The recent release of over 391,000 classified Pentagon documents by WikiLeaks has revealed startling details about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The leaked information expose a much higher civilian death toll than what the U.S. government has publicly revealed. It also reveals that abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi military and police forces was a commonality known to U.S. troops but rarely acted upon. The documents also reveal that a shocking number of private contractors were active in the war. Furthermore, the documents highlight Iran's involvement in supplying rebel forces with supplies, training and support which has prompted many to classify the country's involvement as a shadow war with the United States and its allies.
The release of the documents is a milestone of sorts for WikiLeaks, whose past exposures have included Sarah Palin's private e-mail account, reports of toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast by the Trafigura energy company and the release of classified military footage of a Baghdad helicopter strike in which two Reuters journalists were killed.
But unlike past examples, the recent WikiLeak release has generated extra publicity not only for the information concerning the war, but also for its inclusion of the names of informants. This exposure could put their lives at risk.
In doing so, has the organization and its leader, Julian Assange, crossed a delicate line? The Pentagon certainly seems to think so, as officials have quickly condemned the release of classified materials in light of the inclusion of informants' names. Admiral Mike Mullen even went so far as to suggest that through their release of classified material, WikiLeaks has ""blood on their hands.""
Such blood is hypothetical, but the accusations do raise questions as to whether WikiLeaks is acting responsibly.
Information is the ultimate power, and in its decision to include the names of informants, WikiLeaks is abusing that power by not fully appreciating the consequences of their actions. The New York Times, one of only four newspapers given prior access to the documents, was able to summarize and publish the significance of the findings while omitting any names that might endanger lives. WikiLeaks' failure to do so was an ill-advised decision.
What's most unfortunate is that these inclusions distract from the real purpose of the release, which was to expose the United States' deplorable behavior in the war. While Admiral Mullen's accusations are hypothetical, the classified documents clearly show that the blood on the military's hands is very real.
Our failure to intervene in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi military and police forces is a violation of human rights. The released documents have prompted the United Nations to call on the Obama administration to investigate. Our widespread use of private contractors in military conflict has also raised serious questions as to whether their role is beneficial. Reports of friendly fire, civilian death and lack of organizational authority involving companies such as Blackwater and Aegis security firms paint a picture of anarchy and disarray. Perhaps it is even more disturbing that private contractors currently outnumber military personnel in Afghanistan.
These disclosures, only the tip of an almost 400,000-document iceberg, have put the U.S. government under enormous pressure. British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has already called for an investigation of the events described by the released documents.
This is the beauty of WikiLeaks' work. By providing information previously unreleased to the public, and creating a safe and anonymous way for others to contribute documentation that may advance public knowledge, the organization is participating in the purest form of journalism.
Media is often referred to as the fourth estate of government. But to classify news as a facet of government misinterprets its role. Journalism, by nature, should be in continuous conflict and completely disconnected from government. Media's role in keeping check on our public officials and its responsibility of providing accurate and unbiased information to the public is absolutely essential to maintaining a working democracy.
WikiLeaks, unlike the dogmatic rhetoric of television news, has done an enormous service to the public by providing information that the government, corporations and military don't want us to have. Using the full communicative capabilities of the Internet, Julian Assange and his team have set a new gold standard in investigative journalism rarely seen since Watergate. Knowledge is the public's greatest asset, and WikiLeaks is proving an irreplaceable source of information. The organization challenges our preconceived notions of the role of media, pioneering a new form of non-profit journalism rooted in the liberating nature of the World Wide Web.
In order to continue its work, however, WikiLeaks must recognize that it holds enormous power. Exposing the names of individuals in classified documents is dangerous, and such reckless choices threaten the organization's survival. Reported internal conflicts as a result of these choices is evidence, and WikiLeaks must refocus its purpose in order to continue the crucially important work it has undertaken.
Miles Kellerman is a sophomore with an undecided major. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
