Is Wikileaks the Pinnacle of Ethics or the Nadir of National Failure?

Question

My mind is on Wikileaks and Julian Assange who says --- If you don't like the way it sounds, then don't do it --- your problem is not with me --- it's with your own conduct.

Half of me likes this guy. Half of me doesn't.

The ethicist/historian/journalist half likes Julian. His argument is -- If you don't want to live in an immoral world, don't be immoral. If something isn't right to do or to say, then don't do it or say it. If the light from your own documentation hurts your eyes, then make what goes down better, cleaner, purer, not so sneaky, corrupt, and heinous.

The JAG/Federal attorney/Navy guy does not like Julian --- sees him as a troublemaker, and a man who will cost USA treasure and lives to repair all the secrets he has spilled. His diplomatic cable traffic leaks of today 28 November 2010 is going to reduce America's influence in the world by 15% or 20%. Diplomacy is based largely on confidences, and if other nations think that we leak, they will not confide in us. If they confide in each other but not in USA, then we've got big problems. Taxpayers don't have enough cash to bail out a diplomatically bankrupt Federal Government.

The word on the street is that this cable traffic was obtained by a private first class computer guy who hacked into high level secured systems and downloaded everything he found there. It's sort of a domestic cyber attack. And not by a civilian.

We need to re-think our computer security. We need a Personnel Reliability Program that extends beyond the nuclear Navy, and that includes everybody in uniform. So people in really sensitive jobs, no matter how lowly, must be security cleared for holding those jobs. In the Navy, a PO3 aboard an Ohio class sub gets a pretty detailed security screen, and if his job touches any computer, or weapons, or comm gear, he gets a deep background, full lifetime security scrubbing, and vetting.

USA is slackadocious, can't connect dots, can't find it's backside with both hands, and yet is a great power, still, so it's a hazard to itself and others, as the world is finding out thanks to pfc whatever and Julian Assange.

Competence is good. We should get some. Maybe we could give Assange a job if he wants one, and if his intentions are good, and loyal to USA. My sense is that he's a pretty rigorous guy and would not try to fool anybody -- he's sort of an historian of people trying to fool each other, and he appears to disapprove of it.

Schizo Sunday comes before Cyber Monday, right?

Answer 1

Journalists must abide by ethical standards as well, I see Assange's indiscriminate actions as falling far below the standards practiced by the New York Times in assessing the "Pentagon Papers". Simply data dumping whatever comes over the transom is not, imho, journalism.



Journalists do a very neccessary job as watchdogs on the government, and on other powerful organization, but there are responsible limits, and an absolute line must be drawn on anything that compromises intelligence gathering sources/methods: People who are helping us could wind up with a bullet in the neck.



"The JAG/Federal attorney/Navy guy" knows that diplomacy and intelligence has a "sausage making" side to it, as much as lawmaking does; that we do negotiate with terrorists, we do collect gossippy tid-bits on foreign officials, and that raw intelligence is often unfiltered B.S. Educating the voting public that we do, out of neccesity, engage in unseemly practices is vital; Endangering the lives of those who do is not.



I completely agree that better vetting of those who have access to these secrets needs to be done.

Answer 2

I am against anyone who uses privileged information to endanger anyone, especially troops or troop movement. However, I think the information should be released to some gov officials., who are not in the war department. If I knew that private info would endanger my son or daughter in Iraq, you bet I wouldn't like it. I am all for freedom of the press, but he's not the press, he is a voyeur. His information has usually not been vetted by a nonpartisan third party. A country has a right to some secrets that affect national security. But they better be right because it will come out later.

Answer 3

many fine points here..........not least of which, is that the United States, like all Super Empires, continues to believe itself invincible, and not capable of WRONG doing.......until it is brought down, like all empires eventually fall.....and usually NOT from outside attacks, but from DECAY, from the inside......like this incident clearly illustrates.



It was not a cyber attack from CHINA.........but a LEAK, from one of our own, assigned to DEFENDING US, and our interests.



The problem is not what was said......but HOW did he get his hands on all this, when he clearly was NOT suppose to??? How was he able to copy and download it all, and give it all away, and no one knew a thing.........until the papers printed it all?



There have been people SCREAMING about cyber security, and our SEVERE lack thereof.......



and Washington has done next to NOTHING about it, while other countries are MASTERS of it.



I don't think it's the NADIR of National Failure, as *that* honor goes to Bush Invading Iraq over lies, and it's people re-electing the idiot........and lapping up every lie they were told.........



but it is, just another example, of the downward slide we have been on, ever since.



I said then, and I will say again now........mark that as the point, that our empire suffered a fatal blow, and began it's long slow crumble.



We are reaping what we have sowed, and failure will be our reward.



World War Two, was 65 years ago......we've been living on that reputation for far too long.



Eventually, time passes, and what counts are your recent actions. That time has long since arrived, and Iraq was a dismal stain on our record.

Answer 4

Its an exercise in propaganda for the most part and the latest batch shows a complete lack of compassion and recklessness.

Answer 5

publishing data you KNOW was stolen illegally in the country it was obtained in is NOT ethical



in my very basic upbringing i was taught you don't do wrong things in order to achieve a right... stealing from the rich is still stealing!!!



so in short.. you may side with him in part.. but no by the very definition of ethics he doesn't qualify