WikiLeaks' release last week of close to 400,000 documents concerning the Iraq war showed brazen disregard for human life yet provided a revealing glimpse into the operations of the Iraq War.
The responsibility for the largest leak of classified documents in the history of the nation falls on the shoulders of the anti−war Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Assange, an Australian citizen reportedly staying in London, has been called a cyber−genius and a man with a penchant for hacking. It is unsure how exactly these documents were obtained, though suspicion has fallen on an American Army intelligence analyst.
Assange's disclosure deserves condemnation. It is the duty of those with access to sensitive information to handle and present information responsibly. In many of the documents on the war in Afghanistan published by WikiLeaks in July, the names of Afghan informants were not removed. Assange has been rightly criticized for the danger this has placed those people in and, despite claiming to have taken steps to scrub the documents of such names this time, has still not proven himself responsible enough for the classified information he possesses.
Reputable news organizations with which WikiLeaks shared the documents before releasing them publicly, on the other hand, have taken significant steps to make sure the documents they released would not endanger the lives of those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From the perspective of the American government, WikiLeaks obviously represents a grave danger, and the release only undermines the perceived strength of the U.S. military. It provides condemning facts to critics of the war effort and catalyzes opponents both domestic and foreign. Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morell described the release of information as a handout for terrorist organizations, saying that WikiLeaks' actions "put at risk the lives of our troops." Even from a neutral political stance on the war, the nature of the information released may put a large group of people in harm's way.
Despite the way it was released, the information contained within the classified documents is startling. In the vast collection of leaked material, as reported by the news organizations that got an advanced look, a few themes have emerged: The number of civilian deaths in Iraq was grossly underrepresented by the U.S. military. Iran's involvement seems much more significant than previously realized, as does the role of contractors. Iraqi police forces were cited in numerous instances of abuse in the treatment of detainees, including allegations of torture, practices passively allowed by American and coalition forces. In one case, suspected insurgents, despite surrendering, were killed by a helicopter; the justification presented was that one cannot surrender to an aircraft.
The list of abuses will only get longer as the large cache of material is sorted through. But it is already clear that the reporting of casualties was in no way reflective of fact and that detainee treatment under U.S. oversight has been reprehensible.
Three weeks ago, the Daily editorialized about a story concerning the alleged war crimes of five American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks has again brought the issue of our military's conduct to the fore.
In an age in which secrecy is rarely maintained, the conduct of our military and our allies should not be a secret we have to try to keep.
