Resolved: WikiLeaks is a threat to United States National Security

In this rebuttal round I will first discuss my opponent's points, and then reassert my own to show that WikiLeaks is, in fact, a threat to United States National Security. CA1: Reduced likelihood of detrimental foreign policy decisions In his argument, my opponent made several generalizations about the Iraq war and how WikiLeaks would have prevented it. First of all, the cause of the Iraq war was much more complex than my opponent portrayed it. For example, Iraq's unsatisfactory cooperation in an agreement it made with the United Nations concerning weapons inspections played a large role in our decision to attack [1]. Furthermore, my opponent has made the outrageous claim that WikiLeaks could have prevented the U. S. from entering the Iraq war. Exactly what information could have been leaked to prevent the war? Hindsight is 20-20; we now know that no Weapons of Mass Destruction were present in Iraq, but it was by no means obvious then. In introducing Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers my opponent has made an unfair comparison. As his example illustrates, leaking can be beneficial, but only when it is controlled. Ellsberg saw corruption in the government and brought it to the people. On the other hand, the WikiLeaks dumps are an entirely different matter (and that is exactly what they are: dumps). In the past they have leaked the identities of Afghan informants [2][3] and even the Social Security numbers of soldiers, information that can only increase their risk of identity theft now that it is public [3]. This is evidence that they don't leak because of corruption, but instead because they believe in a secret-free government and transparency. CA2: Transparency Transparency is no doubt a very important aspect of any democracy, but the completely open and transparent government WikiLeaks envisions is unsustainable. Secrets are important too. For example, we wouldn't tell our enemies who is giving us information from the inside their organization. That would be unthinkable, yet names of Afghan sources were included in the July 2010 leak [2][3]. There needs to be a balance between transparency and secrecy. My opponent provided no evidence of why that balance is not currently at equilibrium. Transparency is important, but what reason do we have to doubt the status quo. WikiLeaks' actions have tipped this balance, negatively affecting U. S. interests. CA3: WikiLeaks roots out government corruption To refute this point, I will revert back to the same logic I have used to rebut my opponent's previous contentions. Although leaking government corruption to the people is a good thing, WikiLeaks does not leak just the information concerning corruption, but also information that can only harm people. Even if a specific example exists, such as the Kenya leak, where WikiLeaks was beneficial, the ways WikiLeaks threatens the United States greatly outweighs any benefit it may provide. C1: Information Sharing Decreases With regard to my first contention, my opponent and I agree that a decrease in information sharing is occurring as a result of the WikiLeaks ordeal but disagree on how it will affect national security. Contrary to my opponent's belief, government officials have discussed the importance of Information Sharing in the past. For example, the 9/11 Commission Report [4, p408] cited a lack of "Information Sharing" as a major reason our counter-intelligence workers were not able to prevent the attacks. Furthermore, it is nonsensical to say this argument is consistent with those of my opponent. My opponent argues for the leak; he is supporting the mission of WikiLeaks to expose these secret documents, but he states "Certain types of classified information can have an enormously harmful impact on national security if it were to fall into the wrong hands. " Since WikiLeaks strives to publicize information, it inevitably causes classified information to fall into the wrong hands. Naturally, a supporter of WikiLeaks would disagree with the Government's attempts to counteract WikiLeaks. My point in the matter is that had the leaks not occurred; had WikiLeaks never been created, there would be no need to take these measures to tighten our security, and as the 9/11 example illustrates, our National Security would be in a better state. C2: Inhibition of information coming from sources on foreign soil First and Foremost, I would like to defend Robert Gates as a valuable source for the information in question. I cited him as saying that WikiLeaks did, in fact, endanger informants in Afghanistan and that this will harm our National Security. Secretary Gates is likely the most informed person on this issue, and it seems to me that if Gates believed the opposite (that National Security was unaffected), he would be quick to assure the nation of its safety. So, in this Philip Morris analogy, it is like Philip Morris admitting that nicotine gum is hurting his company, despite his natural tendencies and commercial benefits to say otherwise. My opponent claimed that no one has been hurt by any of the leaks to this point. In response, I would like to note that any information concerning an informant's death would be instantly classified, and government officials would not be allowed to disclose such information. Additionally, just because no one has been hurt so far does not mean no one will be hurt in the future. The Afghan sources were leaked just last July [2][3]. For my opponent's benefit I have provided two additional sources (other than the Robert Gates article) citing exposed Afghan sources. To restate my original argument, not only have we lost the compromised sources; we have lost the trust of possible future informants, the latter of which my opponent completely neglected in his initial response. C3: WikiLeaks hinders diplomacy In his response, my opponent did not address my point very thoroughly. His counterexample concerning corruption is not extremely applicable to the United States because, like the instance he cited, most of our corruption is minor, and in comparison to countries around the world our overall level is very low. He did not address either of the two ways I discussed that WikiLeaks hurts us. The first point was that other governments don't trust that we can keep the information they give us a secret. The second was that in interacting with each other, officials from our government and from others will not be able to speak their mind on matters that, though possibly offensive, are of great importance. For example, WikiLeaks exposed documents that called French President Nicolas Sarkozy a "naked emperor" and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "Hitler. " Also, one document detailed our uncertainty of the dependability of Turkey as an ally [5]. Government officials say world powers are already "pulling back" from dealings with the U. S. , as a result of the leak [6]. This information is directly damaging to our diplomacy with these countries, and illustrates how in the future our workers will be more cautious with their words even if it involves matters such as the trust we put in foreign countries. Conclusion: In this day and age, information is power, and in my three contentions I have attempted to demonstrate how WikiLeaks harms our informational interactions with governments, with informants, and with ourselves. I hope to have convinced you that WikiLeaks is more of a threat than it is a benefit to United States national security. [1] www. newsbatch. com/iraq. htm [2] www. jpost. com/Headlines/Article. aspx? id=183297 [3] tech. mit. edu/V130/N58/wikileaks_p. html [4] www.9-11commission. gov/report/911Report. pdf [5] www. telegraph. co. uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8144739/Wikileaks-what-the-leaked-State-Department-cables-say. html [6] www. deseretnews. com/article/700089234/Pentagon-WikiLeaks-has-hurt-US-foreign-relations. html