WikiLeaks Scandal: Free Speech or Terrorism?

on November 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM

jeny erikson
Jenny EriksonOver the weekend, the website WikiLeaks released over 250,000 classified State Department documents. Top-secret information about everything from Iran’s nuclear status to concerns over China’s growth as a superpower to the potentiality of a united Korean peninsula suddenly became public knowledge.

Secretary of State Clinton is mad. President Obama is cracking down with a zero-tolerance policy for anyone caught leaking information. Congressman Pete King (R-NY) is calling for the government to declare WikiLeaks a foreign terrorist organization, in order to “seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever.”

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims that total transparency is in the public’s best interest.

I think Assange is a tool that needs to watch an episode or two of Alias. Rule number one: Don’t show the other team your playbook. Rule number two: If you want good ratings, hire Jennifer Garner and Michael Vartan to play the ridiculously good-looking spies. I don’t think rule number two applies in this case.

There is a war against terrorism going on right now, and telling our enemies what we know about them is a bad idea. They now know which people and areas are being watched suspiciously, and by whom. That puts our people and our friends in danger.

Some might argue that WikiLeaks is protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause. I disagree. WikiLeaks did not "say" something objectionable; they spilled secrets that weren’t theirs to share. Our allies need to know that they can trust us, and this is a breach of that trust.

From the Associated Press:

In Washington, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, called the release very damaging.

"The catastrophic issue here is just a breakdown in trust," he said Monday, adding that many other countries -- allies and foes alike -- are likely to ask, 'Can the United States be trusted? Can the United States keep a secret?'"

I won’t go so far as to say that WikiLeaks committed an act of terrorism, but I will say that they aided it. This is more equivalent to the guy that sells the bank plans and security codes to the bank robbers. I just hope that our security is tight enough to withstand any action that may come out of WikiLeaks' bad decision.

Filed Under: barack obama, in the news, media, islam, politics, terrorism

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (8)

Nonmember comment from dsa

on Nov 30, 2010 at 9:59 AM

hes not American neither does he live in U.S, this has nothing to do with the freedom of speech of u.s constitution cause Julian is NOT American he couldn't care less about whether this hurts america or not do some research please

Report this comment

Facebook comment from Lori Appel

on Nov 30, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Julian may not be an American Citizen but the vile people who are providing him the classified information are and should be charged with treason/espionage. It would be one thing if they were trying to out some sort of internal scandal or whistle-blow illegal practices within the government but they are not. They are supposed to be TRUSTED and cleared professionals. Absolutely disgusting.

anklebitr

on Nov 30, 2010 at 10:35 AM

"It would be one thing if they were trying to out some sort of internal scandal or whistle-blow illegal practices within the government but they are not. "

But they are, at least in their minds.

DebaLa

on Nov 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Even if there aren't laws restricting this NOW, there will be soon. In the meantime, it shouldn't matter that the Internet was the METHOD of free speech. It's the CONTENT of sensitive and top-secret intel that should be at issue. This breach should be punishable like any other treasonous act. If the site owner knows that it is publishing sensitive intel from a gov't, it should be held accountable for facilitating a crime. Throwing the word *Transparency* out there just isn't going to cut it. I think the gov't needs to come down like a hammer and not take such a legalese stance.

Nonmember comment from CanadianBroad

on Nov 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I think this is a very damaging thing to have happen. I would not bother going after WikiLeaks, though ... or Mr. Assange, because they are not really the problem. It is the person who leaked the documents (or otherwise left them vulnerable) that should be pursued by the appropriate federal agency (NSA? DHS?). Because they are the ones that are the danger to your country. If they gave those documents to WikiLeaks, who else did they give them to, and when? What else have they disclosed, and to whom? Those are actually the most troubling questions. Best of luck to President Obama and Sec. Clinton in nailing this person or these people to the wall.

momto2boys973

on Dec 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM

The guy is an idiot, he should be in jail. And no, total transparency isn't in the public's best interest. Some things have to remain secret, period. That's life, that's how the world works, he should deal with it. What a moron. I'm so glad he's facing consequences for his action, I hope they get worse for him.

Sharon

Nonmember comment from emily greene

on Jan 11, 2011 at 5:51 PM

i agree on this but i also belive all this is political bull s***.

Nonmember comment from Don

on Feb 13, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Please tell us the "plays" from our "playbook" that have been revealed to our enemies so that we may be elevated to the degree of scrutiny which you have subjected the controversy to. It has been my experience that no "bank codes" have been released. Instead what I have seen released are information about when our government is lying to us, or when other governments are lying to their people. > Some might argue that WikiLeaks is protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause. I disagree. WikiLeaks did not "say" something objectionable; they spilled secrets that weren’t theirs I'm sorry to say this, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Trivially playing semantics games the word "say" vs. "spill" or talking about "ownership" has nothing to do with the law, honey. (Also, Assange isn't a US citizen.)