No Evidence WikiLeaks Disclosed Names of Afghan Informants

Following up on Monday’s post about WikiLeaks, today I address the moral correctness of the organization. There is no evidence that WikiLeaks disclosed the names of Afghan informants; there is inductive evidence that suggests they didn't.


WikiLeaks clearly acted in violation of U.S. law, law which, in light of the Washington Post’s feature on the bloated and overly secretive intelligence culture, does not seem entirely virtuous. So, an important moral question, which most news organizations (in their myopic defense of the rule of law) stop short of asking is: Did WikiLeaks bring net good or net harm to the world by releasing the secret documents? And more generally: Is Wikileaks a net gain or a net loss for justice in the world?

The second question is most effectively answered by responding to the first, by looking at the concrete consequences of WikiLeak’s actions. If we do this, it is impossible to conclude that WikiLeaks has performed an injustice by releasing these Afghan war logs.

Firstly, the U.S. government has alleged WikiLeaks released the identities of Afghans serving the U.S. as informants against the Taliban. Absent this allegation, no case has been made that WikiLeaks caused any demonstrable harm. The U.S., to its credit, has said it has a “moral responsibility” to protect those informants. If it is fulfilling that obligation, those informants, on whom there is evidently very precise data, are already out of Afghanistan or in protective custody. That no evidence has come forward proving the government’s allegation is highly suspicious. I’m not a lawyer, but presumably it would be easy enough to present the evidence to a judge, the judge would confirm the presence of the informants’ names without disclosing them, and the government will have won the propaganda war against WikiLeaks. To date, there have been no reports of attacks or reprisals in Afghanistan based on information released by WikiLeaks.

Unfortunately, the government has phrased its “moral responsibility” in a way that claims the moral high ground while implying that WikiLeaks is a band of firebrand anarchists (which they are) and idiots lacking a moral sense (which they are not). “Do the right thing,” said the spider to the fly. Let’s recall Max Weber’s definition of the sovereign: that entity which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

WikiLeak’s decision to withhold 15,000 documents from their purge because they did not want to release sensitive information prematurely, that is, before the sensitive information could be blotted out, makes its intentions seem more consistent with the possibility that it did not release the names of Afghan informants.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Dead – yes, dead – tardigrade found beneath Antarctica

A completely unexpected discovery beneath the ice.

(Goldstein Lab/Wkikpedia/Tigerspaws/Big Think)
Surprising Science
  • Scientists find remains of a tardigrade and crustaceans in a deep, frozen Antarctic lake.
  • The creatures' origin is unknown, and further study is ongoing.
  • Biology speaks up about Antarctica's history.
Keep reading Show less

If you want to spot a narcissist, look at the eyebrows

Bushier eyebrows are associated with higher levels of narcissism, according to new research.

Big Think illustration / Actor Peter Gallagher attends the 24th and final 'A Night at Sardi's' to benefit the Alzheimer's Association at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 9, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images)
popular
  • Science has provided an excellent clue for identifying the narcissists among us.
  • Eyebrows are crucial to recognizing identities.
  • The study provides insight into how we process faces and our latent ability to detect toxic people.
Keep reading Show less

Why are women more religious than men? Because men are more willing to take risks.

It's one factor that can help explain the religiosity gap.

Photo credit: Alina Strong on Unsplash
Culture & Religion
  • Sociologists have long observed a gap between the religiosity of men and women.
  • A recent study used data from several national surveys to compare religiosity, risk-taking preferences and demographic information among more than 20,000 American adolescents.
  • The results suggest that risk-taking preferences might partly explain the gender differences in religiosity.
Keep reading Show less