- Image via Wikipedia
After Wikileaks latest leak, it has been hit with denial-of-service attacks, been kicked off American and French servers, and even cut off from PayPal. In response, Wikileaks has asked its supporters to mirror its site.
While I am opposed to censorship and favor freedom of expression, this freedom comes with responsibilities. To use the stock example, people do not have the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This is because the wrongful harm that could arise from this expression outweighs the liberty to make such expressions.
If Wikileaks had stuck with exposing corruption, misdeeds, illegalities or other wrongful acts, then Wikileaks would have most likely been acting in a morally responsible manner. After all, those who commit wrongful acts have no right to have those deeds remain secret.
However, as was argued in my previous post, Wikileaks crossed the moral line. Rather than leaking about wrongful acts, Wikileaks leaked about important targets that could aid the enemies of the West. These enemies, as argued in that post, certainly do not have the moral high ground. As such, aiding them against the West seems clearly wrong.
Yes, I know that Western countries do bad things. But the terrorist groups and places like North Korea seem to be quite worse on objective grounds.
By crossing this line Wikileaks weakens any claim it has to being worthy of protection from being stopped in its leaking. It has failed to use its freedom responsibly and has acted in a wrongful way. As such, stopping its harmful leaks seems to be morally correct.
Other parties should not aid and abet Wikileaks in its leaking-they should not mirror its website nor provide it with support until Wikileaks is willing to act responsibly and ethically. After all, they are not aiding a champion of justice or a defender of transparency. They are aiding folks who are morally irresponsible.
It is, to say the least, unfortunate, that the folks at Wikileaks did not decide to focus on revealing misdeeds. They could have provided an excellent means by which people could reveal such wrongful acts to the world. Unfortunately, the folks at Wikileaks decided to cross over into just dumping secrets without due consideration of the consequences. Then again, perhaps they did consider the consequences and decided to leak anyway.
Interestingly, I was asked if Wikileaks was being set up so it could be discredited and destroyed. That might be possible. However, the latest leak seems consistent with Assange’s personality, so the set up hypothesis seems to have little plausibility (this is, after all, not a movie).
As always, I welcome opposing viewpoints.
I think the hypothesis: “Assange is an enemy of the U.S.” is consistent will all of the available facts.
At the very least he is dangerously irresponsible. While Wikileaks has said that they are careful about leaking information that can hurt people, this does not seem to be the case. After all, handing out a list of prime targets does certainly make things easier for those who would want to harm the United States and our allies.
While many of these targets seem obvious, there is probably some useful information for attackers in there that is not readily available. Unless, of course, everything in the leaks is already known (as has been claimed in the case of the Saudi link to terror).
Now, if all these targets are already public knowledge, then I would have to change my view about the matter. After all, the “leak” would not be any real leak.
As “an enemy of the U.S.” Assange should fare rather well. North Korea. Iran. Osama Bin Laden. 8-10 years and surviving still. What’s the punished/unpunished percentage on Guantanamo detainees. He’ll likely suffer more grief from the (“bogus?”) rape charges.
Maybe I’m missing the point, but the ‘valuable targets’ leak doesn’t seem to be that damaging; nothing I’ve heard it to contain seems the sort of target terrorists either wouldn’t already know about or couldn’t reasonably deduce on their own.
While one could ignore that fact and maintain that it will, indeed, cause harm (or at least channel it from other targets towards these), can one reasonably argue that more harm will come to us because of it than we would have otherwise experienced in its absence? I think not, and I think that’s a key point.
The real trouble with it is, as has already been pointed out, that it doesn’t reveal any wrongdoing on the part of the United States — so why leak it, along with thousands of other essentially meaningless documents?
I came across this link as I was wondering about that:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/12/peter-ludlow-on-the-political-philosophy-of-julian-assange.html
Now, I’m not completely sold, but Ludlow’s analysis is interesting to say the least, and it certainly sheds light on why WikiLeaks operates the way it does. I’m not ready to say that Assange is right to be doing what he is, but the concerted financial and judicial response against him strikes me as the single most alarming thing to come out of all this.
In all of this, Pfc. Manning seems the only person who actually did something legitimately justifying prosecution.
Regarding Manning, I should point out that the charges brought against him are for leaking a video of a U.S. helicopter firing on what appears to be civilians, killing two Reuters journalists in the process. Suspicion (the evidence is indirect) that he was involved with the WikiLeaks documents came after that.
While a breach of military law and justifiably punishable as such, I can’t morally fault him for leaking that video.
What did anyone gain from the leaking of that video?
If you’re just looking for bad stuff, a battlefield is a great place to dstart.
For people who have never experienced it themselves (which is most of America), it’s easy to forget that no war is clean, regardless of its professed motives, that all wars result in harm to people who are innocent.
This doesn’t mean that war is never a good response, just that as participants in a democracy we need to fully understand the nature of what we are supporting.
The leak of the video came on the heels of our government refusing to release media relating to the torture and killing of civilians and prisoners despite a U.S. court order to do so.
Why would the executive branch of our own government do that? The reasonable reply seems to be in order to prevent public support for the war from dropping lower — in other words, to keep its own citizens from fully appreciating the nature of what they were supporting.
That was the gain from leaking that video.
“The leak of the video came on the heels of our government refusing to release media relating to the torture and killing of civilians and prisoners despite a U.S. court order to do so.”
Just because I, who work for the government, film something in the course of duty, does not mean the world has the right to that material. I drive a government vehicle; does that mean that any citizen can jump in the vehicle and take it? How did Abu Graib come out? A soldier told someone. Like with any other crime. The people who committed the crimes tried to hide it. No different from anyone else I arrested as a cop. People try to hide their crimes.
I can assure people that the Army is tougher on its own than anyone else. I’ve never seen an organization that enjoys getting its own in trouble more than this one. People need not woory about deep-dark secrets here.
You make a great deal of assumption in your conclusion. Could it not be that releasing these things will only cause more chaos in the Arab and Muslim world? isn’t that a consitant issue? People know what these things show. There is a level where it is merely gratuitous. I’ve seen bodies twisted and scattered in every possible manner. Should I send the world photos just to let them know? Puriant. may as well send the world tera-bytes of porn and say I’m trying to teach them about procreation.
I also want to say that Abu Graib is a drop in the bucket compared to what’s really going on. Not as far as illegal activity. I mean real combat where people see and do things within the laws of war that are unbelieveable. Platoons in the korenagl Valley taking 80% casualties–highest since Vietnam. Where is the media coverage?
“Where is the media coverage?” You’re much closer to action and aware of the rules than I am. Where is the media coverage? Are all the networks and newspapers missing from the zone of engagement? Does our government have a policy about free press in a war zone? I know there was a twenty year policy prohibiting media from photographing of the war dead arriving a Dover Air Force Base. Does that policy still stand?
I don’t see the issue as one of wrongdoing on the part of our military — to be quite honest, I think it’s unrealistic to both train people to kill each other and then expect no instances of excess brutality to ever come from that.
My concern is that voters can be like backseat drivers, people who drive the vehicle but can’t see the road, the destination itself, or even the reasons for traveling. I echo your sentiment: Where is the media coverage?
I agree that there is a point at which exposure becomes gratuitous — the point at which what is being shown provides no additional support for or against itself. My contention is that the people at home are not at that point.
How many here have read “With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa,” by E. B. Sledge?
This is regarded as the best first-hand account of the fighting on the Pacific islands.
After reading that book, it is frankly hard to generate much outrage about Abu Ghraib.
This is an interesting point. On the one hand, it does make sense to consider the moral extremes when assessing specific events. What was done, for example, in WWII combat no doubt exceeds what was done at Abu Ghraib. On the other hand, the mere fact that worse things have been done does not seem to make a misdeed somehow not wrong. To use an analogy, suppose someone is stabbed at school. Would it be reasonable to say, “well, given what happened in Columbine it is hard to be outraged about you being stabbed like that”?
Mike,
Noone’s saying we should ignore Abu Graib. We didn’t. We dealt with it. Some, liek myself, are asking for the outrage to be proportional. Is this unreasonable?
I didn’t say that anyone is saying we should ignore it. Also, being heavily influenced by Aristotle, I am all about proportionality. In fact, I use that notion quite often in my arguments.
To use an analogy, suppose someone is stabbed at school. Would it be reasonable to say, “well, given what happened in Columbine it is hard to be outraged about you being stabbed like that”?
Stabbing? I think the proper analogy is more like getting hit with a snowball.
“I also want to say that Abu Graib is a drop in the bucket compared to what’s really going on. Not as far as illegal activity. I mean real combat where people see and do things within the laws of war that are unbelieveable.”
This is exactly right. It is all about perspective. Lynndie England, et al. did not, as far as I know, actually kill anybody.
No one was killed, but they treated the prisoners in ways that violated our legal agreements as well as moral standards. If we want to be the good guys, we have to act the role. That means no naked dog piles of prisoners, etc.
Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
Knives don’t kill people; people kill people. (see issues regarding The Second Amendment and knives)
Yet: “Derivatives are like guns.The problem isn’t the tools. It’s who is using the tools” Michael Lewis quotes a business assoc. in “The Big Short”.
Whatever your stance on the above, and wherever the ultimate responsibility resides, t’would seem the ultimate effect on the “people” is the the real issue in determining the seriousness of the act.
But let’s compare Abu Ghraib to the battle of Grozny. Abu Ghraib received infinitely more press coverage, but there is no comparison in terms of the level of human rights violations.
From Wikipedia: The 1999–2000 battle of Grozny was the siege and assault of the Chechen capital Grozny by Russian forces, lasting from late 1999 to early 2000. The siege and fighting left the capital devastated like no other European city since World War II, with only Vukovar, Croatia coming close[citation needed]. In 2003 the United Nations called Grozny the most destroyed city on Earth.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281999-2000%29
So why was so much made of Abu Ghraib, and so little of Grozny? I can only conclude that the difference is that Abu Ghraib allowed the press to bash G. W. Bush. This also explains why the anti-war types are so silent now. They were never anti-war, just anti Bush.
One reason might be pure vanity-We Americans generally want news that is about us and are far less interested in foreign doings that do not involve us. Also, of course, Abu Ghraid is our responsibility and thus would seem to be of more immediate concern to us.
But, it is worth considering that some folks in the media did run the story to take shots at Bush and his administration.
And how many people in the U.S. have even heard of the Novye Aldi massacre:
The Novye Aldi massacre was a notorious crime in which Russian federal forces summarily executed dozens of people in the Novye Aldi (Aldy) suburb of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, in the course of a “mopping-up” (zachistka) operation conducted there on February 5, 2000, soon after the end of the battle for the city. As a result of a deadly rampage by the special police forces at least 60[1] and up to 82[2] local civilians were killed and at least six women were raped. Numerous houses were also burned and civilian property was stolen in organized manner.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novye_Aldi_massacre
Again, a thousand times worse than Abu Ghraib, but little to no coverage.
True, the media folks do tend to provide less coverage to world events in favor of US stories and celebrity coverage.
The references and external links that come with the wikipedia articles on Grozny and Novya Aldi indicate coverage in major media. Was it “infinitely” more or less? Likely less. Was it less simply because of animosity toward Bush? The two incidents you reference took place in Chechnya. Even the current Russian “”democracy?”” is mighty careful (heavy- fisted) with media coverage of anything remotely controversial.
Abu Ghraib was more lurid. It came with color pictures of naked people. If film of women being raped in Chechny had been available, I’d be shocked if it wouldn’t have sneaked its way into the 24-7 news coverage in this country via yootoob.
The actual amount of coverage, and the sense of the amount of coverage (two diff. things) depend, in part, on public perception and public interest. The minimal coverage you bemoan took place at a time when the public was, 50/50 Dem. Rep. The news was there, as the references with the articles indicate. Both sides had the opportunity to clamor loudly and publicly for more coverage at the time. Did they?
The point is that grown-ups know that it is never “right vs. wrong,” but always “wrong vs. greater wrong,” and things need to be judged proportionately and in perspective.
Those who get their panties in a twist over Abu Ghraib but say nothing about Novye Aldi need to explain themselves.
I have a really hard time getting my boxers in a twist about “people who get their panties in a twist over Abu Ghraib but say nothing about Novye Aldi.”
After all , if, as you say, there was “infinitely more press coverage of Abu Ghraib” than of Grozny and “little to no coverage” of Novye Aldi, how many people could actually be in a position to “get their panties in a twist” about Grozny or Novye Aldi? A handful?
However many there may be, I hope they’re all desirable and willing women.
TJ, I agree with you that, in a way, it’s about ‘lesser wrong v. greater wrong’…but, this just means (in absolute context) that ‘Right’ is the lesser of two wrongs and the greater of two goods, just as ‘Wrong’ becomes the greater of two wrongs and the lesser of two goods.
So, it is about ‘right v. wrong’.
TP and Asur:
Perhaps you should settle on what “it” is referring to in the statement “it is never “right vs. wrong,” but always “wrong vs. greater wrong”. Does ” it” refer to “leaking”? Does “it” refer to Abu Ghraib and Grozny? Does “it” refer to the varieties or interpretations of “terrorism”? Does “it” refer to anything and everything?
“It” surely doesn’t refer to life events in general dpes it?. . . Mr. A says “B disagrees with me, therefore he’s the greater wrong. So I’ll kick him in the face.” Mr. A is, therefore, merely wrong. In the equation, B is assumed to be mpre wrong. . . )though he may indeed be right!). Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as “right and wrong” in the world.
erik,
“Wrong vs. greater wrong” is an echo of Hegel’s theory of Greek tragedy, particularly his concept of a tragic collision. He was a great admirer of Antigone.
erik,
I imagine that the “it” does, in fact, refer to anything and everything; the relation should be universally true.
“Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as “right and wrong” in the world.”
Yes, as long as we don’t require that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ be entities in the same sense as individual tables and stones are; rather, they must be objective relations between such entities.
Mr. A and Mr. B are a good showcase for why those relations must be objective, i.e be matters of actual measurement rather than opinion: Every issue you raise between them sources from subjective measurement of right and wrong.
It’s a bit like having a subjective standard for how long an ‘inch’ is:
Mr. Pink: “How long should the barrel be?”
Mr. Orange: “5 inches should be fine.”
Mr. Pink: “Ah, how long is an inch?”
Mr. Orange: “Well, it’s however long you want it to be.”
Mr. Pink: “What if I like negative numbers?”
Mr. Orange: “…then 5 inches won’t be enough.”
Quickly apparent is that having an arbitrary standard is the same as having no standard — it’s important to understand, though, that this only pertains to the application of a standard; the real inch, though arbitrarily set, is systematically applied, which is why it is not an arbitrary standard.
TJ you said:
“And how many people in the U.S. have even heard of the Novye Aldi massacre:”
Excellent point. People should study up on the Battle of Grozny; it’s one of the soon-forgotten attrocities of our time–forgotten because America didn’t do it.
This is not to justify American wrong-doing. But surely the libs could do more good focusing on bigger evils. But they don’t because any coward in the world can accuse America of wrong doing. Try pointing fingers in Iran.
“For people who have never experienced it themselves (which is most of America), it’s easy to forget that no war is clean, regardless of its professed motives, that all wars result in harm to people who are innocent.”
– Agreed. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to speak with former soldiers (or perhaps you are one yourself?) and developed or were honored with the trust that enables them to speak candidly, you will learn that war is a far, far cry from most anything encountered in civilized life, most especially the portrayals of war in movies, news media, and the vast majority of books on the subject. Unfortunately, these media are the only form of education that the vast majority of non-soldiers will ever get about the subject.
“The leak of the video came on the heels of our government refusing to release media relating to the torture and killing of civilians and prisoners despite a U.S. court order to do so. Why would the executive branch of our own government do that?”
– Given the vast ignorance about the subject matter described above, do you really blame them? Similar circumstances surround friendly-fire incidents and many other unintended consequences of entering a domain of complete and utter lawlessness. The more I’ve studied the subject, the more I see General Sherman’s point, re: “”War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.”
So, right and wrong, as we would expect, is an objective consideration when applied to, oh, things like measurement.
And it’s a subjective consideration when applied to things like, oh, homosexuality, abortion, slavery. . . .all of which have historically been justified or vilified by interpretations of readings from the Bible. So, here’s where I’m confused. If these are matters of opinion—there’s no right or wrong here,folks, because we don’t have tools to make objective calculations, there’s only wrong vs.greater wrong,so just move on—, then, if slavery is a “greater wrong” what is the absence of slavery? A wrong or a right?
Pat Tillman
A Lay bare,investigate carefully out of the public eye, and deal with questionable friendly fire incidents in military courts.
Alt. A 1 Ignore all friendly fire incidents as unfortunate consequences of war.
Alt A 2 Stonewall/Cover-up
Alt A 2 (meth. 1) Delay reporting friendly fire incidents as long as possible.
Alt A 2 (meth. 2) (“Adjust” the “reality” of friendly fire incidents. Lie. Eventually have the cover-up discovered and revealed to a justifiably disgusted and irate public.
Alt. A 2 (meth. 3) Likely combination of meths, 1 and 2 above.
My Lai
Abu Ghraib
B Immediately reveal to the public, investigate carefully, and deal in military courts with criminal actions against the enemy.
Alt B1 Ignore criminal actions against the enemy.
Alt B 2 Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall.
Alt B 2 (meth. 1.) Delay revealing criminal actions against the enemy.
Alt B 2 (meth. 2.) Actively cover up such actions as long as possible. Eventually have the cover-up discovered and revealed to a justifiably disgusted and irate public.
Alt B 2 (meth. 3.) Likely combination of meths. 1 and 2 above.)
Alt B 3 Quietly, revealing nothing publicly ,investigate carefully and deal with criminal actions against the enemy in military courts.
More logical sleight-of-hand. From the fact (let us grant it is a fact) that Wikileaks has done a wrong, it does not follow that it is wrong to support Wikileaks’ actions. There’s a clear type/token confusion in play here. One token act of leaking is (it is granted) wrong, but the type of act may still be (overall, ceteris paribus, whatever) right.
Furthermore, there is some clear confusion on the abandoning Wikileaks by these private organizations. First, they have all, AFAIK, claimed to abandon Wikileaks because its conduct is illegal. This has not been shown in a court of law; so, in effect, private organizations are acting as courts, declaring what is and is not an illegal act. (It would be different, of course, if Paypal, et al, simply said they no longer cared to do business with Wikileaks. Terminating a contract, within the terms permitted by the contract, because one wishes to does not seem to need further justification.)
Second, the Swiss bank has seized monies already donated to Wikileaks, which is questionable, and personal monies of Assange, which is extremely questionable. Paypal has done the former as well. All these monies existed and were donated before the leak that is being identified here as morally questionable, so, for the moral wrongness of this leak to justify confiscating these monies would require a bizarrely retroactive form of the principle of utility.
Third and finally, while it may be that people should not donate to Wikileaks any longer, it does not follow that anyone has any business compelling them not to. Which is the effect of cutting off Wikileaks’ access to credit cards, Paypal, and bank accounts. Paternalistic interventions are not immediately justified because they are done to prevent a moral wrong; to claim otherwise requires assuming that paternalistic intervention is at least morally neutral, which is dubious at best.
(It’s also worth mentioning that VISA, MasterCard, and Paypal can all be used to make donations to the Ku Klux Klan, which implies that these companies are being morally inconsistent, at best.)
Hardly logical slight of hand. If an organization is doing wrong, then it would be wrong to support it in its wrongdoing. If an organization does some bad things, but does more good, then supporting it could be morally acceptable. I am, of course, willing to agree that if WikiLeaks is doing more moral good than moral harm, then it would be acceptable to provide support for the organization. I am willing to concede that I could be wrong about WikiLeaks. Perhaps the release of the cables and their threating a “nuclear” option will generate goodness and make the world a more just and better place. If so, I would admit my error and even send some cash to WikiLeaks as a form of sincere apology.
Companies presumably have the right to not do business with WikiLeaks, though this could be argued against. Seizing the funds and so on does seem questionable now. Simply seizing assets, etc. without due process and just cause would be wrong and I would be opposed to that.
Thanks for contributing.