Wikileaks

Thanks, Con. RE: WAR EFFORT 1. My opponent begins by stating Wikileaks could potentially release the name of Middle Eastern informants, thus stifling our ability to nab as many terrorists as possible. Right off the bat Con is operating on a "what if" scenario. As he's pointed out, Wikileaks has yet to release such information. Assange threatening to do so is most likely an empty threat to ensure he and his colleagues are no longer ridiculously harassed, followed and attacked by various governments. It's irresponsible to consider this a strike against Wikileaks using negative evidence. The fact that Wikileaks has never done anything like this before is not a reason to assume they probably will in the future. 2. Civilian apathy is not a reason to abandon Wikileaks. In fact, it's a contention to keep it in the hopes it can be used as a catalyst for change depending on the content and severity of future leaks. Con's stance seems contrary here -- on one hand he points out that Wikileaks hasn't revealed anything substantial, yet on the other hand he condemns society for remaining complacent. If nothing significant has been revealed, why would you expect anything but complacency? Anyway, Con's logic demonstrates that the leaks so far have (a) not been useful at sparking interest and (b) maybe helped terrorists recruit on the basis of our stupidity. The fact that we've become so accustomed to the moral bankruptcy of our military does not mean war criminals should not be exposed and personally held accountable. Even if it does not mean the masses will demand immediate withdrawal from the war, a convicted rapist deserves to be punished regardless of the victim's nationality or religious affiliation. These criminals should be exposed, and the people who let them get away with it should be held accountable or at least noted. Additionally, if soldiers go into another country and start committing crimes against innocent civilians, it's ridiculous to suggest those crimes should be ignored in the hopes victims and their community won't retaliate. It's far more logical to punish those who are making things worse in the first place and disgracing our country - especially since Afghan citizens witness things first-hand and surely know about the crimes that are occurring *whether Wikileaks reveals them or not* making this a moot point entirely. RE: DIPLOMACY Con writes, "This type of information encourages warmongers... straining relations and bringing the world closer to a war with Iran." The entire point is to reveal the real reasons for going to war in the first place, and the corruption that occurs behind closed doors. Reasons for war are obviously corrupt in nature, so people will hopefully realize the unjust nature of their government and their motives, and refuse to go and fight in pointless wars. At the very least it can hold some liars accountable and bring forth truth in particularly important conversations. Con's taking an unnecessarily negative approach; I could just as easily suggest these documents can help finally bring peace in the Middle East (okay maybe that's a stretch). Apparently there's a lot of secrecy and plotting among diplomats. We should be embracing a medium that demands honesty to help us make informed decisions about the integrity of our elected officials. RE: ECONOMY For the sake of professionalism I'll try and ignore the fact that my opponent is an anarchist; quite obviously the demise of the current banking system, Federal Reserve, all financial sector ties to government, etc. are things traditionally embraced by those trying to overpower the current abhorrent system. Indeed my opponent's views are actually irrelevant so let's address his arguments. He points out that Assange has threatened to release certain documents that could possibly take down a bank or two, and this would be devastating to the interconnected world economy. First, why should we believe people will be any less complacent than they have been regarding the political leaks? So far Americans have proven we'll tolerate corruption, rape, brutality, murder, etc. Con suggests this is even expected by our leaders, yet he supposes we'll somehow be shocked by the unabashedly unscrupulous and greedy actions of Wall Street Fat Cats? I somehow highly doubt that whatever completely illegal and entirely corrupt theft and manipulation they've imposed on the public via the government will surely come as no shock to most people. Nevertheless Con presents us with yet another contradictory scenario. He says if the banks fail we can choose one of two things. We can either bail out the banks again (which he notes will most likely not happen... especially considering some of the information leaked might be about the former bail out) or we can let the banks fail, which will supposedly be the end of world as we know it. However if Con suggests the latter - bank failure - is the worst possible thing, then he cannot simultaneously suggest that bailing the banks out is equally the worst possible thing. Indeed you can either choose to bail out the banks or let them fail; it's illogical to suggest you should do both yet Con has condemned both options. Con writes, "A better solution [instead of Wikileaks] would to be for the SEC, or whoever the proper authorities are, to get the information and prosecute those who've broken the law." How is it logical to wait for the authorities to punish themselves? The entire purpose of Wikileaks is to hold those in a position of authority accountable by those who elect them into office, therefore Wikileaks is a necessary part of the equation to ending the corruption. The SEC or whatever agency involved needs to be more transparent, and those who've offended need to be removed. Even Con recognizes his idea probably isn't a good one. My opponent concludes with presenting two options: A) Wikileaks releases info. Criminal fat cats are held accountable. The economy MIGHT fail since we're still in recovery. B) No info is released. Criminals continue to steal for an indefinite amount of time - possibly forever. We wait for the corrupt authorities to punish themselves, and hope politicians finally do something moral against all incentives to the contrary. We perpetuate the obviously flawed and inherently destructive system for as long as possible. We let those in power manipulate us into thinking we need big banks to continuously exploit us just so we can keep enduring the same collapses every few decades based on the nature of investing in unregulated markets. Option A seems not only the most moral but most practical and fundamental to human rights and justice. Con cannot complain about the system yet suggest we continue to maintain it by not fixing the problem and merely patching it up temporarily. Once again if Con suggests the government support of big banks is necessary - and it seems he does ("in this situation, we must hold back, to prevent all of us from going down with them") then he cannot simultaneously declare the absurdity of supporting the banks - and it seems he makes this suggestion as well ("this is an undesirable option, to say the least. Robbing the taxpayers to bail out corrupt bankers surely can't be thought of as a good thing"). Well which is it? If Con really advocates tax payers supporting these greedy and corrupt thieves in suits, citizens at the very least deserve honesty and transparency. It is ludicrous to suggest they continue perpetuating corruption and fund their own exploitation. I maintain that if citizens must forfeit so many of their liberties, it is right for them to be guaranteed certain liberties in return -- including freedom of speech and press, and access to pivotal information such as the things Wikileaks has released to maintain a functioning democracy. It is the only way to maintain some level of freedom in our system.