A newspaper called Wikileaks is at the center of controversy today as it will release 92,000 "secret" documents on the Afghanistan war. The White House is saying the release of information is irresponsible and is a threat to security of our forces in the region. "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," National Security Adviser James Jones said in a White House statement (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-25/u-s-denounces-publication-of-classified-documents-on-war-in-afghanistan.html). Wikileaks provided the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel access to these documents several weeks ago. All three news outlets are stating that the documents bring to light certain elements of the 9-year war but "no smoking gun" exists.
In light of last week's knee jerk reaction by the White House and the NAACP and the fact that wiki is part of this groups name begs the question of the legitimacy of their documents or how they obtained them. To Wikileaks credit they did allow other organizations, see above, to vet the information. The article "CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something's Going to Have to be done'" from newsbusters.org highlighted the suggestion that a "gatekeeper" is required on the internet because bloggers can post items anonymously without any accountability. Everyone knows, or at least should know, that anyone can post anything in the blogosphere and one should do their due diligence to vet the information before taking it as gospel. Perhaps if organizations like CNN did their journalistic job and got back to investigative reporting the deceptions of the blogosphere would never see the light of day.
Then again, without the internet press, like Wikileaks, would the truth about the Afghanistan War come to light? Don't we, as readers of things on internet, need to ensure the information we are reading is accurate? Or are we suppose to once again turn to the government to tell us which information is true and which are not? I fear a society that relies so heavily on the government to vet the information.
How would CNN going back to investigatie journalism have stopped the blogger from releasing an old video? Do you have specifics of the government telling us what is true and what isn't? Wasn't it CNN asking for the crackdown?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, they aren't disputing the documents just they shouldn't have been released due to security issues. Big difference. And regardless of what the governmetn says, they don't create truth. It's up to us to find that out and make our own determination.
Beside the point, The New Yorker did a fantastic story on Wikileaks a few months ago.
Here's the link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian
ReplyDeleteFirst off, there in no truth, there is only perception.
ReplyDeleteSecond, SPC Bradley Manning has been charged in the release of the documents to Wikileaks. From what the news articles have said, he even has admitted to doing so. Neither the source nor the accuracy of the files being released are in question.
"First off, there in no truth, there is only perception."
ReplyDeleteThat is a very disturbing viewpoint. I hope you meant only in the context of your response?
It's a quote from Gustave Flaubert. But yes, it's a viewpoint that I believe. It is based upon the philosophy of universal truth vs. personal truth. We all have personal truths, but there is no universal truth since our perceptions color every interaction we have with the universe.
ReplyDelete"How would CNN going back to investigatie journalism have stopped the blogger from releasing an old video?"
ReplyDeleteIt won't but at least it would get out the truth before some top executive or leader makes a knee jerk reaction from what is read, seen or displayed on the blogosphere. A crack down will bring about the wrong time of remedy to the situation.
I always imagine how WWII would have been different had the internet been around. War is hell and it is dirty. If we want to fight then we must accept the causalities of war.
ReplyDeleteThe enemy understand that Obama set a new battle field directive by changing the rules of engagement when the enemy is among the innocent. This type of engagement puts our troops in harms way.
I was reading Der Spiegel over lunch and it appears they are a little more on the attack with the leaked information. Der Spiegel is highlighting the lack of advancement their army has made and questioning tactics and reasoning to continue.
Let me ask again: "Do you have specifics of the government telling us what is true and what isn't? Wasn't it CNN asking for the crackdown?
ReplyDelete"
"A crack down will bring about the wrong time of remedy to the situation." What do you mean wrong (I'm assuming) kind of remedy? A crackdown on bloggers posting at best extremely misleading content is not a remedy we want? I'm not sure what you are getting at.
And to answer your question in the headline, why can't what Wikileaks does be both investigative and irresopnsible? To some degree, I see it as both.
Also, is anyone disputing your view of war? What's your point? War is ugly but that doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to limit the impact on the innocent.
ReplyDeleteObama didn't change the rule. The enemey is the one who hides among the innoncent. Do you think in WWII, outside of the atomic bombs, that our military leaders would have willing killed the innocent? I'm not sure that has really changed.
The Pentagon Papers gave a much different view of the Vietnam Conflict than what ABC, NBC and CBS were reporting.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe that remedy will be wrong to the point of censorship. We have provisions within the legal arena that people can sue for slander or liable. Allow that aspect to remain and be applied to those that post on the internet. One of the issues that CNN raised on their news cast the other day was anonymous bloggers, posters and forums.
As a blogger should I be made to ensure all comments posted are attributed to a login or some indentifier instead of the anonymous posting that is allowed now? That is one element that CNN is seeking to have legislation to curb.
As for Wikileads - This morning on Morning Joe it was discussed that Wikileads has another 12,000 pages of intel that they are scrubbing to ensure sensitive data is not released that would put military personnal in harms way.
Just how do you sue an annonymous poster or blogger for libel? How is it censorship if a person is free to post but has to use an identify manner? No one is saying they can't do it.
ReplyDelete"Obama didn't change the rule."
ReplyDeleteYes he did. Last year he told the military to back away from fights where civilians are in harms way. Prior to that the military did not have the directive. This is not to say they did not worry about civilian causalities.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/
As for WWII - the carpet bombing of Germany, Italy, and islands held by Japanese troops would be a prime example of innocent lives lost due to tactics employed by the Allies.
That is CNN's arguement that one cannot go after an anonymous poster or blogger. I do not see having an identifier as censorship but I can see where they'd like the FCC to remove any site, forum or blog that allows anonymous posters.
ReplyDeleteI have friends who have served in both Afganistan and Iraq and they do not complain that the ROE are limiting their ability to engage the enemy. I'll take their word over a US blogger's report or something CNN says.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fire bombing of Tokyo or the initial instigation of firestorms in Hamburg (ironic name given this forum) would point to the obvious conclusion that civilian casualties were not avoided during WWII. But then, comparing war 70 years ago to that of today is a bit absurd in my opinion.
Viper, grab a copy of Black's Law Dictionary the next time you're driving by a bookstore. Look up libel (not "liable" as you wrote) and slander. You might find that those two causes of action aren't exactly simple things to prove or a viable alternative for many people to pursue.
ReplyDeleteDo you know why you back away from fights when civilians are around? Because we are already an occupier and every time we kill an innocent civilian, there are 10 more people who hate our asses and what to kill us. It's a bad strategy. It's not a war we can "win" and killing civilians will only make it worse.
ReplyDelete"I do not see having an identifier as censorship but I can see where they'd like the FCC to remove any site, forum or blog that allows anonymous posters."
ReplyDeleteWho is the they you are referring to?
Anonymous..you are correct it is libel not liable - slight oversight in word choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree that war tactics have changed over the past 70 years, Americans learned that the hard way when attempting to apply WWII tactics in the Vietnam War. The reason for bringing up the tactic of carpet bombing is causalities of war rule change by Obama. Killing the innocent is not a positive thing and will not help our task in the Middle East. For killing the innocent is a bad PR move and, yes, does not assist the occupier to win over the masses.
As for the FCC and anonymous postings - the they I refer to is CNN and other proponents of looking for the FCC to regulate the internet.
Not exactly what you were talking about as far as anonymous internet postings (libel), but it's close:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06d0657p.pdf
Anon..I will have to read this on Sunday. I did see a report that Sherrod was gonig to sue Breitbart. Should be interesting.
ReplyDelete