What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: What should happen to Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaker?

Paul Rieckhoff:  Bradley Manning should go to jail, and Bradley Manning will go to jail because Bradley Manning, and this is... granted, we have to see how the trial pans out – it appears as though Bradley Manning broke the law.  If you have a security clearance within the military, and you take it upon yourself to download classified information onto a datastick and send it to Julian Assange, you have broken the law, and you will go to jail.  Everybody in the military understands that, down to the most basic private.

So this entire situation with Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks has undoubtedly put people's lives in danger—both American and Afghan, and Iraqi.  As an example, Julian Assange has said that he has not personally read the 91,000 documents that were included in this latest leak.  So then, how can he possibly know what's in those documents and what's not?  How can he possibly responsibly assure us that there aren't the names of informants, that there aren't vulnerabilities to vehicle systems, as an example.  He can't.  And now, over time, we've found that there are, for example, the names of Afghan informants in some of these documents. And Al Qaeda has said, “We are reading these documents.  We are studying these documents, and  we will kill the people we can figure out.”

Julian Assange is not doing a public service by disclosing confidential information. And for the folks who are calling for transparency and openness in government, I understand that, and I agree: we do need transparency and openness.  But do we need to have, for example, the President's travel schedule down the to the minute detail published on the Internet?  Do we need to have the locations of nuke sites published on the Internet?  Should we tell everybody exactly when a humvee is moving from a gate to an objective?  No.  It doesn't pass the common sense test.

When you talk about WikiLeaks and you think about Julian Assange, you see a real division between people who have dealt with classified information and who have come from the military community, and folks who haven't.  There's a huge divide there, but I think over time we're gonna see that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have been incredibly irresponsible, they are not journalists, and they are not upholding the level of integrity that I think they claim to do.  That's why you've seen such a pushback from the White House, and Department of Defense, and pretty much everybody who knows anything about military affairs.  And I think over time the general public will understand why we've been so concerned about this, but at the end of the day I think Admiral Mullen is right.  I think Julian Assange and WikiLeaks already probably have blood on their hands.

The one last thing I'll say about WikiLeaks that I think is really important was that it kind of felt like a flashback for me to 2004 where I was watching tons of people on TV and in the news who had no idea what the hell they were talking about.  There were very few people who understood even what classified information was, much less the details of what was disclosed in some of these documents.  So I would argue that for folks watching right now, demand knowledgeable sources.  Demand people who understand what the hell they're talking about when you're trying to dig into these issues.  You wouldn't have some random guy in the street talk about performing an appendectomy.  So why would you have some random guy in the street talking about Special Forces operations in Iraq?  You need to get credible people who understand the subject matter in order to drive an educated debate, and that's what I think has really been lacking in much of the mainstream media.

Recorded August 2, 2010
Interviewed By Max Miller

More from the Big Idea for Monday, November 29 2010

 

Julian Assange Has Blood on...

Newsletter: Share: