Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
SUBMITTED BY:
MAHIPAL SINGH
CMAT 2nd sEMESTER
ABSTRACT :-
to wiki leaks: An
SUBMITTED TO:
dr. neelam kalla
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS :-
I Mahipal Singh, sincerely thankful to all those people who have been
giving me any kind of assistance in the making of this project report.
I would like to express gratitude to the my supervisory, Dr. Neelam
Kalla, without whose advice and guidance this thesis would not have
been successful. Whose knowledge and direction enabled me to develop a
deeper understanding of the subject at hand. I express my gratitude to
Department of Management Studies Jai Narain Vyas University.
to
all
my
faculties
whose
teachings
gave
me
conceptual
continuous
support
has
given
me
strength and confi dence to complete the project without any diffi culty.
MAHIPAL SINGH
the
CONTENT:-
1. Abstract
2. Acknowledgement
3. Contents
4. Declaration
5. Introduction
6. Definitions of Whistle Blowing
7. Types of Whistle Blowing
8. Perspectives
9. Conclusions
10.
11.
12.
13.
Short Essays
14.
16.
Final Answer
17.
Conclusions
DECLARATION :-
Department Of
Thank You
Mahipal Singh.
Definitions :-
synonym for such words as speak, call, and squeal. Some have
suggested the term
can be traced back to the schoolyard or playing field where an authority
figure or referee
blows a whistle to indicate that the rules of play have been violated in
some manner (Jubb
1999, p. 77). Others have suggested the term derives from the caricature
of the bulbouscheeked
English Bobby wheezing away on his whistle when the maiden cries stop
thief (Johnson 2002, p. 4). However, individuals who blow the whistle on
wrongdoing
are quite unlike a playground monitor, referee, or English Bobby in that
they are not in a
position of power. They do not have the authority to orchestrate the
degree of change
they deem necessary and therefore have to appeal to higher powers for
assistance. It is
perhaps more appropriate to compare the whistleblower to a person on a
city street who
cries out for help when feeling threatened. It is their hope that, by calling
attention to the
situation, the law can in some way intervene and protect not only them,
but the larger community as well. The whistleblower therefore does not
invoke a whistle of authority
when they blow, but rather an imperative petition or, as Westin (1981)
puts it, a whistle
of desperation (p. 2).
There is much disagreement in recent literature as to how to properly
define
whistleblowing. Many definitions of whistleblowing only include individuals
who report
wrongdoing to outsiders (Farell and Petersen 1982, p. 406). Other
definitions include
individuals who report wrongdoing both inside and outside an organization
(Calland and
Dehn 2004, p. 9). Some definitions exclude individuals who are required
by their jobs to
report wrongdoing (Jubb 1999, p. 78). Other definitions do not make this
distinction
(Miceli and Near 1992, p. 21). James (1984) points out that the term is
typically reserved
for individuals who disclose wrongdoing for moral reasons (p. 249). In
contrast, Barton
(1994) and Miceli and Near (1997) argue that anger and spite can be very
important
motives for whistleblowers. Alford (2001) proposes yet another definition.
He suggests
that a person only becomes a whistleblower when they suffer some
degree of retaliation
for their actions (p. 18). Meanwhile, Bok (2000) describes whistleblowing
as having
three basic elements: dissent, breach of loyalty and accusation (p. 71).
While there is no universally accepted definition of whistleblowing, the
one
developed by Miceli and Near (1992) appears to be the most cited in
recent literature.
They define whistleblowing as:
the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal,
immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to
persons or organizations that may be able to effect action (p. 45). This
definition is broader than most because it includes individuals who choose
to report
wrongdoing within an organization, as well as individuals who report
wrongdoing outside
an organization. The authors do not differentiate between internal and
external
whistleblowers because their research indicates that individuals almost
always report
wrongdoing inside the organization prior to outside the organization
(Miceli, Near, and
Dworkin 2008, p. 8). It also includes individuals who are required by their
jobs to report
wrongdoing, individuals who appear to be motivated by non-altruistic
factors, as well as
both current and former members of organizations. The latter are
sometimes referred to
as alumni whistleblowers (James 1984, p. 249).
Miceli and Nears definition is, as they concede, imperfect. They point out
that
the question of what constitutes illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices
is clearly a
perceptual one. Thus, they conclude that further research is needed to
determine the
circumstances under which activities, or omissions, are deemed illegal,
immoral, or
illegitimate by different individuals (Miceli and Near 1992, p. 46). Vintens
(1992)
definition provides a much closer look at what types of wrongdoing often
precipitate
whistleblowing. He writes that whistleblowing involves the unauthorized
disclosure of
information that evidences the contravention of any law, rule or
regulation, code of
practice, or professional statement, or that involves mismanagement,
corruption, abuse of
authority, or danger to public or worker health and safety (p. 44). This
definition of
individuals who are obligated to report wrongdoing, both past and present
members of
organizations, and individuals who disclose either suspected or
anticipated wrongdoings.
It also makes no presumptions about the motivations of whistleblowers.
However, at the
same time, it is narrow enough that it excludes casual discussions about
wrongdoing with
friends or co-workers who lack the ability to effect change. This definition
is also
general enough that it covers every type of wrongdoing imaginable under
its domain,
including wrongdoing that may be immoral, but not necessarily illegal or
illegitimate.
The inclusion of immoral practices in this definition of wrongdoing is
vital considering
many nations have recently decreased their regulations on organizational
activity (Tombs
and Whyte 2003, p. 9).
Types of Whistle Blowing :1. Internal whistle-blowing: it is blowing the whistle inside the
organization. For example designated officer, workers or bosses in
the same organization.
2. External
whistle-blowing: blowing
the
whistle
to
law
enforcement agencies or to teams worried with the matters for
example Lawyers, Mass media, law enforcement.
Benefits of Whistle Blowing :1. Rises security of the organization: is when you feel that the person
with ethical principles is watching others in your organization. This
person will work hard to detect un-ethical or misconduct in the
organization .One day I asked someone work in the ministry of
higher education about the Whistle blowing but he dont heard
about it after I explain for him he said I wish that there will be a
person like that to detect the employees behavior and misdoing.
2. Highlights organizations code of ethics: Every organization
must have their codes of ethics and behavior to have a better
observing of employees acts.
3. Advance the management: Make sure any management that
consider about moral standard will be always successful.
4. Enhance employees' ethical behaviors: The employees will be aware
that there is someone watching him/her. So, he will be carful before
doing something wrong.
Barriers to whistle-blowing :1. Fear to retaliation: Unluckily, the mainstream of whistle blowers
they dont do what they want to do. The basic goal of whistle
blowing is to help the community. Most of them will be attack whom
specially in low level in the organization whom blow their whistle for
the high level people. Whistle blowers don't be damaged they still
have good news for people. Now, over 30 countries have now
accepted specific whistle blower protection law. Also, nowadays
people are trying to accept the whistle blowers as heroes who try to
serve their countries.
2. Lawful liability: sense of responsibility is very heavy.
3. Denial of employees: No one like someone to watch him/her when
he/she doing something.
Reasons for whistle-blowing :1. Unlawful behavior: There are many forms of behaviors and illegal
actions so in this case must to blow the whistle because it will lead
to very bad result .for example, someone will lose his /her life or
lose his/her job.
Story from real life: an Indian man works in the a market in Sohar
.He got hurt and lost his job because he tried to tell the municipality
about the wrong doing of his boss .His boss all the time changes the
expiration date of the selling food. So, the Indian worker lost his job
because he didnt want any one to get sick whereas his boss is
increasing his profit without carrying about people lives. Here we
can see that whistle blowers allow the risk to be removed or
reduced; they are also the people who have the most to lose if they
do. The Indian man lost his job but he didnt accept that he will be
joining in dishonest crime.
2. Un-procedural behavior: Behavior may be un-technical since it
interrupts clearly communicated actions in the form of rules and
policies that leading the operations of the organization.
3. Immoral behavior: Its mean the behavior will be illegal because
he/she not going or following the world behavior guidelines for
example: Safety, respecting, honest, responsibility .Illegal behavior
may hurt the others feelings .In this kind of situation you must not
blow your whistle.
4. Wasteful behavior: This behavior if the person trying to waste the
resource of company. So, you have to tell your boss about whats
happen. Example, There was an employee in a municipality. He is a
manger of equipments store and he steal some equipment. His
colleague couldnt keep silent he take an action and tell the boss
about that.
Protection laws :-
laws and regulation that offers protection who exposes wrongdoing and
dishonest activities. The wrongdoing may take the form of fraud,
corruption or mismanagement. Also, it offers punishment against false or
frivolous complaints.
Perspectives :-
that accepts wrongdoing and suppresses dissent (p. 34). They also argue
that the act of
whistleblowing does not have to be wholly altruistic in order to be
considered prosocial.
In contrast, they maintain that whistleblowers often have mixed motives
when coming
forward and point out that most whistleblowers experience some form of
personal gain
from the cessation of wrongdoing (p. 36). Lewis (2001) and Callahan,
Dworkin, Fort,
and Schipani (2002) also view whistleblowing as a benefit to
organizations. The former
points out that whistleblowers give organizations the opportunity to
correct wrongdoing
before it escalates while the latter conceptualize whistleblowing as a way
of improving
organizational efficiency, social responsibility and employee morale.
Miceli and Near (1997), however, concede that some instances of
whistleblowing
are not prosocial, but in fact antisocial. The authors give three criteria for
identifying
antisocial whistleblowing: the intentions of the whistleblower, the process
used by the
whistleblower and the consequences of the whistleblowing (p. 134). The
antisocial
whistleblower is therefore an individual who blows the whistle on
wrongdoing in a
manner that is both intentionally and actually harmful to either individual
organization
members or the organization as a whole. In contrast, people who blow the
whistle with
the sole intention of benefiting themselves are not considered antisocial
by Miceli and
Near, but merely selfish. While instances of antisocial whistleblowing do
undoubtedly
occur, the authors point out that a large majority of whistleblowing is
prosocial rather
than antisocial (p. 132).
Martin (1999) provides another perspective on whistleblowing by drawing
many
similarities between whistleblowers and nonviolent activists. He argues
that both take principled stands and speak out against improper behavior;
both seek to foster an open,
democratic discussion of the issues; and both are willing to pay the price
for dissent (p.
7). Additionally, he points out that the opponents of whistleblowers and
nonviolent
protestors are alike in that both seek to stifle dialogue and discussion
through various
forms of silencing (p. 8). In fact, the only difference between the two that
he sees is that
whistleblowers typically utilize formal procedures when voicing their
concerns and tend
to expect their complaints to be treated seriously; whereas nonviolent
activists typically
utilize alternative procedures when voicing their concerns as they are
seldom under the
impression that societys formal complaint procedures provide a solution
to injustices (p.
12). Other researchers have also equated whistleblowing with activism.
For example,
Elliston (1982) compares and contrasts whistleblowing to civil
disobedience and Graham
(1986) theorizes whistleblowing as principled organizational dissent.
Similarly,
Greene and Latting (2004) have drawn parallels between whistleblowing
and the concept
of advocacy in the field of social work. They note that many definitions of
advocacy, at
least in a social work context, are very similar to those of whistleblowing
(p. 223).
Though there is no one correct way of conceptualizing whistleblowing,
there are
most certainly wrong ones. To view it always as an act of disloyalty and
whistleblowers
as merely snitches or tattletales is far too simplistic and unrealistic a
perspective to
be taken seriously. However, to view it always as an act of altruism and
whistleblowers
as solely heroes or martyrs is equally simplistic and unrealistic.
Essentially, the act
of whistleblowing is far too complicated to be considered either wholly
good or bad.
Thus, regardless of how one perceives whistleblowing, it is important to
see
whistleblowers for what they really are human. They are people who act
on a variety of motives and in a variety of ways and their actions have
good and bad, as well as planned
and unplanned, consequences. The question then becomes: do they
contribute positively
to society more often than not? The general consensus among Canadians,
at least
according to Thomas (2005), is that they do and that more needs to be
done to protect
them (p. 154).
WikiLeaks :-
Conclusions :If you find yourself in a possible whistle-blowing incident, you should
exhaust all internal alternatives for addressing the problem and
accumulate all documentation possible. If blowing the whistle becomes
the only alternative, then you should anticipate a job change and you
should get good legal representation In some cases, there are federal
and state laws meant to provide protection for the whistle blowers Not
every incident that should result in whistle blowing does, sometimes the
whistle is swallowed rather than blown A whistle blowing incident is
probably the most emotionally difficult thing you can experience as a
professional.
temporary (something not possible for a file decryption key). The German
periodical Der Spiegel reported a more complex story involving errors on
both sides. The incident resulted in widely expressed fears that the
information released could endanger innocent lives.
Founding :The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006. The
website was begun, and published its first document, in December
2006. WikiLeaks has been predominantly represented in public since
January 2007 by Julian Assange, who is now generally recognised as the
"founder of WikiLeaks". According to the magazine Wired, a volunteer said
that Assange described himself in a private conversation as "the heart and
soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original
coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest".
WikiLeaks relies to some degree on volunteers and previously described
its founders as a mixture of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians,
and
start-up
company
technologists
from
the United
States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, andSouth Africa, but has progressively
adopted a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either
user comments or edits. As of June 2009, the website had more than
1,200 registered volunteers and listed an advisory board comprising
Assange, his deputy Jash Vora and seven other people, some of whom
denied any association with the organisation.
Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website has not used the "wiki"
publication method since May 2010. Also, despite some popular
confusion due to both having "wiki" in their names, WikiLeaks
and Wikipedia are not affiliated with each other ("wiki" is not a brand
name); Wikia, a for-profit corporation affiliated loosely with the Wikimedia
Foundation, did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names
(including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand
measure" in 2007.
Purpose :According to the WikiLeaks website, its goal is "to bring important news
and information to the public... One of our most important activities is to
publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and
historians alike can see evidence of the truth."
Another of the organisation's goals is to ensure that journalists
and whistleblowers are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified
What is Wikileaks?
WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring
important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative,
secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our
journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities
is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers
and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young
organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of
dedicated volunteers around the globe. Since 2007, when the organisation
was officially launched, WikiLeaks has worked to report on and publish
important information. We also develop and adapt technologies to support
these activities.
WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks
designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our
anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based
are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the
improvement of our common historical record and the support of the
rights of all people to create new history. We derive these principles from
How WikiLeaks works :WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism
and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative
journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of
information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous
drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies.
This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our
efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information
comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news
piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both
the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to
analyse the story in the context of the original source material
themselves. Our news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of
Wikipedia, although the two organisations are not otherwise related.
Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents.
As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been
developing and improving a harm minimisation procedure. We do not
censor our news, but from time to time we may remove or significantly
delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents
to protect life and limb of innocent people.
We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative
methods, although we recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as
the preferred method of submitting any material. We do not ask for
material, but we make sure that if material is going to be submitted it is
done securely and that the source is well protected. Because we receive
so much information, and we have limited resources, it may take time to
review a sources submission.
We also have a network of talented lawyers around the globe who are
personally committed to the principles that WikiLeaks is based on, and
who defend our media organisation.
How WikiLeaks
stories :-
verifies
its
news
We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted
document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real?
What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a
document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism
techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically
we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of
forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring
organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the
document. We may also seek external verification of the document For
example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of
journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter
attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates,
eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the
truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never
make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has
correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.
Publishing the original source material behind each of our stories is the
way in which we show the public that our story is authentic. Readers dont
have to take our word for it; they can see for themselves. In this way, we
also support the work of other journalism organisations, for they can view
and use the original documents freely as well. Other journalists may well
see an angle or detail in the document that we were not aware of in the
first instance. By making the documents freely available, we hope to
expand analysis and comment by all the media. Most of all, we want
readers know the truth so they can make up their own minds.
The people behind WikiLeaks :WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. Its probably pretty clear by
now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or
government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early
in WikiLeaks existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves.
WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing
dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in
society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists,
software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.
To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the
evidence. By definition, intelligence agencies want to hoard information.
By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite.
Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the
world without fear or favour.
The great American president Thomas Jefferson once observed that the
price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We believe the journalistic media
plays a key role in this vigilance.
Anonymity for sources :As far as we can ascertain, WikiLeaks has never revealed any of its
sources. We can not provide details about the security of our media
organisation or its anonymous drop box for sources because to do so
would help those who would like to compromise the security of our
organisation and its sources. What we can say is that we operate a
number of servers across multiple international jurisdictions and we we do
not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be seized. Anonymization occurs
early in the WikiLeaks network, long before information passes to our web
servers. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts
of our organisation must conspire with each other to strip submitters of
their anonymity.
However, we also provide instructions on how to submit material to us, via
net cafes, wireless hot spots and even the post so that even if WikiLeaks is
infiltrated by an external agency, sources can still not be traced. Because
sources who are of substantial political or intelligence interest may have
their computers bugged or their homes fitted with hidden video cameras,
we suggest that if sources are going to send WikiLeaks something very
sensitive, they do so away from the home and work.
A number of governments block access to any address with WikiLeaks in
the name. There are ways around this. WikiLeaks has many cover
domains, such as https://destiny.mooo.com, that dont have the
organisation in the name. It is possible to write to us or ask around for
other cover domain addresses. Please make sure the cryptographic
certificate says wikileaks.org .
Historically, the most resilient forms of open government are those where
publication and revelation are protected. Where that protection does not
exist, it is our mission to provide it through an energetic and watchful
media.
In Kenya, malaria was estimated to cause 20% of all deaths in children
under five. Before the Dec 2007 national elections, WikiLeaks exposed $3
billion of Kenyan corruption, which swung the vote by 10%. This led to
changes in the constitution and the establishment of a more open
government. It is too soon to know if it will contribute to a change in the
human cost of malaria in Kenya but in the long term we believe it may. It
is one of many reforms catalyzed by WikiLeaks unvarnished reporting.
2. The importance of principled leaking to journalism, good government
and a healthy society : Principled leaking has changed the course of
history for the better. It can alter the course of history in the present, and
it can lead us to a better future.
Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the
Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a
meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the
war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has
sunk in deceiving the American people about the war. Yet the public and
the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed,
secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross
dishonesty practised by their own government. In spite of those secrecy
laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the
Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges
against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon Papers
shocks the world, exposes the government lying and helps to shorten the
war and save thousands of both American and Vietnamese lives.
The power of principled leaking to call governments, corporations and
institutions to account is amply demonstrated through recent history. The
public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions
forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which
official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to
find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to
the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of
embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against
conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government
answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and
undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of
promoting good governance.
Today, with authoritarian governments in power in much of the world,
increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and
increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the
need for openness and transparency is greater than ever. WikiLeaks
interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state
The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to
land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
All
power
issues
from
a
central
committee.
There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There
are
no
juries
and
innocence
is
not
presumed.
Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
There
is
no
freedom
of
speech.
There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women
is
often
forbidden
without
approval.
The
economy
is
centrally
planned.
There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic
communication.
The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told
when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of
Information
Act
is
unimaginable.
Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled
and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or
New Zealand, many of these multi-national corporations have nothing like
their quality of civic freedoms and protections. This is even more striking
when the regional civic laws the company operates under are weak (such
as in West Papua, many African states or even South Korea); there, the
character of these corporate tyrannies is unregulated by their civilizing
surroundings.
Through governmental corruption, political influence, or manipulation of
the judicial system, abusive corporations are able to gain control over the
defining element of government the sole right to deploy coercive force.
Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a menace to all
inside and outside it. Corporations will behave more ethically if the world
is watching closely. WikiLeaks has exposed unethical plans and behaviour
in corporations and this as resulted in recompense or other forms of
justice forms of justice for victims.
4. Could oppressive regimes potentially come to face legal consequences
as a result of evidence posted on WikiLeaks?
The laws and immunities that are applied in national and international
courts, committees and other legal institutions vary, and we cant
comment on them in particular. The probative value of documents posted
on WikiLeaks in a court of law is a question for courts to decide.
Does WikiLeaks
whistleblowers?
support
corporate
1. The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous
to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to
ownership.
2. All power issues from a central committee.
3. There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate.
There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
4. Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
5. There is no freedom of speech.
6. There is no right of association. Even romance between men and
women is often forbidden without approval.
7. The economy is centrally planned.
Case
Study
in
the
Case Study For hundreds of years, in order to promote civil liberties, such as free
speech and a free press, courageous dissenters have challenged
governments and other powerful institutions. They have spoken truth to
power.
In many countries, those civil liberties are now threatened by the war on
terror and the associated legislation which has increased police powers
and the numbers of invisible and unaccountable secret service personnel
responsible for a countrys security (Council of Europe, 2011, Head, 2011,
Herman, 2011). Freedoms fought for in the 18th century are being eroded
in the 21st.
In this account of challenges to state power, I will focus on the activities of
the media organization Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange. My
argument is that something odd is going on, Assange continues to be
vilified and threatened not because he engaged in violent and evil acts
but because he exposed them. I also want to pay tribute to some of his
illustrious predecessors and also to demonstrate that while some states
criminalise dissent, others befriend and defend our popular heroes, past
and present. The paper draws on, and develops some of my previous work
in this area (Rees, 2011, 2012).
WikiLeaks: Some of the Precedents In 1702, Daniel Defoe, political satirist and author of such famous novels
as Moll Flanders and Robinson Crusoe, challenged a UK parliamentary bill
that jeopardised the jobs of Nonconformists, threatening them with hefty
fines. Defoe responded to the Bill by writing, The Shortest-Way with the
Dissenters; Or, Proposals for the Establishment of the Church a hoax in the
guise of a High Church official proposing to suppress non conformity by
executing the dissidents.
Most officials said that Defoes pamphlet had gone too far and a warrant
was issued for his arrest. Defoe was charged with seditious libel. He was
tried and sentenced to punitively hefty fines, imprisonment and to three
days in the pillory by the notoriously corrupt and sadistic Judge Salathiel
Lovell (Adams, 2012:iiii). In Newgate prison he wrote the long satirical
poem Hymn to the Pillory which contains the lines,
Extol the justice of the land,
Who punish what they will not understand.
Tell them he stands exalted there
For speaking what they would not hear. (Dafoe, 1703:604)
Legend has it that the publication of the poem and its sale as a pamphlet
caused the pillory to backfire. Rather than humiliating him, the audience
drank to his health and threw flowers instead of the customary harmful
and noxious objects (Dafoe, 2009). This reversal is a frequent phenomena
that Foucault has observed what the violence of order had driven away
would overthrow that order and bring liberty on its return. (Foucault,
1977: 262)
Tom Paines experience is similar. In 1792, following the publication of
Paines The Rights of Man, government ministers established a grand jury
to inquire into threats posed by Paines writings. He was charged with
sedition, a trial date was set and Paine fled to France. In response to the
publication of The Rights of Man, British Ministers used the same types of
arguments about the protection of national security that have energised
widespread debate about Julian Assange.
Paine (1791) had written that the preservers of government secrecy
considered Government as a thing made up of mysteries, which only
themselves understood. In a commentary called Ways and Means of
Improving the Conditions of Europe, Paine (1791) claimed, Every Ministry
acts upon the same idea namely that people must be hoodwinked and
held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other.
Ministers argued for a suspension of habeas corpus on the grounds that
challenges to government showed that a dangerous and treasonable
conspiracy existed. (Campbell, 1807:68). In the words of a Paine
supporter, the supposed conspiracy was subsequently shown to be a
mere fabrication of ministers who had exercised an illegal influence over
the grand jury, that found the indictment against the parties accused.
(Campbell, 1807:68).
In the USA in June 1971 the controversy over Daniel Ellsberg and the
publication of The Pentagon Papers began (Ellsberg, 2003). Former marine
and military analyst Daniel Ellsberg released secret documents about the
conduct of the Vietnam War, including the revelation that top Pentagon
officials thought that the war could not be won and that there would be
many more casualties.
Ellsberg was charged with theft, conspiracy and espionage. In an effort to
demonize him and even to have him killed, Nixon staff broke into
Ellsbergs psychiatrists office and several dozen Cuban commandoes
were flown to Washington with orders to assassinate Ellsberg. They are
reported to have backed down because when the opportunity to kill arose,
the crowd was too large. On account of gross government misconduct, all
the charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped and in relation to
the case, the US Supreme Court insisted, Only free and unrestrained
press can effectively expose deception in government. (Justice Black in
New York Times Co. V. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)).
In December 2010, in relation to his defence of Julian Assange, Daniel
Ellsberg recalled, I was the first one prosecuted for the charges that
would be brought against him. In his commentary on the arrest and
confinement of US serviceman Bradley Manning, who has allegedly leaked
thousands of classified documents, Ellsberg says, If Bradley Manning did
what hes accused of, then hes a hero of mine and I think he did great
service to this country. I say there should be some secrets, But I also
say we invaded Iraq illegally because of the lack of a Bradley Manning at
that time. (Ellsberg, in Goodman, 2010). Furthermore, Ellsberg expressed
concern for the lives of Julain Assange and Bradley Manning (Council of
Europe, 2011)
Fast forward to August 2012. Australian whistle blower, journalist Julian
Assange has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, not
because he is wanted in Sweden for questioning about alleged sex
offences but because he has been telling inconvenient truths about Big
Brother who he fears, with ample justification, will extradite him from
Sweden to the USA for his activities in Wikileaks.
Yet a 2006 statement conveys the purpose of Wikileaks: The goal is
justice. The method is transparency. (Pilger, 2010) Consistent with such a
goal, the thousands of Wikileaks revelations have challenged US
governments and their allies and they have reacted angrily, their reaction
has been principally focused on the criminalization of dissent.
State power and attempts to stifle dissent In March 2008, after the release of US embassy cables, the Pentagons
Cyber Counter Intelligence Assessments Branch said it planned to destroy
the feeling of trust in Wikileaks and would do so by threatening Assange
with exposure and criminal prosecution (Pilger, 2011).
Following Wikileaks release in 2008, of a quarter of a million cables
concerning the conduct of the Iraq and Afghan wars and the subsequent
broadcasting of the video collateral damage, which showed the murder
by US marines from a helicopter of a dozen adults and serious injuries to
two children in the streets of Baghdad, US Presidential candidate Mike
Huckerbee said that people such as Assange were guilty of treason and
that anything less than execution was too kind a penalty. (Siddique, &
Weaver, 2010). Sarah Palin recommended that Assange be hunted down
like Bin Laden (Nicholls, 2010) and a panelist on Americas Fox News said
that although he knew it was illegal, he would encourage anyone out
there with a gun to shoot the son of a bitch. (Fowler, & Harley, 2012).
The idea that bullying is an appropriate form of diplomacy has also been
evident in reactions by the UK state towards the Ecuadors granting of
asylum to Assange. The UK government said they were entitled to invade
the Ecuadorian Embassy in order to arrest him (Pearse, 2012). Foreign
Minister William Hague posited a legal obligation regarding the dispatch of
Assange to Sweden (PA/ Huffington Post, 2012) and placed large
numbers of police outside the embassy.
A widespread smear campaign was launched to accuse President Correa
of Ecuador of not practicing what he preached in terms of supporting
freedom of the press, but as Weisbrot (2010, 2012a, 2012b) has
demonstrated, the issues are far more nuanced. As a private citizen the
president is entitled to sue for defamation and did so. Responding in
interview, President Correa also critiqued the role of media monopolization
in opposing social justice to promote sectional interests and astutely
quipped that, if there is no freedom of speech in Ecuador, how could they
communicate the idea that there is no freedom of speech (RT, 2012a).
Not to be outdone by its powerful neighbor, Sweden reprimanded the
Ecuadorian Ambassador in Stockholm (Rees, 2012) although Ecuador was
not questioning the Swedish justice system in the investigation of possible
sex charges against Assange but rather their failure to guarantee
Assanges safety if the US wanted him extradited to the US.
The assumption persisted that powerful countries in alliance with the US
must know more about the rule of law than a South American republic. In
an ethical stance that others could do well to emulate, Ricardo Patino, The
Ecuadorian Ambassador responded by regarding the threats as an
assault on our national sovereignty. Heroically she asserted:
we may be a small country but we are giants in terms of dignity and our
own right to sovereignty. No country can be treated in this manner as if it
were a mere colony, that history has long gone. (in Millar, 2012).
In contrast to this inspiring stance by Ecuador, other governments can be
roundly criticized for failing to appropriately protect and support their
citizens who engage in dissent. In response to threats in the media to
have Assange killed, government and opposition politicians in Australia
stayed silent, as they had done for over five years when the Australian
citizens David Hicks and Mahmdoub Habib, were imprisoned in
Guantanamo Bay. If the US was involved, the Human Rights of Australian
citizens counted for nothing.
There continues to be one rule for the powerful and another for those who
challenge them. Powerful governments and their representatives engage
in unjust wars but their leaders such as former President Bush, former
UK Prime Minister Blair and former Australian Prime Minister Howard are
never brought to account.
Assange has repeatedly stated that he is prepared to by questioned about
the Swedish allegations, from within the Ecuadorian Embassy, but that he
Thus, the rug is pulled from under the utilitarian moral basis. If there is
any use in weighing the expected impact of disclosure, such effects need
to be assessed not by courts but by experts in the matters relevant for
each case. Any idea and any movement that becomes too popular and is
left unquestioned risks stagnating and losing sight of its original
justifications. This is why I believe Fensters article does an important
service to the transparency movement. If nothing else, it should leave
proponents of transparency, a group I hope to be worthy of being included
in, more modest in their statements and more sincere in their discourse.
Nevertheless, if such proponents finish reading the article with a sense of
disempowerment or helplessness, I shall attempt in this note to show that
these are unwarranted.
WIKILEAKSA TRIAL IN MEGA-DISCLOSURE During the second half of 2010, WikiLeaks, by now largely embodied in
the persona of Julian Assange, began releasing massive stockpiles of
classified U.S. documents pertaining to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and
later diplomatic correspondence between Washington and its
representatives around the globe. These disclosures sent transparency
advocates across the globe on an emotional roller coaster ride. WikiLeaks
was an organization with a short history of leaking information of public
importance, most notably the collateral murder video. Many, myself
included, viewed the release of this video as the epitome of much-justified
leaks.7 Human lives were taken by what seemed to be a trigger-happy or
negligent team of pilots. Inquiry findings were being concealed from the
public at large, as well as from the loved ones of those killed in the
incident.8 The video uploaded to YouTube was viewed over twelve million
times.9 The story made headlines across the globe.10 While no
disciplinary action has been taken to this day against any of those
involved, the video shed an important light on the specific incident and
raised questions in regard to the conduct of U.S forces in far-away war
zones. Consequently, it also highlighted doubts about the self-handled
investigations of U.S. forces and their public statements on this and
possibly other matters.
Following the collateral murder video leak and other similarly striking
releases in their portfolio, WikiLeaks struck the imagination of
transparency advocates. When the world was waiting for the release of
tens, and then hundreds, of thousands of documents, one could not but
think to herself, if one video caused such outrage, what would disclosure
thousands of folds
more extensive do? The expectations were high, extremely high.
These expectations were the source of what can be fairly described as a
disappointment among transparency circles. In spite of the first
impression made by the sheer volume of disclosed materials, few will
dispute Fensters main observationthese mega-leaks did not do a whole
lot, and what they may have done (namely, according to Fenster, inspire
uprising in Tunisia) could not have been predicted and hence could not
have been included in the cost-benefit calculation of the disclosure.
site sees [p]ublic participation and collaboration [as] key to the success
of Data.gov.37 To reach these noble goals through Data.gov and other
transparency focused sites,38 the government allocated as much as
thirty-four million dollars in 2010 to the cause.39 It was so proud of its
new effort that it also launched an international initiative to spread the
Data.gov message.40 And indeed it took no more than two years for
transparency enthusiasts around the globe to push thirty governments to
create similar sites,41 and the number is on the rise.42 Data.gov itself
grew at an impressive pace from forty-seven datasets on the day of its
launch to nearly four hundred thousand in two years.43 All the apparent
differences aside, the hype around Data.gov among transparency
proponents resembled that around WikiLeaks.
But sadly, the initial excitement over Data.gov is not supported by, well,
the data. In the past year, the site enjoyed a surprisingly low number of
unique visitors, averaging less than thirty thousand per month.44 During
the same time Britains Data.gov.uk suffered a miserable usage of less
than two thousand unique visitors per month. They seem to have been
ignored by all but a small minority of interested groups and
individuals.45 Thirty-four million dollars were spent on Data.gov and a
handful of other transparency sites in fiscal year 2010.46 Is making the
government accountable to a few tens of thousands of people worth that
much? These numbers were among the reasons that brought Congress to
consider turning the lights off on these sites.47 Although this never
happened,48 more and more people feel comfortable raising doubts as to
the usefulness of open-government efforts.
In spite of apparent differences, there are many similarities between
WikiLeaks and Data.gov websites. Both generated a lot of excitement,
which at least in part was a result of their use of modern technologies and
the massive amount of information they shed light on. Both happily
engaged in a numbers game to create this excitement. Both depart from
the more traditional approach to transparency that developed through the
implementation of FOIA. Both created a challenge and a significant burden
for government agenciesWikileaks by forcing them to invest more in
data security, Data.gov sites by requiring investments of millions of
dollars in data management and IT infrastructure. Unlike WikiLeaks, the
efforts of the people behind Data.gov are geared towards bettering the
Government and not putting sticks in the wheels of its policy. Yet like
WikiLeaks, the opengovernment data movement has a hard time showing
any measurable proof it fulfills transparency proponents hopes.
Thus, Mark Fensters argument is again proven valid, even in a more
normative environment than that offered by WikiLeaks. While some
disclosures of carefully picked documents can reasonably be expected to
have certain effects, large-scale transparency has not proven to have any
significant effect. Are transparency advocates thus ripped off in their most
powerful campaign ammunition? I think this is an erred conclusion, for
three reasons.
First, intended or not, Fenster actually provides us with a strong legal
argument in favor of transparency. As he notes, the inability to predict
transparencys effects applies to beneficial, as well as hazardous,
effects.50 This may or may not mean that courts are ill-fitted to balance
the interests raised in any FOIA case,51 but it surely means that the cases
in which such balancing is required are much less common than is
perceived. FOIA and practically all similar laws around the world are based
on an assumption of openness. The claimed beneficial effects of disclosure
need not be balanced at all, unless alleged threats of disclosure can be
proven. Balancing should take place only where the catastrophic
consequences of disclosure are probable and inevitable.52 If WikiLeaks,
the Pentagon Papers, and scores of other cases have shown us anything, it
is that the government resorts to presenting such threatening scenarios
as a matter of convenience, but again and again, when its position is
rejected by the court, its predictions are proven groundless.
Second, and more importantly, mega-disclosures like those practiced by
WikiLeaks and, by very different means, the various Data.gov sites are a
new phenomenon. It is too early to judge their effect not only because not
enough time has passed, but also because we are all still in the process of
learning how to make the most out of them. Never in the past had the
press, civil society, corporations, and individuals had to cope with such a
torrent of information. This new reality requires information consumers to
acquire and practice a whole new set of skills. It requires information
distributors to implement new policies. WikiLeaks and Data.gov have
made it clear that simply dumping information in the public commons
does not achieve transparency. In addition to access to information, you
need an ability to process the information, and the ability and incentives
to act on the processed information.54
Third, and most importantly, the beneficial effects of transparency are far
from its only claim to fame. They are often seen as the most effective
argument in convincing politicians and other decision-makers to move
ahead with transparency plans, but they are not necessarily the primary
or the morally strongest reasons to promote transparency in a democratic
society. Information generated by the government is public property. It is
created with the publics funds and assumingly for the publics benefit.
Members of the public as owners of the information should have access to
it, just as any owner may access his property, unless other compelling
interests prevent such access. Transparency is seen as a branch of
freedom of expression. People often choose to speak without expecting to
succeed in making any beneficial impact. They are still practicing their
right to freedom of expression, and they may well require information to
be able to express themselves. Information is required for an individual to
understand the world in which she operates. This is an aspect of her
personal autonomy and her ability to operate freely within society and
interact with it.
CONCLUDING REMARKS Transparencys popularity among civic groups and engaged citizens has
turned it into a valuable political token. It has also shallowed much of the
discussion on the subject, hushed critics, and created a false impression
thattransparency in itself is a magic cure to many of societys diseases. It
might have inadvertently delayed the development of policies, tools, and
approaches that are necessary to complement transparency if
transparency is to fulfill the high hopes we put in it. If WikiLeaks was a trial
in information dumping and its effect, it failed. Merely dumping masses of
information does not do much. It was an error to think it would. But with
more sophisticated and well-educated information analysts, mediators,
and consumers, the results can be very different.
Mark Fenster rightly argues that much of what transparency was said to
be, it is not, or at least we cannot prove it is. He serves transparency
advocates well by calling on them to justify transparency, sending us to
look back at its moral basis regardless of its effects. We should, however,
insist on existing evidence of its positive effects and on the development
of the complementary tools and skills needed to harvest its potential.
As I have attempted to show, transparency is not untouched by Fensters
challenge, but it rises to it. It remains a pillar of democracy without which
no human rights system is complete, and no society can be considered
free.
3. Kristinn Hrafnsoon :This is an Icelandic name. The last name is a patronymic, not a family
name; this person is properly referred to by the given name Kristinn.
Kristinn Hrafnsson (born 25 June 1962) is an Icelandic investigative
journalist and spokesperson for the WikiLeaksorganisation.
He has worked at various newspapers in Iceland and hosted the television
programme Komps on the Icelandic channelSt 2, where he and his
team often exposed criminal activity and corruption in high places. In
February 2009, while investigating the connection between Iceland's
Kaupthing Bank and Robert Tchenguiz, the programme was taken off air
and Kristinn and his crew were sacked.
Shortly thereafter, Kristinn was hired by RV, the Icelandic National
Broadcasting Service. In August 2009, he was working on a story about
Kaupthing's loan book which had just been published on the WikiLeaks
webpage, when the bank got a gag order issued by the Reykjavik sheriff's
office, banning RV from reporting on the loan book, which could be
publicly accessed online via WikiLeaks. The prohibition order was
withdrawn later.
Kristinn was dismissed from RV (his contract was not renewed) in July
2010 and has since worked as an independent journalist, collaborating
with WikiLeaks and stepping up as the organisation's spokesman as
founder Julian Assange withdrew from the limelight. He has called the
December 2010 attacks on WikiLeaks by MasterCard, Visa, and others a
"privatisation of censorship". In 2012, in his capacity as WikiLeaks
spokesman, he defended the organisation on the website of Swedish
4.United States Diplomatic Cables Leak :The United States diplomatic cables leak, widely known as Cablegate,
began on Sunday, 28 November 2010. when WikiLeaksa non-profit
organization that publishes submissions from anonymous whistleblowers
began releasing classified cables that had been sent to the U.S. State
Department by 274 of its consulates, embassies, anddiplomatic
missions around the world. Dated between December 1966 and February
2010, the cables contain diplomatic analysis from world leaders, and the
diplomats' assessment of host countries and their officials. According to
WikiLeaks, the 251,287 cables consist of 261,276,536 words, making
Cablegate the world's largest release of classified material.
The first document, the so-called Reykjavik 13 cable, was released by
WikiLeaks on 18 February 2010, and was followed by the release of State
Department profiles of Icelandic politicians a month later. Later that
year, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief, reached an agreement
with media partners in Europe and the United States to publish the rest of
the cables in redacted form, removing the names of sources and others in
vulnerable positions. On 28 November, the first 220 cables were published
under this agreement by El Pas (Spain), Der Spiegel (Germany), Le
Monde (France), The Guardian (United Kingdom) and The New York
Times (United States). WikiLeaks had planned to release the rest over
several months, and as of 11 January 2011, 2,017 had been published.
The remaining cables were published in September 2011 after a series of
events compromised the security of a WikiLeaks file containing the cables.
This included WikiLeaks volunteers placing an encrypted file containing all
WikiLeaks data online as "insurance" in July 2010, in case something
happened to the organization. In February 2011David Leigh of The
Guardian published the encryption passphrase in a book; he had received
it from Assange so he could access a copy of the Cablegate file, and
believed the passphrase was a temporary one, unique to that file. In
August 2011, a German magazine, Der Freitag, published some of these
details, enabling others to piece the information together and decrypt the
Cablegate files. The cables were then available online, fully unredacted. In
response, WikiLeaks decided on 1 September 2011 to publish all 251,287
unedited documents.
The publication of the cables was the third in a series of U.S. classified
document "mega-leaks" distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following
the Afghan War documents leak in July, and the Iraq War documents
leak in October. Over 130,000 of the cables are unclassified, some
100,000 are labeled "confidential", around 15,000 have the higher
classification "secret", and none are classified as "top secret" on
the classification scale. Reactions to the leak in 2010 varied. Western
governments expressed strong disapproval, while the material generated
intense interest from the public and journalists. Some political leaders
referred to Assange as a criminal, while blaming the U.S. Department of
Defense for security lapses. Supporters of Assange referred to him in
November 2010 as a key defender of free speech and freedom of the
press. Reaction to the release in September 2011 of the unredacted
cables attracted stronger criticism, and was condemned by the five
newspapers that had first published the cables in redacted form in
November 2010.
Background - In June 2010, the magazine Wired reported that the U.S.
State Department and embassy personnel were concerned thatChelsea
(then known as Bradley) Manning, a United States Army soldier charged
with the unauthorized download of classified material while stationed in
Iraq, had leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks rejected the report as
inaccurate: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000
classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".
However, by June 2010, The Guardian had been offered "half a million
military dispatches from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. There
might be more after that, including an immense bundle of confidential
diplomatic cables", and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian had
contacted Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, to see if he would be
interested in sharing the dissemination of the information.
Manning was suspected to have uploaded all that was obtained to
WikiLeaks, which chose to release the material in stages so as to have the
greatest possible impact.
According to The Guardian, all the diplomatic cables were marked "Sipdis",
denoting "secret internet protocol distribution", which means they had
been distributed via the closed U.S. SIPRNet, the U.S. Department of
Defense's classified version of the civilian internet. More than three million
U.S. government personnel and soldiers have access to this
network. Documents marked "top secret" are not included in the system.
Such a large quantity of secret information was available to a wide
audience because, as The Guardian alleged, after the 11 September
attacks an increased focus had been placed on sharing information since
gaps in intra-governmental information sharing had been exposed. More
The five newspapers that had obtained an advance copy of all leaked
cables began releasing the cables on 28 November 2010, and WikiLeaks
El Pas released its report saying there was an agreement between the
newspapers for simultaneous publication of the "internationally relevant"
documents, but that each newspaper was free to select and treat those
documents that primarily relate to its own country.
Several of the newspapers coordinating with WikiLeaks have published
some of the cables on their own websites.
The Lebanese daily newspaper Al-Akhbar published about 183 cables on 2
December 2010.
The Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Aftonbladet started
reporting on the leaks early December. In Norway Verdens Gang (VG)
brought the first leaks concerning USA and the Norwegian government on
7 December.
Aftenposten, a Norwegian daily newspaper, reported on 17 December
2010 that it had gained access to the full cable set of 251,287
documents. While it is unclear how it received the documents, they were
apparently not obtained directly from WikiLeaks. Aftenposten started
releasing cables that are not available in the official WikiLeaks
distribution. As of 5 January 2011, it had released just over one hundred
cables unpublished by WikiLeaks, with about a third of these related toSri
Lanka, and many related to Norway.
Politiken, a Danish daily newspaper, announced on 8 January 2011 that it
had obtained access to the full set of cables.
NRC, a Dutch daily newspaper, and RTL Nieuws, a Dutch television news
service, announced on 14 January 2011 that they had gained access to
the
about
3000
cables
sent
from
The
Hague,
via
Aftenposten. NOS announced on the same day that it had obtained these
same cables from Wikileaks.
Die Welt, a German daily newspaper, announced on 17 January 2011 that
they had gained access to the full set of cables, via Aftenposten.
Australian-based Fairfax Media obtained access to the cables under a
separate arrangement. Fairfax newspapers began releasing their own
stories based on the leaked cables on 7 December 2010. Unlike other
newspapers given access, Fairfax originally had not posted any of the
original cables online, citing the need to maintain its competitive
advantage over other Australian newspapers. However, on 16 December
2010, Fairfax reversed its position, and began publishing the cables used
in its stories.
same to the source as to others with access. That is it doesn't matter who
whistleblowed as much as whether it was right to. So we assume the right
of whistleblowing is content based and not personally based so we can
assume the other Siprnet users are not to be analyzed in this ethical case.
Adrian Lamo reported Manning as the source to the Military. His action
does question the reasoning behind the whistleblowing but is in line with
the US Military's decisions, and it is assumed Adrian Lamo acted for the
Military's interests and is taken into account when we analyse the US
Military's position.
Bradley Manning will be identified as a single participant due to the
charges from the US State Dept speci_cally.
Is the US Military in line with the US State Department? Accountability for
anyone following procedure goes directly to those in charge. It can be
assumed that all those in the Military who acted unethically such as in the
helicopter video massacre released by wikileaks, if they followed the
protocols they are
freed of accountability but clearly there is war crimes coming from the
Military itself that must be accountible not only by the US state
Deparment but coming from the US Military itself. However, just like the
diplomatic cables that have been released, the US State of Department is
accountable for the actions of its Military and its diplomats and all other
US participants. This assumption of all US participants who acted
irresponsibly to come under the US State department.
The media including Wikileaks publish cables they believe to be of importance to the public good in terms of freedom of information, transparency
and accountability. Once they know that the source is valid and that the
material contains information containing seriously unethical practices,
their case is a separate issue of how to handle that data. In terms of the
whistleblowing case itself, the whistleblower transferred cables to these
medium in good faith. There are differences between each medium the
whistleblower should have been aware of and these options will need to
be looked at from an ethical point of view.
c) options of participants - The whistleblower had the option of
distributing the media directly to respected media such as the media
Julian Assange has passed onto, media which will filter important names
before publication. There is also the option of dealing with the issues
internally through ombudsmen in the State department or reporting to
further up the chain of command in the Military or departments that allow
for confidential internal auditing. The steps for the whistleblower were to
address it to supervisors, which private Bradley Manning reportedly did,
and when unattended to, go elsewhere. Exactly what steps the
whistleblower took is unknown, and anything Bradley Manning reportedly
did came from one source, described as extremely untrustworthy[19].
Wikileaks may have been chosen for its freedom of national press or
possible easier access by internet.
The participants in the helicopter massacre video may have had a few
options. They were given permission to engage, and the US military
internal investigation found that those soldiers acted followed "Rules of
Engagement" and were in accordance with the law of armed conict [20].
However, the video showed clear violation of the Genova Convention, war
crimes[21], raising the question of what options the internal military
investigation used in coming to its decision, and what options the US State
department had to deal with it.Therefore the US military and US state
department had a few options. The Military and State could have charged
those who commited the war crimes, or those who developed the rules of
engagement, or whoever was responsible for clear war crimes. They could
have chosen to review the internal investigation report which found the
soldiers engaging in proper conduct. They could choose to charge the
person who leaked the video and those who publish it, assuming that the
video release was itself the problem and not the conduct of the soldiers.
This is the option that was taken when Private Bradley Manning was
charged with leaking the video and many other cables.
The participants in the diplomatic cables, especially diplomats, also had a
few but limited options. They could choose to follow orders in developing
secret negotiations, often necessary in sensitive times and places, or to
whistleblow any unethical issues such as the order by Hillary Clinton, head
of the US State department, to spy on United Nations o_cials[22, 23]. The
diplomats also had a choice to resign. The US State could have decided to
act responsibly in assigning orders to the military and diplomats, including
responsible reviews of everything. The US State department have the
choice to charge those who act irresponsibly, and to judge what is
irresponsible based on its judicial and legal system and its own internal
procedures.
d) Justications - For the whistleblower:
_ Many of the cables, including the video of the US Military
Helicopter collateral murder in Iraq, needed international attention.
_ The internal system, including the US State of Department, was
not being fully accountable for illegal activities and for the clear failure of
the internal investigations to resolve these issues.
_ The belief that information should be free to the public domain and
not classified as is the case.
For the US State Department:
_ The need to protect National Security, for the progress of
diplomatic and military work. They see a case where procedures are set in
place and the sensitive work that is being carried out by protocol should
not be put to the public domain where sensitive information could lead to
mistrust of foreign parties and knowledge of military operations going into
the wrong hands.
_ Taking its military internal report of the video findings as the
measure to judge the whistleblowing case, the whistleblowing case loses
its viability and the whistleblower is then seen as breaking computer and
military codes of conduct, and breaking the law.
_ The disclosure of classified documents to wikileaks was illegal and
deserves
to be charged.
"WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has
been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that
even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities."
Final Excerpt from a Time Special
Julian Assange:
"[But] she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for
ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United
Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has
signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."
Regarding the cables: "They are all reviewed, and they're all redacted
either by us or by the newspapers concerned," he said. He added that
WikiLeaks "formally asked the State Department for assistance with that.
That request was formally rejected."
For the US State Department: Excerpts from Hillary Clinton's formal response from the White House regarding the cables[27]:
"The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of clas-sified
information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national
security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve
shared problems. This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign
policy interests. It is an attack on the international community - the
alliances and partnerships, the conver-sations and negotiations, that
safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity."
"I want to make clear, our offcial foreign policy is not set through these
messages, but in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as
reected in our statements and our actions around the world. There is
nothing laudable about endangering innocent peo-ple. There is nothing
brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which
our common security depends."
A separate occasion afterwards[28]: "The work of diplomacy is on
display," Clinton told reporters. "It was not our intention for it to be
released this way {usually it takes years before such matters are. But I
think there's a lot to be said about what it shows about the foreign policy
of the United States. Everybody has a right to have us talk to them, and
have any questions that they have answered, but at the end of the day
{ as a couple of analysts and writers are now writing { what you see are
diplomats doing the work of diplomacy," she said. "I really believe that we
had to reestablish trust, to reestablish relationships, so I take this very
personally."
Responses from the US State dept29:
"The publishing of the cables would "`place at risk the lives of countless
in-nocent individuals",including journalists and soldiers; threaten ongoing
military operations; and undermine "cooperation between countries,".
State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh to Assange[29]: "Despite your
stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and
endangered the lives of countless individuals. If any of the materials you
intend to publish were provided by any government offcials, or any
intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation
of U.S. law," Koh wrote. "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the
violation of the law is ongoing." There are many other statements but
these will suffce to make an objective dialectic arguement.
Related Issues :
The release of the cables has been contrasted to the Pentagon Papers[30].
Both highlight "`credibility"' gaps between the administrations' press
releases and private actions. The difference is mainly in the type of
information leaked.
The Pentagon Papers were high level secret documents exposing issues
withthe Vietnam War and covered a large period. The 250,000+ cables
released by Wikileaks are lower level classified documents with patches of
information scat-tered, and the question is will they have enough
substance to picture the puzzle of what the conspiracy theorists have
believed all along. Its worth remembering that there are higher levels of
secret documents, and those cables leaked by the whistleblower are not
of significant clearance level to leak the more important high level secret
documents.
Final Answer :-
Conclusion :-
The ethical debate for the whistleblowing of the US-Embassy cables has
shown two very strong sides, and from the questions raised it can be seen
that there is issues with both the military and diplomatic actions, the
handling of the case by the State Department, the way the cables were
leaked, and the way the cables were handled/published. Using the logical
methodology of a top down breakdown approach and using dialectic
arguement for both sides it is open to interpretation and leaves the reader
with an educated self-formed opinion of the greater truth that should be
revealed by the method.