Wikileaks is a threat to US National Security

Let's get started! REBUTTALS Rebuttal 1: Contradiction If wikileaks spreads misinformation, then it does not expose vital interests. If it is known to spread misinformation, it does not hamper diplomacy. If vital interests are not exposed, it would be known to spread misinformation. Thus Pro's first contention contradicts his second and third. Rebuttal 2: No editorial oversight allows misinformation to spread First, wikileaks does have editorial oversight. Information sent to wikileaks is reviewed and verified by a team of journalists[1]. Random users cannot edit the material. Julian Assange's position as editor-in-chief [2] naturally implies that there must be other editors as well. Secondly, if misinformation were to be allowed to be spread, surely it would have been done already? It is in the interests of the United States Government, for example, to post misinformation on wikileaks and therefore undermine their legitimacy and protect national assets. However, they are unable to do this because of the editorial process. Rebuttal 3: Wikileaks doesn't have American interests in mind Only insofar as that they are unbiased towards America. As a media organisation, wikileaks needs to remain unbiased and fair in their reporting. If my opponent wants to exclude all media organizations which are not pro-America, he also wants to exclude the truth from being told. If he doesn't want to hear the truth, then he might as well fabricate his own lies. Additional material held by wikileaks, in accordance with their policy of free information, would of course be made available if the site were to be shut down. Mark Stephen's weapon is not aimed at America in particular, but rather against all governments with secrets to hide. Assange has made it clear that he has plenty of leaks to release for other governments, such as Russia, and organizations, like BP or Bank of America[3]. These leaks are only a threat to America if they are true. Rebuttal 4: Some of the recent documents leaked put several US citizens' lives in danger Does this mean journalists cannot publish details of successful bank robberies, to plan for the eventuality that perhaps, somebody might be inspired by them? I thought you guys in the states still had the first amendment? Any release of information can potentially put lives at risk. There must be a balance in the media between the chance of lives being put at risk and freedom of information. Aside from the subjective opinions of US government officials, there is no evidence that any lives have been put at risk by Wikileaks [4]. Besides, take a look at precedent. Leaks have happened out of the US government before. Nobody has ever died as a result. Why should this time be any different? Rebuttal 5: Wikileaks has the potential to impact U. S. efforts in the Middle East, Pakistan, and elsewhere If diplomats refuse to see the US because of Wikileaks, then the US can only blame itself. In the famous words of Google CEO Erik Schmidt, "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" [5]. However, I doubt that efforts have been seriously hampered. As Jimmy Carter, former US president, notes: "I think the long-term damage will be much more minimal than is presently ascribed" [6]. Rebuttal 6: African leaders will find some of the leaks "hurtful" Oh, do you mean how wikileaks exposed the corruption of President Moi in Kenya [1]? Yeah, he probably did find that leak very hurtful. The Kenyans promptly elected a new president. At no stage were United Nations aid efforts affected. If CFR expert John Campbell is willing to make this claim, perhaps he would be able to show a little evidence for it. Sadly, he has none! By way of contrast, all the evidence is that Africa is not disadvantaged by wikileaks more than everyone else. Rebuttal 7: National Security depends on foreign relations assistance in many instances So maybe they shouldn't have lied to their foreign relations. Maybe they shouldn't have spied on them. The leaks reveal the contradictions between the United States public and internal policy [7]. Put all the pieces together and you will see that by spying and lying on US allies, the US has compromised the security of their allies. You cannot compromise one person's security and expect them to respect yours. Nonetheless, no US ally has quit an alliance with the United States directly because of wikileaks. All foreign relations assistance from before 2008, when wikileaks began, is still at the side of the US despite their insults. Rebuttal 8: Wikileaks 'poison pill' is a direct declaration of intentional harm on the US Just wanted to make this very clear. Despite the alternative terminology, the poison pill referred to is the same as Mark Stephen's thermo-nuclear device. See rebuttal #3 above. MY OWN ARGUMENT: Argument 1: Secrecy is not a pre-requisite of good governments The common reason why governments say they need to keep secrets is to defend their citizens. Why embassy profiles on Iceland's and New Zealand's prime ministers are secrets needed for defense purposes, while profiles of Osama bin Laden are routinely outputted by the US embassy, is beyond me. I have three sub-arguments. The first is that there is never any need for secrecy between allies and one's own citizens. Even if there are traitors in our ranks (though I highly doubt al-Quaeda has a secret New Zealand base), the fact that everyone knows of the dangers and the truth of the situation makes everyone more vigilant and able to respond to terrorist threats. My second sub-argument is that, especially in times of war, accountability is important [8]. War has huge costs involved, most of them not economic. If the United States government is not held accountable by their own people over these costs, they cannot be a democracy, because the interests of the people are not controlled [9]. My third argument is that the wikileaks didn't actually reveal any important infrastructure and are thus not a threat to any government's defense efforts [10]. Argument 2: Wikileaks is not the threat . .. people that leak are Wikileaks publishes verified material that they are sent, provided it is not available already and is in the public interest. There is nothing wrong with doing this. The publishing of the pentagon papers by the New York Times and Washington Post caused the US Supreme Court to remark: "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government" [1]. If the US is to have a free and unrestrained press, it will have wikileaks. Wikileaks would be nothing, however, without leaks. All of the arguments you make about endangering lives and diplomatic effects are in fact arguments against whistle-blowers, not the wikileaks organisation itself. I have two more arguments, but I'll leave them for next round to give my opponent a chance to respond to my analysis so far. In conclusion, wikileaks is a powerful pressure media organisation that has done nothing to be a threat to US national security. It has done what every other media outlet would have done, not revealed anything critical, hardly hampered diplomatic efforts, challenged present levels of accountability, and acted fairly. That's why I am proud to oppose the motion. Sources: 1 - . http://213.251.145.96/About.html 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 - . http://www.irishtimes.com... 5 - . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 6 - . http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com...- 7 - . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 8 - . http://www.ocregister.com... 9 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 10- . http://www.wired.com...