Stirring journalism and security worlds are WikiLeaks releases of classified military documents on the war in Afghanistan filched by a 22-year old American intelligence analyst from State department online files.
The leaked documents are unprecedented in terms of volume – 91,000 diplomatic cables out of the 260,000 that Bradley Manning, the intelligence analyst, said he downloaded covering the years from 2004 to 2010. The leaks underscored the game-changing role of the internet in information dissemination.
The leaks, which have been condemned by the White House, Pentagon and State Department, raises anew the endless debate on press freedom and the public’s right to know versus national security.
There is also the aspect of humaneness , of not putting innocent people at in harm’s way, that every journalist should value.
WikiLeaks is a four-year old website which epitomizes the global characteristic of New Media. It’s based in Sweden, it’s founder- Julian Assange, is Australian and it’s contributors come from all over the world. They are able to avoid being disabled by operating in several countries at the same time.
Although WikiLeaks is utilizing modern technology, Assange said, in an interview with Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, that the vision behind their website “ is really quite ancient.”
“ In order to make any sensible decision, you need to know what actually is going on. In order to make any just decision, you need to understand what abuses or plans for abuse are occurring.As technologists, we can see that big reforms come quickly when the public and decision makers can see what is really going on,” he said.
Mashable.com describes WikiLeaks as an “innovative website that could reshape the news.” “The site accepts submissions of confidential political or corporate documents, reviews them to make sure they’re accurate, then publishes them on the web for anyone to see.”
But in the case of the Afghan War Diary, Assange gave it first to three major newspapers in different countries: New York Times in the United States, The Guardian in the United Kingdom, and Der Spiegel in Germany. This is a recognition of the influence and credibility of established traditional media that New media still have to achieve.
Assange told Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty that he promised the source of the documents that “we are going to maximize the impact of the submissions that they make to us. And we believe,in this case (sharing with the three newspapers) was a way to maximize impact.”
Assange also told RFE/RL that they will do “within their power, technically and legally, to protect them.”
But it was not through Assange that Manning was identified as a source. It was his online chat with former computer hacker, Adrian Lamo, that exposed him. He told Lamo, “I want people to see the truth regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”
Manning’s chat with Lamo also betrayed a feeling of not being appreciated which could have played a factor in his decision to breach security rules. “… i was never noticed… regularly ignored… except when i had something essential… then it was back to “bring me coffee, then sweep the floor.”
Lamo, who was also a contributor to WikiLeaks, said he agonized before deciding to inform the military about Manning. “I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger,” says Lamo, who discussed the details with Wired.com following Manning’s arrest. “He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air.”
Assange downplayed the military importance of the leaked documents consisting of reports written by soldiers and intelligence officers mainly describing lethal military actions involving the United States military including intelligence information, reports of meetings with political figures, and related details. He said those were old reports, not future military plans.
But the New York Times reported that the documents contained names of dozens of Afghans said to have provided detailed intelligence to US forces.
An Agence France Presse report said experts warned that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would already be using the information to identify and target informers in the war zone. One 2008 document was a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection.
AFP said the man, who names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors, is identified by name, along with his father’s name and village.
AFP said according to The Times a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry said the leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans as well as further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.
The advent of the internet has greatly changed the pace and style of journalism. But the case of WikiLeaks and the Afghan War Diary highlight the age-old dilemma that journalists grapple when confronted with sensitive information that may put people’s lives at risk.
Ellen, have you ever been confronted with a situation where you have to choose between reporting a scoop and not writing about it in the national interest?
Becky,a number of times especially when I was covering the foreign affairs and Malacañang beats.
It’s really a case to case basis. But if innocent lives are involved, I would decide in favor of withholding the story.
As experience prove, opportunity to reveal the information usually come up in the proper time. So you still give the public the information they need to help them make informed decision.
The issue and question here is the combatant lives on both sides lost caused by the leaked confidential data is for the purpose of informing the public are not just as innocents? I am most concerned about this issue because we already lost close to 150 young Canadians heroes in the desert of Afghanistan and if one single one soldier life is lost because of leaked confidential document, it would not sit well to any of us.
Thanks, Ellen. May your tribe increase.
Sometime in 2007 or 2008, one journalist had a column in GQ magazine and briefly appeared also in one of the big three networks. His article was a bombshell had it not for the presidential campaigning during the primaries. Two things that I remembered he said at that time while in Afghanistan were:
1) he interviewed one afganistan adult male and told him bluntly, he had two older brothers; one is a Taliban, and the other a policeman
2) All afghans he interviewed were all in agreement Karzai’s brother is the undisputed drug lord of their country
This journalist’s article never took off like a hot-potato as it was sidetracked by the McCain and Obama presidential bickerings and mudslingings.
The mighty Soviets caved in during their exploits; and now, the US, UK and their allies are about to lose this one also.
It’s always appalling to learn that this army traitor had two or three disciplinary infractions in the army which he could have lost his highly classifed clearance. Somewhere in his chain of command was where the blame can be traced for allowing him to keep his SCI (sensitive compartmentalized information) clearance, higher than a TS. (maybe they’re pointing the blame to one another why this thing happened as we blog).
Pareng Cocoy, being an ex-military knows that in his Navy, there is what they call PRP (personnel reliability program) in each ship or command that handles sensitive materials or information or nukes/missiles. A PRP security committee (CO,XO, medical doctor or med rep, and other key personnel) reviews the names of all those military involved every six months to determine their fitness (mental and physical) in carrying out their respective highly sensitive duties. In this case, someone, maybe two dropped the ball on this army knucklehead.
Money is his motivation, it’s my personal take. His shedding croc tears, making excuses for his hatred towards the army and other crappy reasons are all but a smokescreen. He is protecting some group/s who are behind this, my take.
i agree with tru blue that money is the real motivation.but this is normal in our capitalist world, the real heroes are indeed those who toil with their conscience as their only guide.
what about the lack of humaneness in US wars that wikileaks wants to expose?
what about the real traitors in the US government and military who put their people in harm’s way and allow the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians which without wikileaks would not be fully known?
we must not just focus on the trees and miss the forest altogether.
Each side wants to get the upper hand at all costs…Afghans would love to know who’s selling them out and ditto to the US and it’s allies. But, there is more “humaneness” on the US side than the Iraqis, the Afghans, and Iranians…as death is most certain to those who betray their country.
Ric Ames, probably the most famous CIA officer who gave away countless highly classified materials to the KGB and provided the 10 names of US double-agents in the Soviet Union which ultimately led to their executions (nine). The “humaneness” of the US came to play, when Ames was sentenced to life imprisonment vice the death penalty.
It’s interesting what key information Private Manning will spill during his concurrent interrogation. His being half-brit and how much associations he had with the locals there to me is quite a curiosity.