Wikileaks poses a threat to United States security.

In the past year Wikileaks has risen to the public eye. This is due to a large release of government files; including several releases of files that compromise vital security locations and top secret diplomatic cables. It is because of the obvious threat to national security caused by Wikileaks that I stand in firm affirmation of the; Resolved: Wikileaks poses a threat the United States national security. For the purpose of clarity I would like to offer the following definition. National Security- a collective term for the defense and foreign relations of a country, protection of the interests of a country As defined by Merriam Webster. Contention 1: Wikileaks puts vital sites in danger. The Washington Post, December 13, 2010, p. A18 (The writer is director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council of the United States and a former U.S. ambassador.) Courtesy of WikiLeaks comes a secret State Department cable listing sites around the world vital to U.S. national security and public health. "Leaking a list that purports to lay out critical infrastructure is like painting a target on the companies or the entities which are listed," said former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, who was responsible for the national infrastructure protection plan. The list of overseas facilities goes on for four single-spaced pages. Want to find "the most critical gas facility in the world"? According to the document, it's the Nadym gas pipeline junction in Russia. How about a "critical irreplaceable source of power to portions of northeast U.S"? Hydro Quebec in Canada or maybe the plant in Presont, England, that makes parts "critical to the new F-35 joint strike fighter." Some elements are not well-protected or well-known," Chertoff said. Attacks damaging to the U.S. could occur on any continent and in unlikely places that might never have occurred to bin Laden or any other terrorist. While we may not see the damage caused by the leaks in the short term the possibilities for damage created by Wikileaks is massive. The list of all of these sites leaked by Wikileaks paints a target on places vital to United States security. This obviously harms the interests and defense of the U.S. thereby harming National Security. Contention 2: Wikileaks damages U.S. foreign relations. The Washington Post, December 13, 2010, p. A18 (The writer is director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council of the United States and a former U.S. ambassador.) U.S. diplomats around the world are having to spend time on rear-guard "management" of the leaks' impacts rather than discussing real political, security, economic and other problems. Many diplomats in Europe will be deterred from talking with us confidentially. The slowing of information flows will return to the U.S. government, undermining the ability of policymakers and analysts to see and think laterally across diverse issues and problems. WikiLeaks' releases also are adding to regional problems and rivalries, playing into some countries' domestic politics in ways not anticipated by the leaked cables' authors. U.S. diplomats may face scrutiny over reporting and analysis they may be only vaguely associated with, or they may be rejected by other countries because, in confidential reporting to their own capital, they dared to express criticism or report distasteful information. With American power and the effectiveness of coercive strategies declining in relative terms, we need agile diplomacy. These leaks harm that diplomacy, and America's diplomatic effectiveness in a dangerous world will be diminished. Those are real consequences. Contention 3: Wikileaks damages the intelligence gathering of the United States. Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Congressional Documents and Publications, December 16, 2010, p . online Leaks significantly impact our ability to engage in exchanges of information with allies and adversaries alike. Even routine diplomatic discourse becomes impossible if both foreign and American officials labor in fear that their confidential remarks are to going to end up on the front page of the New York Times via WikiLeaks. Even more dangerous is the impact on intelligence sharing. In any particular instance in which information gathered by an ally is particularly sensitive, foreign intelligence officials can be quite reluctant to share it with our government if it will result in a headline that might compromise their own sources and methods, and possibly lead to the deaths of informants and agents. Intelligence gathering and sharing plays a key role in the defense of the United States. Due to the fact that Wikileaks damages this; Wikileaks is obviously a threat to national security. Conclusion: In conclusion, Wikileaks is an obvious and dangerous threat to the national security of the United States. It puts many sites, vital to the interests and security of the U.S., in danger. On top of this, the leaks damage the foreign relations of the U.S., which threatens its national security. Finally, vital intelligence gathering and sharing operations are nearly completely disabled by these leaks. It is for these reasons that I find myself strongly affirming the resolution. Now I will move on to the contentions offered by my opponent. In his first contention my opponent discussed the idea that Wikileaks actually benefits the U.S. National Security because it exposes flaws. While this may be true in some situations Wikileaks is simply the poorest way to go about solving the flaws of the government. There are other ways of solving these issues without releasing massive amounts of dangerous and confidential government documents to the entire world; this includes all enemies of the U.S. Perhaps we should increase regulations or take more time to check and recheck our government's policies and methods; both of these examples could be successful without endangering the National Security of the United States. In his second contention my opponent brought the argument that Wikileaks is not in the wrong because its actions did not violate the First Amendment. While we must support the freedom of speech and press we must also take into consideration national security. If we do not defend the country that protects and establishes these rights; these rights are lost. Without national security we cannot have these rights. As I proved in my case Wikileaks does pose a substantial threat to the U.S. national security. It is because of this that we must disregard this argument. In his third contention my opponent argued that Wikileaks is not at fault because it does not take the information. However this is simply untrue. I would like to offer evidence from Eric Johnson, a professor at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business: [The key issue is not how Wikileaks may have sourced its information but rather what it can do with it, the most important thing is that Wikileaks is offers a whole new channel for these kinds of leaks. For the CIO of a Fortune 500 company, it doesn't matter how Wikileaks gets the information. What really matters is that Wikileaks can amplify that information a thousand times.] What this shows us is that while those releasing the information are also a threat; the greatest threat in this situation is Wikileaks. This is due to the site's capability to release massive amounts of information. This sets it above other methods of leaking as well as the informants themselves as a threat. It is this obvious threat that proves that Wikileaks poses a threat to U.S. national security. Thank you.