Posted by Abby Wolner
WikilLeaks has done it again.
The online confessional has released the many sins of the US embassy in the form of 250,000 cables. Unlike the last major leak, which exposed US soldiers to possible harm, the new batch of information prompts new ethical questions.
Much of the information leaked concerns US suspicions about other nations. For example, as reported in The Guardian: “The extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, which is causing intense US suspicion. Cables detail allegations of “lavish gifts”, lucrative energy contracts and the use by Berlusconi of a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italiango-between.”
Clearly this information is somewhat speculative. Therefore, its widespread publication could do more harm than good, causing increased tension between nations.
Other information, however, has been deliberately hidden by the government when it should be exposed. US officials have apparently been told to spy on the UN and its leaders, for example.
Whether it should be or not, the information is now widely available. There has been criticism from both sides, with some calling WikiLeaks the source for “restoring trust in modern journalism.” Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, called the leak an attack on the international community.
I support WikiLeaks. The truth is scary–there is a reason I don’t tell my roommate who drank the last swig of milk. In the case of widespread government cover-ups, however, the truth is a necessity. If this information causes harm, it’s not because of the information itself, it is because of those who acted wrongly. Which side are you on? Should WikiLeaks continue its unabashed exposure of truth or is it dangerous to any semblance of peace we have?