WikiLeaks / Espionage Act Hearing: Oversights

In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Wainstein falls prey to a few fallacies of reason and, strangely, ignores a handful of facts; he fails to address these facts at all and even assumes they are false. This could be a result of the fact that he is either not well-informed, or being dishonest. I do not take a stance on which of these is the case but sincerely hope that the evidence will be taken into account in the event of an espionage trial for Wikileaks.

1. Wainstein: Wikileaks discloses "sensitive information" in a "mass and indiscriminate" manner.

More information on the harm minimization process.

2. The sensitive information leaked through Wikileaks is "not newsworthy".

  • While it is true that some of the leaked cables contain information that is merely embarrassing to various government leaders, it is also true that the leaks have unveiled an abundance of damning evidence indicating an urgent need for change and action. Evidence strongly supports claims of human rights violations, for instance. Surely this is not deemed insignificant by the United States Government. Surely it is newsworthy.

3. In virtue of 1, Wikileaks poses a threat to National Security that is more serious than that posed by the disclosure of sensitive information by the mainstream media.

  • We must tread carefully here. There is truth and falsity in the implications of this claim. While it is true that national security concerns are rising, would it be correct to assume that Wikileaks is morally responsible for this? Would it not, for instance, be more cogent to argue that hostility toward America is a result of the fact that crimes and human rights violations were committed by its government? I leave this to the reader to ponder and refer you to the arguments for and against this position: Wikileaks in Moral Court.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer