Wikileaks

Resolution: Wikileaks should continue to exist and be available to the public. Readers should note that I am not arguing that the U.S. should take any actions against Wikileaks or Julian Assange; I'm arguing that Wikileaks should voluntarily shut itself down. ==War effort== Whether one supports or opposes the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can at least agree that *while we are fighting these wars*, 1) We maximize the amount of terrorists captured or killed and 2) We should minimize the amount of soldiers and civilians killed. I contend that Wikileaks is detrimental to both of these goals. 1-Many of the leaked documents contain reports of Afghan and Iraqi informants cooperating with the American military to help track down terrorists in those countries. Of course, Wikileaks censored the documents, so that no soldier or informant has yet been harmed by the release of this information. But that censored information is still in Wikileaks' possession, and Assange is threatening to release it if the U.S. harms him or Wikileaks. Of course, if the government did this, it wouldn't really be Assange's or Wikileaks' fault—it would be the American government's fault. The important thing is that informants will be far less willing to cooperate with the U.S., which means that the military won't be able to stop as many terrorists. Even if we shouldn't be there in the first place, capturing and killing terrorists while we *are* there is certainly a good thing, and reducing our ability to do that is certainly a bad thing. 2-In the U.S., the Afghan and Iraq war leaks haven't really had much of an impact on the average American. They don't have anything to do with the American people, who have other things to worry about, so most Americans just don't care all that much. This is not the case in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the leaks provide information about U.S. soldiers hurting or killing innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, these attacks are not Wikileaks' fault—they are the military's fault. The information is true, and Wikileaks has every right to publish it. But that doesn't mean they *should*. Such information serves as an excellent recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Although the wars themselves are the main reason soldiers and Iraqi/Afghani civilians are in danger, helping terrorist groups recruit puts them in even more danger. But what if the leaks actually shorten the wars, like Pro claims the Pentagon papers did with Vietnam? Wouldn't that save even more lives? It would. Unfortunately, there's no reason to believe they will. The leaks contain information about military waste and corruption, and soldiers killing civilians. Hardly breaking news. And the American people are responding predictably—apathetically. If the leaks contained shocking new information that had the American people rising up in opposition to the wars, the situation would be different—but the leaks did not. ==Diplomacy== The most recent leaks contained information about how American diplomacy really works. Most of it amounted to gossip—what diplomats really thought about foreign leaders. Some contained rather disturbing information about the State Department using diplomats to spy on other diplomats and UN leaders. Some of the information could potentially be dangerous. Some cables showed that Saudi Arabia is urging America to attack Iran. [7] This type of information encourages warmongers in Israel and America, as well as warmongers in Iran itself, straining relations and bringing the world closer to a war with Iran. ==Economy== The American economy is extraordinarily fragile right now—GDP is still shrinking [2], and unemployment (the broadest measure of unemployment, which includes workers who've been unemployed so long they've stopped looking for work) is the highest it's been since the beginning of the recession.[3] And it's not just the American economy that's fragile—Europe is in bad shape as well. Much of the European Union is bankrupt—Ireland [4] and Greece [5] were recently bailed out to prevent the entire Euro-zone from collapsing. The other PIIGS—particularly Portugal and Spain—may also need to be bailed out in the future. [6] The reason for these bailouts is that if these countries default on their debt, the banks that own that debt will go down. Since the world banking system is so interconnected, a debt crisis could bring down the financial system of all of Europe—or even all of the world. Well, so what? What does the economic problems of the world and the fragility of the banking system have to do with Wikileaks? According to Julian Assange, information will be leaked early next year about several of the top banks on Wall St. [1] This leak, according to Assange, could "take down a bank or two." [1] Of course, this hasn't happened yet, but the resolution specifies that Wikileaks should *continue* to operate, so future actions are highly relevant. So what if a few banks fail though? Why should we care if some Wall St fat-cats lose money? We should care because of the current fragility of the world economy and financial system. Right now, the debt problems of Europe are a threat—but they're being dealt with by strict austerity programs. But even if the debt problem is fixed, the fragility of the world financial system remains. Just as a default in Europe that brings down a few banks could bring down the entire world economy, because of the interconnectedness of today's economy, a crisis that suddenly brings down a few large American banks would have the same result. What would happen to the economy if the financial system collapsed? One of two things. A) The government could bail out the failing banks (again)--this is an undesirable option, to say the least. Robbing the taxpayers to bail out corrupt bankers surely can't be thought of as a good thing. It's also unlikely to happen, considering how angry the public still is over the last bailout. Or B) We let the banks fail. If this happened, the already fragile world economy would be brought to its knees. The recovery would be killed before it could get off the ground. Are there criminals and corrupt scum on Wall St? Of course. Do these people deserve to be brought to justice? Yes. But Wikileaks' planned leak is not the time nor the way to do this. A sudden, public release of this incriminating information would expose the criminal activity on Wall St, but it would do so at the price of the economy of the entire world. A better solution would to be for the SEC, or whoever the proper authorities are, to get the information and prosecute those who've broken the law. Would this be a perfect solution? No. It likely isn't even a good solution. Because of the government's notoriously close ties with Wall St, many who've broken the law would not get what they deserve. But it has the advantage of not bringing about a sudden financial crash that brings down the world economy. So, to reiterate: Option A) Wikileaks releases incrimination information to the public, criminals on Wall St. are held accountable to the public, but the ensuing crash brings down the already fragile world economy before it has a chance to recover from the last crash. Or Option B) Incriminating information is withheld from the public, criminals on Wall St. aren't given the punishments they deserve, but the matter can be dealt with in a orderly and cautious manner that does not bring down any large banks, sparing the world another devastating economic crash. Although the gut instinct of most people is to want to punish fat-cat banker criminals—in this situation, we must hold back, to prevent all of us from going down with them. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com...