Comments on: The Ethics of WikiLeaks

By: Elaine Clermont

Elaine Clermont — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:30:58 +0000

“In the end, WikiLeaks is about how we define war.” WikiLeaks has to do with our communication — war is the result when communication has stopped being the option we choose over violence to resolve our differences. Once the decision to go to war has been made the question of ethics cease to exist. This is a disturbing conclusion, coming from an Institute(!) (as opposed to an individual) on Global(!) (as opposed to a particular nation-state) Ethics(!). While I appreciate the article for many of the questions it raised, including the final one, the reality we are in as being very profound, I found that a conclusion of the Institute that WikiLeaks has to do with war rather than communication, makes me question the purpose and ethics of the Institute. There simply are no ethics in the reduction of thinking people to become engaged in war and violence — we have reduced our ethics to nothing in order to revert to an animal state of violence rather than an ethical commitment to the conscious state of communication.

By: Alan Neil

Alan Neil — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:11:38 +0000

Dear Rush,
Thank you for a thought provoking commentary. The question of whether we are at war or not is difficult to answer. In a “real” war, there are sworn, uniformed soldiers that follow conventions and rules of engagement that prohibit, among other things, the intentional killing of civilians and innocent bystanders. These are terrorists, soldiers without country, uniforms, reason, or rules. There are few diplomatic envoys or even governments as point of contact for negotiation. These are cowardly criminals who take the lives of defenseless civilians.
I doubt if Wikileaks is cruising the internet looking for the hideouts and leaders of these criminals, probably because they fear reprisals. Instead, wikileaks attacks the western open society without hesitation. They are aiding and abetting the senseless suicide bombers who not only kill soldiers, but women and children at markets and schools.
If the leaks were just embarrassments or discovered government corruption, great, in fact needed. As soon as lives are jeopardized, innocent or not, they cross the line from right versus right to right versus wrong.

By: Chris Bainbridge

Chris Bainbridge — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:28:55 +0000

Other things to consider: if seemingly almost everything is confidential, then nothing is and we know there has been an unusual influx over the last 6-8 years in the number of documents given the “confidential” stamp. Also, if those associated with Wiki Leaks are prosecuted, where does that leave those involved in the Valerie Plame leak, which clearly put lives in danger. A most thought-provoking article.

By: E. Reynolds

E. Reynolds — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:09:34 +0000

I agree this is a dilemma and sides are taken based in the mindset of fear (fear of the external enemy or fear of the internal power grab). War or peace pushes support one way or the other.
The ageless dilemma of how much truth is good (white lies to avoid hurting feelings or to simplify casual interrogations is OK?) is an element with regard to the exposed personal comments. Only a philosophical purist or tabloids would support every truth to be revealed.
For some negotiators, knowing more (information intelligence) than the opposition is the ticket to victory. While others negotiate to achieve a win-win solution with more open dialog.