In defense of Wikileaks

First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things that the government finds inconvenient for political reasons -- should be praised.

Having said that, this author is arguing at the extremes. I am not in favor of using any mechanism to bring facts to light. Murder? Bribery? Torture? Nope, I expect leakers to come forward honestly, not under duress. Do I support the selective leaking of information by foreign intelligence services? Nope, because the purposeful leaking of information to sway public opinion is called propaganda, and it's the most effective when it's true information. Things exist in a context.

Because of the context question, it's actually better that wikileaks dumped thousands of records. If, say, there had only been a couple hundred, folks could easily charge that the docs were hand-picked.

Second, and this is more important, as much as I love leaking and openness, I am not a child. Some amount of secrecy is necessary for a government to function. Salary negotiations, diplomatic memos, military threat assessments, signals intelligence -- lots of things need to be keep secret. Even if you have a complete bunch of idiots in charge of running things, that doesn't mean that any method used to dump any kind of secret information is good. And that's exactly the point the author is making in the quote above.

I hate to say this, and I know you guys are going to downvote me for it, but I can't help but think that this all gets back to political affiliation: if you don't like the politics, then leak the information. It's the good guys against the military-industrial complex. If you like the politics, then it's a crime to leak the information. It's the zealous idiots against the sane organization of humanity into governmental structures.

I don't buy any of it. Not everything has to be open, and we must have an extreme amount of more public information available in order to function intelligently as voters. Both of these views can coexist. That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? I'd view them more as another combatant rather than a player for good in all of this. I have to draw the line with leaks -- whether I like the politics or not -- with getting people killed. After all, one of the main reasons we have an executive branch is to put people in charge of making sensitive decisions based on secret information that get people killed. Looking over their shoulder every minute is not part of our role in a democracy. Checking up on them and getting as many facts as we can? Sure. But not micro-managing.

If the executive branch didn't have secret information and make sensitive decisions that large portions of the population didn't believe in? There would be no point in having it. The president is nothing special -- he's just another schmuck -- but he does have a defined job and he needs the tools to do that job. Secrecy is part of the tools he needs, no matter how much we wish it weren't so.

But do me a favor and watch the evening news for the rest of the week. After that week of news watching, would you conclude we're spending multiple billions of dollars per week prosecuting 2 wars with hundreds of casualties per week at the hands of American munitions?

No, but you can find a guy scrawling deranged conspiracy theories on a chalk board about how the President was born in Kenya. Great. I'm all about the loyal opposition, but come on, really?

Wikileaks is just a symptom - our media sucks. They should be on this stuff themselves.

This happens somewhat, but I think you're overstating the case.

I want bad _policies_ and bad _actions_ leaked. I want bastards abusing their position caught. I want bastards not abusing their position to be afraid of getting caught. Naturally what I think of as _bad_ depends on my politics. And naturally the policies and actions taken by those in power depend on their politics (though not all that much.) And naturally there is some bias in how I judge based on the politics of those in power. But I still want abuses leaked no matter whose watch they're under, because I want the abuses to stop. I want the public to be made aware of the consequences of war, both intended and non, as they need to be the ones judging if it is worth it.

Has there been a single report that this happened the first time they leaked the information?

The article itself said "Robert Gates has acknowledged that earlier Wikileaks releases did not in fact compromises sensitive information or methods".