Resolved: WikiLeaks is a threat to United States National Security

Allow me to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me the opportunity to participate in what has been one of my favorite debates. There is, however, one issue that I think should be cleared up before I finish defending my arguments. My challenger, being both very intelligent and clever, has begun to be cognizant that his resolution isn't quite defensible. Accordingly, in order to compensate for the shortcomings of his arguments, he has decided to subtly reword the resolution. Nonetheless, the proposition that WikiLeaks harms the United States' national security is not synonymous with the proposition that "The United States would be better off if WikiLeaks did not exist." For example, the United States would be better off if the Ku Klux Klan didn't exist. It does not logically follow from this fact that the Ku Klux Klan is a threat to the United States' national security. In the modern era, they are a hate group, but they aren't a threat to the United States' national security. In any case, Pro hasn't even managed to uphold this much lower burden of proof that he has cunningly tried to instate. C1: WikiLeaks causes Internal Information Sharing to decrease, putting the country's safety at greater risk. Once again, my opponent has stated that WikiLeaks has harmed the United States' national security by encouraging the U.S. to improve its security measures. As I have indicated previously, this is simply not the case. The new security measures have benefited our national security by making it harder for people to access vital information that they shouldn't be able to access. Everyone who is rightfully authorized to look at the information vital to our national security still has their access to it, and they can share it with other authorized people. Knowingly or not, my opponent is taking the 911 commission report out of context. He has also failed to address the context that I have provided on this point. The 911 commission report indicated that our lack of information sharing was the result of government agencies not properly coordinating with each other.[1] Incompetence is a problem, not increased security. Therefore, WikiLeaks is exonerated from my opponent's charges. C2: WikiLeaks inhibits the inflow of information from sources on foreign soil. For a final time, my challenger has argued that WikiLeaks has vitiated our ability to gather information from foreign sources and has harmed our informants in Afghanistan. Firstly, the sources he is appealing to, such as the Secretary of Defense, are not credible on this topic. Like the rest of the government, Robert Gates has a vested interest in keeping classified documents away from the public. Secondly, and more importantly, there is absolutely no evidence to support his claim that WikiLeaks has harmed our sources in Afghanistan. Moreover, my opponent still has not presented evidence that the United States' ability to garner informants in Afghanistan has been compromised. Likewise, a "rational person" looking to work for the U.S. military will know that leaks are very rare. They also would know that WikiLeaks isn't al-Qaeda. Their goal isn't to harm anyone, and they work very hard to protect people's identity, even if they aren't always perfect. C3: WikiLeaks hinders diplomacy and our interactions with foreign governments. If you will remember, my challenger has asserted that WikiLeaks impedes the ability of our diplomats to speak candidly, and it prevents governments from being able to trust us. So far as I can tell, I've negated both of the points that he made. Candor, honesty and trust don't materialize in an environment of secrecy that lacks accountability. To back up this point, I provided evidence in my opening round which showed how the U.S. was spying on Foreign Office ministers.[2] I also stated how Silvio Berlusconi was using secrecy to hide his corruption.[3] Honesty and candor require accountability, which is what WikiLeaks provides. Furthermore, my opponent's sources that he used to demonstrate why WikiLeaks has harmed our diplomacy simply aren't credible. The Pentagon and politicians like Sir Nigel Sheinwald are inclined to seek as much power and secrecy as they can get. Indeed, my challenger's fears are blown completely out of proportion. We've become strong allies with countries that we used to be at war with (e.g., Japan and Germany). Our diplomacy and world relations are strong enough to handle a few scandalous leaks. As I've stated previously, whatever short term effects WikiLeaks may have on our diplomatic relations, it still has the positive long term effect of making our diplomatic relations more open and accountable. CA1: WikiLeaks helps reduce the likelihood of detrimental foreign policy decisions. I never said that the only reason the United States invaded Iraq was based on the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Rather, this was an important factor in the decision, and that was the only point I was making. Moreover, the evidence I presented is not based on "conspiracy theories." It is a fact that Joseph Wilson traveled to Africa in order to investigate claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. When he came back, he published information questioning the integrity of the case for war before we found out that there were no WMDs.[4] It is also a fact that Karl Rove said that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.[5] At any rate, my central point remains. It is possible that with more leaks coming from dissidents in the CIA and other places, the justification for the war could have been significantly undermined. My challenger then claims that WikiLeaks is nothing like Daniel Ellsberg. It should be perfectly obvious that this analogy is compatible with the facts. WikiLeaks doesn't want "secret-free governments." They want accountable governments that aren't beleaguered by corruption. CA2: WikiLeaks helps keep governments open. In his previous round, my challenger asserted that: "We do not need more transparency." I find this notion to be amazing, given all of the corruption that has existed in our government. I will admit for a second time that there are legitimate secrets; however, WikiLeaks respects those secrets through their process of redacting information from their material. My challenger's only reservation here is based on his arguments that he made in (C2) and (C3), both of which have been negated. In fact, I've shown how more transparency has positive benefits. CA3: WikiLeaks helps to root out government corruption. While clarifying his own position, Pro states that: "Corruption is not something that is a problem in the United States." The U.S. may not be plagued by ceaseless and rampant corruption, but corruption is still a problem. Moreover, my opponent has missed the point of the example that I used with Kenya. WikiLeaks helps root out corruption everywhere, not just in Kenya. Because corruption can have a destabilizing effect on governments, this point isn't just applicable to Kenya, but also to the U.S. and other countries. | Conclusion | Throughout the course of this debate, my opponent has not made a single argument that hasn't been thoroughly discredited. WikiLeaks doesn't harm our intelligence capabilities. It has not brought harm or death to a single individual. And the effects that it has on our diplomacy are absolutely minor in the larger scheme of things. If anything, it makes our diplomacy more open and accountable. Not only this, I've also shown why WikiLeaks is beneficial to the United States' national security by rooting out corruption, promoting transparency and helping to reduce the likelihood that the U.S. makes harmful foreign policy decisions. Far from being a threat to our national security, WikiLeaks has done a tremendous service to the United States. Sources: http://www.debate.org...