The Instigator
Brotherhood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BennyW
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to U.S. national security [Public Forum]

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,145 times Debate No: 17439
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Brotherhood

Pro

D1: Threat = something that is a source of danger [1]

D2: National Security = The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners; a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity; respect for universal values at home and around the world; and an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges [2]

O1: The resolution solely calls for the affirmative to show that Wikileaks is a threat - meaning that the round should be based upon the paradigm of affirmative offense only.

C1: WL inhibits information sharing
C1a: Discourages informants from giving away key intelligence:
The US avidly utilizes informants as a means of information gathering – in order to better respond to potential dangers. Specifically, informants in the Middle East are a key resource in counter-terrorism and non-proliferation programs. For example, the New York Times links 5 CIA informants to the May 2nd Navy SEAL raid which resulted in Osama bin Ladin's death. [3] These informants reportedly fed a US spy agency information regarding the location of the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack on the US (911). This and countless other examples help to elucidate the importance of informants. Terrorists understand this importance, which is why they seek to punish informants. Normally, this wouldn't be as big of a problem – but the issue lies in Wikileaks. Tucker Reals of CBS reports that "hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals." [4] WL endangers the lives of informants by giving terrorists a means of retribution – a way to find said individuals, and hunt them down. In fact, the Daily Telegraph reports, "A spokesman for the militant movement said it would scour the files for the names of Afghan intelligence sources who had given the Nato-led coalition information on the insurgents... The spokesman would not say what punishment the movement would exact, but Taliban fighters routinely behead, hang or shoot dead those considered to be spies or associated with foreign troops." [5] In fact, a number of other terrorist organizations such as Hamas have expressed similar sentiments. [6] [7] However, the more important point lies in the resulting loss of trust. Steven Aftergood, director of transparency group FASPGS, explains that "[the] "mere fact of the disclosure erodes confidence in the ability of the military to keep secrets and that can have real effects on recruitment of sources and on maintenance of relationships with individuals (and organizations) and with other security services." [8] These implications are already apparent. Robert Danin of the CFR notes that a number of regular contacts in the Middle East have refused to meet with US officials, but the more important point remains – informants will be more reluctant to share key intelligence out of fear for their own lives. At the point where WL is directly responsible for the loss of information that could be used to locate and capture more terrorists; WL is inhibiting US ability to meet global challenges and is thereby a threat to US national security.

C1b: Harms government transparency by hampering intel-sharing within state departments
A common misconception is that WL improves governmental transparency. However, Steven Aftergood explains, "instead of subverting secrecy regimes, Wikileaks appears to be strengthening them, as new restrictions on information sharing are added and security measures are tightened. (Technology can be used to bolster secrecy as well as subvert it.)." [9] He furthers, "In fact, Wikileaks may deliberately be attempting, in a quasi-Marxist way, to subvert secrecy by provoking governments to strengthen it." According to Joshua Foust of PBS, "In the wake of Wikileaks' reckless exposures of U.S. secrets, agencies are responding by clamping down on access — the precise opposite of enabling the connecting of dots." Foust warns that such security measures will inhibit the intelligence community from being able to "quickly or rigorously to stop every single attempt to execute a terrorist attack." [10] Foust's fears are validated by a number of examples. For instance, the State Department's decision to withdraw its Net Central Diplomacy database from SIPRNET – a government secret network. Bureaucratic analysts rely on SIPRNET as their main means of reporting key issues in places such as the Middle East. With SIPRNET closed off to them, Foust explains that this will "adversely affect the intelligence community's ability to collect and understand information." A report compiled for Congress by the GAO asserts a healthy flow of information between state departments is necessary to create accurate "risk" assessments of potential terrorist threats. These risk assessments determine funding and prioritization given to specific counter-terrorism programs, and without a fully coordinated intelligence community – the US' ability to effectively implement these programs will be affected. [11] At the point where WL endangers US counter-terrorism, thereby increasing the chance of a terrorist attack – WL is a clear threat to US national security.

C2: WL facilitates terrorism by fueling anti-US sentiments in regions such as the Middle East
WL fuels anti-U.S sentiment by releasing classified U.S operations in regions like the Middle East. Namely, the Pakistani nuclear crisis and the U.S Apache engagement. Looking first to the nuclear crisis, on November 28, 2010, during the WL disclosure of nearly a quarter million documents, a cable from 2007 revealed a covert U.S operation to remove enriched uranium from the Pakistani nuclear reactor. According to Rania Abouzeid of the Time magazine, " The U.S secretly plan[ed] to seize the Islamic A-bombs," even after, "Pakistani officials were denying American requests to visit the unnamed facility." Pakistanis were furious and Rania furthers, "Pakistani streets largely view[ed] the revelations as confirmation of their long-held beliefs [suspicion towards the US]." Similarly, after the WL release of video depicting a U.S Apache crew firing down on unarmed Iraqis, angry retaliation came in the form of new levels of anti-US sentiment. In fact, WL even edited the video in order to cast the American soldiers involved in a crueler light. The problem with this lies in terrorist recruitment. A study done by Larisa Breton and Adam Pearson of Small Wars Journal found that the Apache Massacre, or "Collateral Murder," video was being "used by extremists to support their ideological opposition to the West, poses a complex problem-set to would-be interventionists." [12] The study asserts that "the "Collateral Murder" video certainly became grist for the terrorist mill," and found that it was likely to "be used by extremist platforms (such as www.theunjustmedia.com) to further harden radicalized attitudes and to recruit future terrorists online." Indeed, Breton and Pearson add that terrorist organizations are "likely to use Collateral Murder as an ideological plank to support their violent extremist ideology." At the point where WL fueled anti US sentiments are being used in order to extend extremist ideology, thereby expanding terrorist organizations through new recruits – WL is a clear threat to national security.

Sources:
1.http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
10. http://tinyurl.com...
11. http://tinyurl.com...
12. http://tinyurl.com...
BennyW

Con

I agree with my opponent’s definition of terms. I will also as my opponent suggests, use this round to set up my argument and instead wait until next round to refute his arguments. I will argue that wikileaks is not in fact a threat to national security

Wikileaks is a secure source of intelligence gathering on US activity. Anonymous contributor whistle blowers expose things that the US has done that they have been attempting to cover up. A transparent government and individual privacy is the best policy. As Benjamin Franklin said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”.[1] [2]

Wikileaks will not release personal information on individuals and its informants are anonymous. If the US Government is offended by what wikileaks reveals, they should change their own policies rather than shooting the messenger for exposing the truth. Wikileaks in fact has never release information of the highest classification. They bring news to the public that might not otherwise be available. [3]
The only reason wikileaks is constantly under attack is that it interferes with the US Government’s ability to perform illegal activity.

Conclusion: For the security of American citizens, and the World at large, wikileaks should be allowed to operate. Government should be transparent but the private lives of citizens should remain private, our current leaders have this idea flipped on its head and wikileaks is merely an attempt to fix that.
I thank my opponent and await his rebuttal.
1 http://www.wired.com...
2 http://en.wikiquote.org...
3 http://wikileaks.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Brotherhood

Pro

Brotherhood forfeited this round.
BennyW

Con

BennyW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Brotherhood

Pro

Brotherhood forfeited this round.
BennyW

Con


As my opponent forfeited and failed to address my contentions I will respond to what he brought up in the first round.


Discourages informants from giving away key intelligence:


A lot of time our informants are themselves terrorists. Also, the contributors to wikileaks are anonymous as I have stated earlier so it wouldn’t endanger those giving the information so they shouldn’t fear for their lives. My opponent also mentions a report by the CFR, but the CFR is not a government organization and has no business acting as such.


Harms government transparency by hampering intel-sharing within state departments


What my opponent describes is government backlash, which wikileaks is not responsible for. The whole point is that the Government is responsible for their own actions. Blaming wikilleaks is just a form of scapegoat. If the government responds this way it just shows them to be perpetuation the problem, thereby exposing their corruption even further.


WL facilitates terrorism by fueling anti-US sentiments in regions such as the Middle East


Our interference in their country already causes that. If we really want to prevent this we must stop making deals with terrorists. If we would let the countries deal with their own problems they would be less likely to create backlash against us.



I hope that my opponent comes back next round to respond.


Debate Round No. 3
Brotherhood

Pro

Brotherhood forfeited this round.
BennyW

Con

BennyW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Brotherhood

Pro

Brotherhood forfeited this round.
BennyW

Con

My opponent has foreited yet again and has failed to deend any part o his argument. I ask the voters to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
I apologize for the forfeit, but I was away for several days. However, since my opponent frfeited as well that makes us even.
Posted by Relax 5 years ago
Relax
interesting.. Brotherhood forgot to post for himself after complaining about others doing the same.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
So you want me to present my case in the same way you have and then rebut you next round?
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
OK I will take this.
Posted by Brotherhood 5 years ago
Brotherhood
*solid argumentation
Posted by Brotherhood 5 years ago
Brotherhood
Please take this if you are committed to doing 5 rounds of solid.
My last two attempts to get this going have resulted in failure due to people forgetting to post arguments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
BrotherhoodBennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
BrotherhoodBennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious