WikiLeaking away

In case you weren’t already aware, last week the freedom of information activist group known as WikiLeaks released onto their website 250,000 diplomatic cables.

These transmissions reveal the US position on global issues, from Iran’s nuclear programme to members of the Royal Family and the performance of Britain’s politicians. Although their website was initially brought down as the documents were released, The Guardian and The New York Times (as well as several other high-profile newspapers) were provided with access to the documents.

Unsurprisingly, the US government has come out guns blazing, criticising WikiLeaks’ actions on account that they “put people’s lives in danger, threaten our national security and undermine our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.” Some US politicians have even called for WikiLeaks to be labelled as a terrorist organisation (and its leader Julian Assange to be “hunted down like Bin Laden”), which is frankly ridiculous.

WikiLeaks’ aim is not to destroy America, but to (in their own words) “bring important news and information to the public” – damaging the state far more than the country. However, the anger expressed by the US administration is entirely understandable. Unfortunately for them, there’s not much they can do about it – and in many ways it’s their own fault.

Unbelievably, around five million users are able to access the US internal Internet system, SIPRNet – including Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst who stowed the data on a CD-RW labelled ‘Lady Gaga’. Manning, in a leaked instant messaging conversation, said, “Information should be free... it belongs in the public domain.” While perhaps a contemptuous claim, when the US allow access of confidential information to so many of their staff it is somewhat inevitable that a disillusioned staff member is going to attempt to leak it.

Furthermore, in the 21st century the means to distribute such information are plentiful – and once leaked, can never be fully erased from the Internet. With that in mind, it is entirely acceptable for the press to cover these documents in depth. Manning and WikiLeaks were committed to releasing this information one way or another – is it not better that the information is dissected by experienced professionals rather than oft-hysterical bloggers and tweeters? The Guardian’s coverage, for one thing, has been carried out very professionally in co-operation with the government and in consideration of UK libel laws that prevent publication of many of the cables.

This is, of course, not WikiLeaks’ first release by far. They’ve previously leaked documents on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as a report on police killings in Kenya, and a now-notorious video of two journalists being gunned down by over-enthusiastic pilots in Baghdad.

What WikiLeaks does is undoubtedly highly illegal, but is leaking highly classified information acceptable if it is in the public interest?
Well, it’s a mixed bag. Though the revelation that US ambassadors have been ordered to spy on UN diplomats is shocking, is it so necessary to reveal that Prince Andrew “arrogantly branded Americans as being ignorant of geography, and [thought] that anorexia sufferers needed to cure themselves”?

Definitions of the “public interest” may vary, but many of the cables revealed seem to be in the interest of the gossip-hungry press alone. Though of course much of the press have criticised WikiLeaks’ actions some have come out in support of the organisation, claiming that their actions are necessary since the mainstream press are so afraid to release sensitive information.

There is a commonly held belief that journalists should constantly be attacking the establishment and the status quo – breaking laws as they see fit in the pursuit of truth. This is, of course, hardly ever the case. The reality is that if The Guardian had stolen this information themselves there would be little doubt over the legality of publishing the cables. In fact, they would never even attempt such a stunt for fear of legal consequences, no matter what dark secrets may be uncovered in the process.

What of the leakers, then? A commitment to freedom of information is admirable, and it’s important to occasionally unveil what the government gets up to, warts and all. I personally salute WikiLeaks for their courage: the world’s governments deserve constant scrutiny, and if the press are bound by legal issues then it’s up to the public to investigate their rulers themselves.

Originally published in The Courier on 6th December, 2010