Wikileaks

==War Effort== 1-Pro points out that Assange is unlikely to actually release information about informants, so this point doesn't matter. That was not my argument. I agree that sensitive information about informants is unlikely to actually be released. The point is that potential informants in the future will be less likely to cooperate with the U.S. if they don't think their identities are secure. It doesn't matter if their identities are actually secure—what matters is the perception that they are now less secure, which will make it less likely for Afghans and Iraqis to cooperate with the American military in the future. 2-Pro argues that the war criminals who committed the crimes Wikileaks is exposing should be punished, that "a convicted rapist deserves to be punished regardless of the victim's nationality or religious affiliation." And if Pro also provided evidence that the information Wikileaks provided led to criminals being punished and justice being done, then this would be a valid argument. But that is not the case. It is not a question of whether war criminals ought to be punished for their crimes—they aren't being punished either way. It is a question of whether or not the costs of releasing this information outweigh the benefits. And while we might wish that the actual benefits included justice for the victims of war crimes, they do not. Another potential benefit that Pro earlier mentioned was that the release might bring an earlier end to the war, as she claims the Pentagon Papers did with the Vietnam war. I pointed out that there's no reason to believe that this is the case, since Americans don't really care all that much about the leaks. Pro responds, saying, "Civilian apathy is not a reason to abandon Wikileaks." Well, I didn't say it was—my point was that ending the war sooner doesn't count as a point in Wikileaks' favor, since it is not doing that. So what are the actual benefits? The only one shown is that criminals will be exposed. But so what? It may make us feel good about ourselves that crimes have been brought to light, but if there are no tangible benefits to this, and the cost is harm to the war effort, then it simply isn't worth it. Pro then claims that it's ridiculous to ignore crimes against Iraq and Afghanistan simply because bringing those crimes to light could cause more retaliation. While this sounds perfectly valid, readers must remember that the criminals aren't being brought to justice either way. If they were, this would be a different story entirely—but as long as they aren't, exposing and publicizing these crimes just helps extremist groups recruit. Pro is correct that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are generally already aware of these crimes, but not all of them oppose the U.S., and publicizing U.S. crimes can only turn more of them against us. Is their anger justified? Of course. But that doesn't mean the effects of it are a good thing and should be embraced. ==Diplomacy== Pro argues that it's good to reveal reasons for going to war in the first place, and the corruption that goes on behind closed doors. I agree. And if the cables leaked were that sort of information, if they contained information about lies the government was telling us to prepare for an invasion of Iran, the exposing of that information would be a good thing. But that is not what they contained. The specific leak I mentioned had information about Saudi Arabia urging war with Israel. This certainly sheds light on the situation in the Middle East, but it does not do so in a way that brings us farther from war. The only reason Israel is currently refraining from preemptively attacking Iran is that they fear the response from the U.S. and from the Arab world. The leaks did tell Americans more about the situation with Iran—but they also told Israel more about what the Americans and Saudis thought about invading Iran. Any information encouraging Israel to attack Iran cannot be considered a good thing. Pro also points out that we're better off exposing the secrecy and plotting among our diplomats. While the behavior of our diplomats was certainly deplorable, exposing it for the world to see is a bad idea. Even the type of diplomacy we were engaged in, with the illegal spying by U.S. diplomats, is better than no diplomacy at all. Today, with all of the world's problems, from Iran trying to acquire nukes, to the instability in Pakistan, to the North Korean aggression, diplomacy and cooperation with other world powers is needed more than ever. While it isn't Wikileaks' fault that U.S. diplomats were behaving so poorly, their exposure threatens our ability to cooperate with other countries. Other world powers will be far less willing to cooperate with us at a time when we need that cooperation the most. We know what forgoing diplomacy gets us—Iraq. Even spying, criminal diplomats are better than losing our ability to work together with other nations to peacefully solve the world's problems. ==Economy== Pro argues that people will be just as complacent about the Wall St leaks as they were about the Afghanistan and Iraq leaks. This is obviously not true—the reason not many people cared about the Afghanistan and Iraq leaks is that they didn't affect them personally, and were happening far away. These next leaks deal with the economy, which is the #1 thing on most Americans' minds during this recession. They're about the people who helped cause the recession—obviously something Americans are going to care about. Furthermore, it wouldn't matter if most people didn't care about the leaks. If the leaks contain information that will bring down a few banks, then the markets will react, even if most Americans don't. The reaction in the market is the important one, not the reaction in the minds of the public. Next, Pro claims that I am being "contradictory" by saying that both of the possible scenarios that could happen after the leaks are released would be bad scenarios. I don't see how this is contradictory. I am merely pointing out that the leaks being released would necessarily be bad, no matter how Congress reacts. If, as Pro claims, I suggested that both options would be "the worst possible thing," that would indeed be contradictory. But that is not what I said. I just said that any scenario resulting from the leaks being released would be a bad one, not each would be the "worst possible" one Pro writes, "How is it logical to wait for the authorities to punish themselves?" Unless Pro is privy to some information that the rest of us are not, there's no reason to think that the SEC is the subject of next year's leaks; some of the big banks are. While an SEC investigation may not bring justice for all of the criminals responsible, and they may not even do a good job at all, it's better than the alternative, which is complete economic collapse. Back to the two options A) Here, Pro misrepresents the consequences of releasing the information. We are not in a "recovery"—the recovery hasn't started yet. Saying the economy is extremely fragile is an understatement. My claims about how the fragility of the current world financial system and the interconnectedness of the world's banks could cause a few large bank failures to bring down the world's economy stand. B) Yes, criminals aren't punished. Corruption continues. That sucks. But it's better then an economic collapse. In conclusion, Pro is putting nice-sounding, but vague and irrelevant notions like "honesty and transparency" above the economic well-being of everyone in the world. Sure, we'd all like to see criminals punished and corruption exposed. It is not a matter of "freedom of speech and press" as Pro suggests—I am not arguing that Wikileaks should be forcibly stopped. It is a matter of whether or not releasing information that will bring down the world's financial system at the *worst possible time* is a good idea.