theories and opinions made after we already knew the outcome. His second example is the release of the Pentagon Papers. WikiLeaks is nothing like Daniel Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsberg wanted an end to the corruption he was witnessing. WikiLeaks wants transparency and secret-free governments. If WikiLeaks was like Daniel Ellsberg, it would only publish reports about corruption, and I have shown this is not so. CA2: Transparency It would benefit our government if we were a dictatorship and if our government lacked transparency altogether. The fact is, our government has transparency, and it is a major part of our democracy. But as my opponent has admitted: "There are, after all, legitimate secrets." We do not need more transparency. My 2nd and 3rd contentions show how increased transparency hurts us. For my opponent to win this point, he must show how increased transparency would outweigh these harmful effects. So far he has not. CA3: WikiLeaks helps root out government corruption I am not going to pretend this is a bad point, because it is not, and something to be considered in the overall decision. While making the final decision however, I hope that this point only plays a very minor role. My opponent has said that WikiLeaks rooted out corruption in Kenya, and in a very minor espionage case in the United States. National Security was not drastically affected by either of these events. Corruption is not something that is a problem in the United States, and I think it is safe to say that a much greater portion of our interests lie within our own borders than in Kenya. C1: WikiLeaks causes Internal Information Sharing to decrease, putting the country's safety at greater risk. I will summarize why I have effectively won this point by first restating how WikiLeaks is causing this to happen, and then how it harms our National Security. First of all, the Whitehouse memo from my opening statement discussed a memorandum given to government agencies on November 28th (directly after the most recent leak) titled: "WikiLeaks - Mishandling of Classified Information." It explained how agencies were instructed to review their classified information accessibility policies and reduce the amount of information that workers can see to a minimum. Ergo, as a direct result of WikiLeaks less information will be shared between workers. The harm this will have on our country is best summed up by the following passage from the 9/11 Commission: "The importance of integrated, all-source analysis cannot be overstated. Without it, it is not possible to ‘connect the dots.' No one component holds all the relevant information." This was included in the report because it was deemed one of the reasons we were not able to stop the attacks. WikiLeaks has forced us to take these measures in order to protect ourselves from more leaks. Had WikiLeaks never existed, they would not be necessary. C2: WikiLeaks inhibits the inflow of information from sources on foreign soil. My opponent argues that this is an invalid point because there is no evidence supporting it. All three of my sources have discussed the risk to the lives of these sources. I have supplied more than enough evidence stating sources were compromised and are in danger (even if they are not dead they are no longer functional as assets). Besides this, no evidence exists, and no evidence can exist, because the information would be classified. This does not mean that this point should be put aside when judging the pros and cons of WikiLeaks; it is still a very important point that makes sense logically. My opponent also stated that risks already exist. In making their decision, a rational person with their life at stake will consider the benefits and risks. Yes, before WikiLeaks there were risks, but the presence of WikiLeaks causes the risk involved in the situation to increase and informants to be less likely to enlist. C3: WikiLeaks hinders diplomacy and our interactions with foreign governments. Again, my opponent simply avoids my points, attempting to redirect attention back to his third contention which I have already addressed. The only words he has for my contention are that I lack evidence that isn't "government propaganda." I have illustrated why candor and honesty are important, and how WikiLeaks harms that. I have quoted a working politician in Sir Nigel Sheinwald who attests to my point. I have also provided three examples of damaging information that arose from the leaks. He has not addressed this nor what is quite likely the most important question from this debate: How can foreign governments trust us after what happened? My opponent's main attack throughout this debate has been aimed at my evidence; either that I have none or that he doesn't "buy it." In response I have attempted to show the validity of my arguments, and I believe I have adequately refuted all of his counterarguments and contentions. I hope to have convinced you that WikiLeaks is much more harmful than helpful, and that it is a threat to U.S. National Security.