Taking a Look at WikiLeaks

Bradley Manning had access to confidential files and record as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. In the year 2010, Manning revealed confidential information to the website called WikiLeaks. The material contained various sensitive information such as videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables; and 500,000 Army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. The majority of this information was published by the website WikiLeaks or the like. Bradley Manning’s case was somewhat complex because he didn’t initially express his reasoning for doing this and he appeared to have indiscriminately released numerous amounts of government records. Manning’s defense lawyer claimed that WikiLeaks is a valid media outlet, while the opposition claims that Manning was not a whistleblower leaking to a news outlet, but just a fame-seeker who released the information indiscriminately for his own purposes. ("What Bradley Manning Leaked.") Whether WikiLeaks is a valid reporting and journalistic media outlet or not, the case unfolded as the United States’ government began to scrutinize all media and information disclosures to the public.

Julian Assange has been called many names; traitor, anarchist and even a high-tech terrorist, but the proper name for him is hero. WikiLeaks is an organization that truly works for the people. Keeping people informed with the inner workings of government, putting pressure on the press to acknowledge the truth and forcing change within government. WikiLeaks is driving journalism into the future and Assange is the driver.

Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.

Some believe that the website simply provides classified information without fully thinking of the consequences of their actions. Politicians, like Hillary Clinton, do not the support the idea of having political secrets dispensed and have spoken up, claiming that “WikiLeaks’ revelations ‘tear at the fabric at of the proper function of responsible government’” (Hillary Clinton qtd. in Singer 465). These accusations are not truly accurate and appear to be biased in favor of a secretive central administration. The allegation that the site “releases documents ‘without regard for the consequences’ is, if not deliberately misleading, woefully ignorant,” especially considering that the site has deliberately stated why they leak their information and know what they are doing (Singer 465). There have been several valuable outcomes of the knowledge that WikiLeaks has given to the public. An example is when the site released details about the corrupt leaders in Tunisia, leading to a successful revolution that “undoubtedly influenced the rest of the Arab World” (Singer 466). After that, the same people that claimed that WikiLeaks was terrible suddenly seemed to be changing sides. Even Hillary Clinton herself, after she had said that the site was careless, was “speaking warmly about one of those outcomes; the movement for reform in the Middle East” (Singer 467). This event just shows how truly helpful sharing information can be, notably when they are government

In an article published by “Opposing Viewpoints,” Michael Reagan, son of former president Ronald Reagan, wrote that “If found guilty [Bradley Manning and Julian Assange] deserve nothing less than death sentences for their unspeakable crimes.” Bradley Manning, a private in the United States Army released classified information to Julian Assange, the editor of the controversial Wikileaks website. Reagan suggests that if America had a president stronger willed than president Obama, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning would be found guilty of treason and be “stood up before a firing squad.” The release of classified information by Pvt. Bradley Manning, Reagan argues, gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. “By [Manning and Assange’s]

Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the National Intelligence Agency surveillance extension is some of the most comprehensive news in recent history. It has incited a ferocious debate over national security and information privacy. As the U.S government deliberates various reform proposals, arguments continue on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor (Simcox, 2015).

She also questions the legitimacy of the documents posted by WikiLeaks. Since the information was essentially stolen, she says, who can truly verify the truth behind the documents? Furthermore, Cupp strongly rejects the idea of WikiLeaks being a journalistic service because the best journalists, she says, always consider the consequences of the information they release, something WikiLeaks is “all too willing to compromise” (Cupp 1).

The Internet is one of the most widespread ways to exchange data, and a website called WikiLeaks has received a great amount of attention from the knowledge it releases. The details they give are known to be confidential and provide society with an inside view on what is really happening behind of the closed doors of the federal government. The site is based on the “belief that a more transparent government will bring better consequences for all, and that leaking information has an inherent tendency toward greater justice” (Singer 465). WikiLeaks gives its readers a way to honestly know all the significant facts and records that are purposefully kept away from

Edward Snowden was a former NSA contractor who leaked documents to reporter Glenn Greenwald. These documents revealed “detailed secret NSA programs and capabilities that have been and continue to be used to collect and store personal communications both within the US and abroad”. His document leaks led to many people to question their security. They have led to numerous investigations into the surveillance the U.S. is doing and violations of human rights to privacy and freedom of information. Nineteen proposals for reformation are pending in the U.S.

In “Assessing the First Amendment as a Defense for WikiLeaks and Other Publishers of Previously Undisclosed Government Information,” Janelle Allen explores whether WikiLeaks should be entitled to the same protections that traditional media outlets are given when they publish classified information. In her work, she goes over two possible avenues that the government can take if it wants to silence WikiLeaks; the two options are: prior restraint (censorship) and the Espionage Act. Allen, in order to bolster her argument that WikiLeaks should be entitled to the same protections given to traditional media outlets, goes over cases that fall under what is known as the Daily Mail Principle. This principle allows publications to publish material

The leaking of documents by Edward Snowden beginning in June 2013 that revealed the surveillance operations of the National Security Agency, or NSA, drew international attention to the question of what governments can do in the name of protection and what crosses the line into unauthorized spying on citizens. It also drew many comparisons to George Orwell’s dystopian classic Nineteen Eighty-Four. After careful analysis of the novel it becomes clear that the NSA’s actions bear some similarity to the Big Brother of Nineteen Eighty-Four, but there are some crucial differences that prevent the United States from becoming the totalitarian society that Orwell warned against. Even though the mass surveillance that the NSA performs is more encompassing than what the Party was capable of,

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

In early 2013 a man by the name of Edward Joseph Snowden began leaking classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents to media outlets, which in turn ended up in public ears. These documents, mainly involving intelligence Snowden acquired while working as an NSA contractor, are mostly related to global surveillance programs run by the NSA. This has raised multiple ethical issues ranging from national security, information privacy and the ethics behind whistleblowing in general. The reach and impact of these leaks have gone global and have put in question the very government that protects us as well as the extent of the public’s rights on privacy. Various foreign

As the Hollywood plot unveiled, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, took sides with Edward Snowden to help him find asylum. Assange and his team have started negotiations with Icelandic and Ecuadorian governments for the political asylum that Snowden pursues . Julian Assange himself lives under political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since mid-2012, explained that Snowden had contacted them for

Claimed by its founder to be a non-profit organization/website, Wikileaks was firstly launched in 2006. Some call it an open government group that enables public witnessing (Nayar, 2011; Rosewall & Warren, 2010), while others see it as a representation of a new type of “sovereignty in the global political and economy sphere” (Bodó, 2011, p. 3). The website uses the term “wiki” which was followed after Wikipedia due to its anonymous contributors and