Resolved: WikiLeaks is a threat to United States National Security

As I begin my response for the second round of this debate, it is clear to me that some very noteworthy concessions have already been made. Indeed, my opponent has apparently conceded all three of my arguments. His only reservation is based on his view that WikiLeaks goes 'too far' in its actions. So, I will proceed by responding to his objections, and then I will continue to demonstrate how WikiLeaks is beneficial to the United States. C1: WikiLeaks causes Internal Information Sharing to decrease, putting the country's safety at greater risk. I don't agree at all with my opponent that WikiLeaks is causing any government agencies to be negatively affected in their ability to share information vital to national security. The lack of "information sharing" my opponent is referring to is not a problem caused by WikiLeaks. According to the 911 commission report that assessed our intelligence failures related to the 911 attacks, "no one was firmly in charge of managing the case and able to draw relevant intelligence from anywhere in the government, assign responsibilities across the agencies (foreign or domestic), track progress, and quickly bring obstacles up to the level where they could be resolved. Responsibility and accountability were diffuse."[1] These are structural problems within the government that existed well before WikiLeaks ever became an organization. It's nonsensical to say that WikiLeaks is responsible for them. In fact, WikiLeaks has positively helped national security by causing the government to be more vigilant and intelligent about who is able to access classified information. There is no evidence whatsoever that WikiLeaks is responsible for our government's own incompetence. In order for information sharing to be increased, the U.S. government needs to reassess how it handles and distributes information important to national security. The dissolution of WikiLeaks doesn't fit into this process in any way. My opponent then claims that I am contradicting myself, because he believes that WikiLeaks is letting important information fall into the wrong hands. I've already explained why this isn't so. WikiLeaks redacts the vast majority of the information they receive that could be harmful. C2: WikiLeaks inhibits the inflow of information from sources on foreign soil. Once again, the Secretary of Defense is not a credible source on WikiLeaks. He is completely biased against the organization. Like the rest of the government, he has a vested interest in keeping classified documents secret. He is no more reliable than Henry Kissinger or the other senior people within the Nixon administration that tried to discredit Daniel Ellsberg after he published the Pentagon Papers.[2] This motion picture has played before. Moreover, the argument being raised about our Afghanistan sources is based on an appeal to ignorance. No one has been hurt by the actions of WikiLeaks, and there is no evidence that anyone is likely going to be hurt. Every informant employed by the U.S. military understands that there are risks associated with their job; occasional leaks occur. Likewise, there is no evidence that our intelligence capabilities have been compromised by an alleged lack of willing sources in Afghanistan. C3: WikiLeaks hinders diplomacy and our interactions with foreign governments. In his previous response, my opponent says that I haven't adequately addressed his two assertions about how WikiLeaks harms our diplomacy. He says that WikiLeaks causes governments not to trust us, and it prevents diplomats from speaking candidly. Both of these points were discredited (or made irrelevant) by the larger issues I was raising. Honesty, trust and candor don't materialize in an environment of secrecy that lacks accountability. To the contrary, we have seen how this system has given cover to corrupt officials such as Silvio Berlusconi, who was named in the WikiLeaks cables.[3] In fact, my opponent's own source on this issue relating to U.S. diplomacy is coming straight from the Pentagon.[4] This is government propaganda. I don't buy it. Whatever short term effects WikiLeaks may have on our foreign diplomacy, they have the overall positive long term effect of making our foreign diplomacy more open and accountable. CA1: WikiLeaks helps reduce the likelihood of detrimental foreign policy decisions. Despite what my challenger has alleged, I've never said that WikiLeaks would have prevented the Iraq War had it been around in 2002. I said that it may have. Back in 2003, people like Joe Wilson were publishing information explaining why it was highly dubious that Saddam Hussein had weapons of Mass destruction.[5] Wilson argued that there were good grounds to conclude that the Bush administration was exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq. As a result of this, his wife's cover as a CIA operative ended up being blown by (probably) senior people within the Bush administration.[6] At any rate, the main case for the invasion of Iraq was not a 'slam dunk,' as the former director of the CIA George Tenet seemed to imply.[7] More high level disclosures of this sort could have turned public opinion against the war. It would seem as though my opponent agrees with me that WikiLeaks can help prevent harmful foreign policy decisions by acknowledging the importance of the Pentagon Papers. Among other things, the Pentagon Papers helped bring an end to the Vietnam War, which had become unsustainable. His only reservation, once again, relies on the unfounded notion that WikiLeaks has caused harm to our Afghan sources. As I've pointed out numerous times, there is not a single piece of evidence to substantiate my opponent's fears. CA2: WikiLeaks helps keep governments open. Pro also agrees with me that the transparency WikiLeaks helps create is an important part of our democracy. Nonetheless, he has continued to repeat the ubiquitous canard that WikiLeaks has harmed (or will potentially harm) our Afghan sources, as if repeating a bad argument several times somehow makes it become more compelling. He says that I haven't shown that the balance between transparency and secrecy is currently at an equilibrium as a result of WikiLeaks actions. But this isn't my job. My opponent is the one who says WikiLeaks has negatively upset this balance; however, his only assertion to back up this claim is based on his discredited argument about WikiLeaks causing harm to our sources in Afghanistan. CA3: WikiLeaks helps to root out government corruption. My opponent has also conceded the argument I have made here. WikiLeaks is helping our national security by exposing government corruption, since corruption can have a destabilizing effect on governments. In response, Pro has simply restated his old argument about our Afghan sources. I've already addressed this point numerous times. | Conclusion | The opponents of WikiLeaks, lacking any rational arguments based on evidence, are on shaky ground by stating that the organization harms U.S. interests. I think we've seen at least three good reasons why WikiLeaks has benefits to our national security. WikiLeaks helps prevent bad foreign policy decisions; it helps keep governments open, and it also helps root out corruption. These benefits are tremendously consequential because, among other things, they are likely to help stop the U.S. from engaging in unnecessary wars that kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and weaken our standing in the world. Moreover, I think it should also be clear that my opponent's three arguments are without merit. They amount to little more than false claims about information sharing, unsupported assertions about U.S. informants being harmed by the Taliban and a misguided (and biased) perspective of U.S. diplomacy. For these reasons, it is still the case that WikiLeaks is beneficial to the United States' national security. Sources: http://www.debate.org...