Project 1 | Al's Evolving Writing Skills

Draft 1:

Did WikiLeaks Turn Americans Against the United States Government?

WikiLeaks, notorious in the modern technological age for exploiting classified political documentation, has developed an internationally recognized name. In consequence to the leaking of United States government documents and cables, various viewpoints have emerged to evaluate the existing level of transparency between the government and Americans. Many Americans believe that the government should not act on behalf of the American name through deceit and lack of transparency. Opponents of this manifesto claim that the current level of transparency is necessary in order to have a stable political and international policy. Other opponents simply denounce WikiLeaks because they are viewed as a threat to their personal interests. In sum, some argue that the trust between the United States government and the civilians is depreciating while others claim that the leakages by WikiLeaks is unjust and that limits on transparency is imperative in order to facilitate a stable government.

WikiLeaks is a nonprofit organization, generally associated with commando Julian Assange, with the purpose of achieving a “…more transparent society…,” and a more “just society” (Pieterse 1918). Transparency, which is the openness that a political regime has in revealing information to those in which it governs, is ultimately threatened when the governed receives this classified information from a third party source such as WikiLeaks. As a result of this objective, WikiLeaks began its terrorization of the United States government’s transparency when it revealed the communication logs during the event of September 11^th. While this revelation by WikiLeaks did not incriminate the United States government for deceit or secrecy, it did implicitly conjure a continuous war between political figures and the staff of WikiLeaks. Ultimately the political capital between the United States government and the civilians will be marginally compromised in the process.

The first major publication of incriminating evidence suggesting United States secrecy emerged when WikiLeaks revealed cables pertaining to five years of United States war involvement in Iraq (Julian Assange & Wikileaks: Timeline of Events). The documents revealed that the United States army neglected to properly respond to accusations of torture being committed by Iraqi officials on potentially innocent civilians. Politicians and others of similar relation to such engagements argue that the exploitation of these documents is an act of civil disobedience and implied that the public is “complicit to impunity” according to scholarly journal Third World Quarterly (Pieterse). In fact, Julian Assange, the most prominent member of WikiLeaks was regarded as an enemy of the United States by the chairman of Homeland Security (Harris 1830). Conversely, adversaries of this perspective claim that this deliberate shielding of information undermines the legitimacy of the United States’ military, thus hurting the political capital that exists between Americans and their government. These same adversaries draw connections between this cloudy transparency with features of authoritarian regimes (Pieterse 1920). Hence, this leak incurred by WikiLeaks developed questions concerning the principle ideal of democracy in which the United States is meant to embody. The New York Times, an evident proponent of WikiLeaks and similar beliefs in transparency claimed that these releases were justified in that Americans have the right to know “what is being done in their name” (Tarigopula). In near direct response to the defense made by the New York Times, credible Senator Christopher Bond stated, “And if you can’t have candid conversations without having some worm disclose them…then we are in danger of not having an effective foreign policy or an effective military policy”( Tarigopula). Thus, those whom denounce WikiLeaks believe that the limited transparency is imperative in order to maintain a stable United States government and that deceit towards Americans is justified. Collectively, the heated debacle between American’s in favor of transparency and others whom see value in secrecy was initiated by WikiLeaks allowance into the logs pertaining to the Iraq War.

After making a widespread reputation after the discharge of the confidential documents pertaining to US military atrocities in Iraq, WikiLeaks acted defiantly again when it released information and footage pertaining to Middle Eastern warfare on behalf of Bradley Manning (who would now like to be referred as Chelsea Manning) (Julian Assange & Wikileaks: Timeline of Events). Chelsea Manning, a notable member of the United States military, had access to millions of confidential military documents pertaining to United States military activity in the Middle East (Opper). For inconclusive purposes, Manning sent these documents to WikiLeaks whom then in turn made them readily available to the public (Opper). Public attention was captivated by a video which demonstrated United States military directly harming innocent civilians during a Baghdad airstrike; human rightest were indefinitely angered by the atrocities committed under the name of the American people(Opper). Many sided with Manning, claiming that the act of whistleblowing was a heroic attempt at furthering social justice (Opper). However, immediately prosecution arose to indict Manning due to his direct violation of the Espionage Act (Opper). Again, many Americans were disgruntled by the deceit commencing to disguise the brutality of the military in foreign locations. Similarly, to the incident involving the Iraqi torture, the government attempted to use the nature of regime stability and the law to justify the need for confidentiality. As a result, scholars and politicians whom deem the frivolous revelations by WikiLeaks to be deleterious to society proposed modifications to the Espionage Act to address leaks via the Internet; the Manning incident and the facilitation by WikiLeaks directly inspired these proposed evolutions of the act(Opper). The desire to change the Espionage Act to encompass leaks via the internet further led individuals to lose political capital in the United States government because of the evident attempt to conceal documents portraying the negative activities of the government. Again, normal Americans argued that unjustifiable behaviors by the government in the military should not be performed, especially in a deceivingly manner to Americans themselves. Ultimately, the interpretation of the Espionage Act favored the adversaries of WikiLeaks resulting in the indictment of Manning (Opper). The conviction of Manning to thirty five years of imprisonment signaled a failure for proponents of WikiLeaks and those whom share similar ideologies of political transparency. Cooperatively, Manning and WikiLeaks instigated the continual decline in political capital between many Americans and the government.

The opposition towards WikiLeaks and proponents of the transparency ideology manifested its attempts at countering these leaks by attempting to hinder WikiLeaks funding. In 2012, major credit card processing agencies, such as MasterCard and Visa constructed a financial blockade which obstructed WikiLeaks from receiving 95% of its donor funding. The decision to impose a financial blockade was inspired by noteworthy United States senators whom were clearly in opposition towards WikiLeaks (Pieterse 1920). Opponents of this maneuver included the UN Commissioner of Human Rights, James Ball. James Ball deplored blockade claiming that, “whether you support WikiLeaks or not, the blockade by Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and others is a sinister attack on free speech” (Pieterse 1920). Many Americans rallied for this idea, critiquing the government for violating basic principles of democracy including free speech (Pieterse 1921). Some argue that the banks created the blockade for personal interests due to the capability of WikiLeaks in releasing incriminating documents of the banks themselves (Pieterse 1921). Therefore, it can be concluded that many of those whom oppose WikiLeaks and their agenda do so for personal reasons rather than for their own ideological beliefs. Furthermore, as witnessed in the event surrounding the financial blockade, multiple visions exist in reference to addressing the leaks by WikiLeaks, many of which regard the significance of these threats to political capital in different lights.

More recently, WikiLeaks has resurrected its presence in the transparency realm when it released documentation pertaining to the Democratic National Convention (WikiLeaks Fast Facts). This left major repercussions on major presidential nominees, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. This demonstrated to the American public further issues regarding the transparency, deceit, and trust that exists between the government and Americans. Julian Assange, evident adversary of Hillary Clinton, went as far as to imply that the source of the information was murdered in retaliation for undermining the credibility of the Democratic Party (Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was Wikileaks’ Source). The possibility of such atrocity demonstrates the questionable relationship that exists between the government and Americans. Hillary Clinton, potential president of the United States, has explicitly chastised Julian Assange and proponents of his vision on multiple occasions (Meyer). WikiLeaks has manifested their battle with Clinton and others whom attempt to undermine their purpose through blackmail claiming that they have an abundance of emails which prove that Clinton was involved in selling weaponry to enemy entities in the middle east (McCarthy). Americans were flustered, greatly depreciating the level of trust, which was already minimal, in their presidential candidate (McCarthy). Not only was the political capital between Hilary and her voters minimized, the trust between the government and Americans was also tackled in the process (McCarthy). As a result of these threats, many Americans felt deceived by the Obama Administration, allied with Clinton, for working with Islamist enemies under the “name of Americans” (McCarthy). Spokesman of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration have retaliated by doubting the legitimacy of these threats and the alleged emails as well. They continued by regarding these leakages as a major threat to the security of the United States in relation to the sensitive region (McCarthy). Americans argued that the lack of transparency in regards to the ongoing war was unjustified. Hence, again, WikiLeaks managed to formulate another debacle between Americans and the government. In all, WikiLeaks managed to amplify the tension surrounding the lack of trust in the government while also elevating the retaliation of their opponents and those whom view transparency as a necessary agent in preserving a stable government.

WikiLeaks over the past decade solidified their credibility as a major entity seeking to revamp the idea of transparency within the United States and across the globe. As a result, within the United States, WikiLeaks was viewed in many different perspectives. Many believe that WikiLeaks served a vital function in depreciating the magnitude of trust between Americans and the government by illustrating some of the deceitful and intolerable actions being commenced on behalf of “the American title.” In addition, many objected to the ideology behind WikiLeaks and its supports for belief that the activities pursued by WikiLeaks could personally incriminate them. However, the vast majority of opponents of WikiLeaks regard them has having no right to release such information as confidentiality is arguably crucial in maintaining a respectable foreign policy in this era of digital technology. As evidence by the Iraqi documentation, Baghdad airstrike, an DNC email leakages, WikiLeaks have left a memorable impact on the political capital between Americans and the government.

Works Cited

“Assange Implies Murdered Dnc Staffer Was Wikileaks’ Source.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 10 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Harris, Rachel. “Conceptualizing and Reconceptualizing the Reporter’s Privilege in the Age of Wikileaks .” Fordham Law Review 82.4 (2014): 1811-1854.

“Julian Assange & Wikileaks: Timeline of Events.” Euronews. N.p., 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Lynch, Lisa. ““We’re Going To Crack The World Open”.” Journalism Practice 4.3 (2010): 309-18. Web.

McCarthy, Andrew. “Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria.” National Review. N.p., 04 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Meyer, Ken. “‘Unacceptable’: Hillary Reacts to DNC Emails Discussing Attacks on Bernie’s Religion.” Mediaite Unacceptable Hillary Reacts to DNC Emails Discussing Attacks on Bernies Religion Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Opper, Melissa Hannah. “Wikileaks: Balancing First Amendment Rights with National Security.” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 31.3 (2010): 237-268.

Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Leaking Superpower: WikiLeaks and the Contradictions of Democracy.” Third World Quarterly 33.10 (2012): 1909-924. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Tarigopula, By Rajiv. “On WikiLeaks: Transparency for Transparency’s Sake – Harvard Political Review.” Harvard Political Review On WikiLeaks Transparency for Transparencys Sake Comments. Harvard Politics, 05 Nov. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.

“WikiLeaks Fast Facts.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Peer Commentary:

“Effective but confusing at points.”

Draft 2:

Is WikiLeaks Effective at Shifting American Attitude Towards the Government?

What Is WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is a nonprofit organization, typically associated with commando Julian Assange, with the purpose of attaining a “…more transparent society…” and a more “just society” (Pieterse 1918). The phenomenon referred to as transparency, which is the openness a political regime has in sharing political intelligence with those in which it governs, is ultimately threatened when the citizens receive classified documentation from third party sources such as WikiLeaks. As a result of WikiLeak’s objective at expanding transparency across the globe, it began its cyber war with the United States when it released private political logs of the tragic events that commenced on September 11^th. While the exploitation of the confidential documents did not directly trigger a conflict between WikiLeaks and the United States government, it did brew tension which would later manifest into a struggle of political capital between the United States government and the governed. This objective ultimately resulted in the three major perspectives (the human rightists, defenders of confidentiality, and supporters of transparency) that evaluate the extent and course of change in the relationship between the government and Americans caused by WikiLeaks.

The Iraqi War Logs

One of the first major revelations exposed by WikiLeaks occurred when it posted the Iraq War logs. The logs revealed that US militants neglected to respond to reoccurring accusations that Iraqi officials were engaging in inappropriate usages of torture against potentially innocent individuals.

Human rightest were amongst the first to adopt a perspective pertaining to an evolving connection between Americans and the United States government. Human rightest immediately vocalized their opinion, accusing the United States military of, having unjust “blood on their hands” according to a consensus by whistleblowing human rightest activist gathered by respectable newspaper, The Guardian (Davies). Tom Sorell, professor of Politics and Philosophy at the University of Essex, notes, “both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch object to the excessive use by governments of security classifications that render some of the information revealed by WikiLeaks officially secret.” Both The Guardian piece and Sorell illustrates acknowledge that the leak will instigate a change in the American attitude towards the government because the deceit has been interpreted by Americans as improper and “excessive”.

The counterargument consisting of politicians and their supporters recognize the evolving relationship but have quickly adopted measures to counter the inevitable change reported by human rightists. The Pentagon, a clear affiliate of the government and hence proponent of secrecy in regards to political affairs, claimed, “this security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed. Our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment” (Davies). The Pentagon’s remarks directly contrasted with the human rightest, illustrating a difference in the value of transparency suggesting that the changes in the relationship between Americans and the government is viewed differently. In generalization, adversaries of transparency such as The Pentagon, argue that WikiLeaks inappropriately shifted the attitude of American’s towards the government with the Iraq War logs.

Supporters of radical transparency asserted that the Iraq War logs did indeed accomplish the intention of shifting American sentiment towards the government. Assange, the symbolic figure of the perspective valuing transparency, released the documents to “reveal the truth” (News). Assange and advocates of radical transparency felt that releasing the documentation promoted the condemnation of the military by the people, which was a component of his agenda (News). All three perspective recognize the change in the bond between the government and Americans as a result of the Iraqi War log leaks but they view level at which the attitude was changed on a wide spectrum.

The Chelsea Manning Incident

The next milestone moment for WikiLeaks included former United States militant, Chelsea Manning. Manning, a highly acclaimed member of the US army possessed security clearance to highly classified political documentation. For undisclosed reasons, Manning shared this documentation pertaining United States military’s engagements in Afghanistan with WikiLeaks whom in turn published it on their website for the public to view. The United States military was quickly shunned after a video displaying a United State’s helicopter firing at a particular area harboring innocent individuals.

Melissa Opper, scholar of the Loyola Law review, described the responses and viewpoints of human rightists to the atrocities revealed by the footage. Opper described a major depreciation in the relationship between human rightest and the United State’s military, clearly inspired by the brutality being flaunted by the troops (Opper). Again, those whom support government confidentiality noted the change in the level of political capital immediately after the revelation and this time responded by questioning the existing legality of the leaks through the Espionage Act. The perspective which supports confidentiality attempted to recover the declining public support of the war by persecuting Manning and deteriorating his name along with WikiLeaks through the Espionage Act. Opper asserts that this maneuver backfired because the persecution and the proposed changes to the Espionage Act was bombarded with distaste as the supporters of transparency and human rightists associated this with maneuver a decline in democracy (Opper). The attempt at rewording the Espionage Act was viewed by Opper and other scholars as a clear shift in the relationship between Americans and their government. The successful indictment of Manning to decades in prison was met with disgust by both supporters of transparency and human rightists. Collectively, the human rightists and correspondents of Assange and WikiLeaks noted that the political capital between the government and Americans evolved as a result of the Afghan War Log leakage.

The Financial Blockade

The United States government implicitly demonstrated a desperate sentiment to counter to depreciating level of political capital when it supported the financial blockade on WikiLeaks from major credit card companies VISA and MasterCard. The financial blockade nearly inhibited WikiLeaks from receiving ninety five percent of its projected funding for the organization.

The human rightists immediately recognized this as a decline in the magnitude of democracy between Americans and the government as evidence by comments by major human rightists. Among the human rightists whom recognized the evolving relationship was United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights, James Ball. James Ball deplored the blockade claiming that, “whether you support WikiLeaks or not, the blockade by Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and others is a sinister attack on free speech” (Pieterse 1920). Many Americans rallied for this idea, critiquing the government for violating basic principles of democracy including free speech (Pieterse 1921).

Assange and his supporters immediately recognized this evolving relationship as evidence by WikiLeaks official comments officially stating that this maneuver is “a dangerous, oppressive and undemocratic precedent” and “an existential threat” (Visa, MasterCard Sued for Blocking Donations to WikiLeaks). In synthesis, the United States government recognized the threat WikiLeaks posed in destabilizing the peaceful relationship between Americans and the regime as evidence by their strong support for the financial blockade. This however, backfired as it arguably triggered more animosity according to WikiLeaks supporters such as Assange and human rightists such as James Ball (Pieterse 1921). In sum, the financial blockade was recognized by all perspectives in leaving a major repercussion on the relationship between Americans and their government.

The Democratic National Convention Email Leak

In more recent times, WikiLeaks amplified its involvements with the 2016 presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders when it intentionally leaked emails regarding the Democratic National Convention. The emails revealed that high ranking officials of the Democratic Party attempted to craft the outcome of the nomination process in favor of Hilary Clinton as opposed to Bernie Sanders. Contained in the documentation released to the public was personal information including social security numbers and credit card numbers. As a result of this corrupt deed committed by a major United States political party, the three perspectives on the influence of WikiLeaks interpreted the repercussions on the political capital between Americans and their political institution.

Because WikiLeaks abstained from redacting the DNC emails, hence revealing private personal information, the perspectives on the extent to which WikiLeaks changed American attitude differed from the events discussed earlier in the article. For instance, Alex Gibney, former employee under Assange argued that this hurt the credibility of WikiLeaks, hence slightly improving the depreciation in trust between the United States and the people. Alex Gibney continues to argue that the mechanism in which WikiLeaks presents its findings is unjust and hence neglected to be digested seriously by Americans. Other proponents of transparency also share this same analyzation of the effect of WikiLeaks; Edward Snowden for example claims “hostility to even modest curation is a mistake” in reference to Assange’s impulsive drops of sensitive information. Comparatively, Gibney and Snowden both sharing advocacy for a more transparent regime, however denounce the WikiLeaks approach while simultaneously arguing that it is ineffective and only slightly swaying the attitude American’s possess towards their government. Gibney even continues the argument by claiming that “we should no longer take him at his word”. Clinton shares this same animosity and has explicitly denounced Assange’s recklessness in his objective for transparency(McCarthy). The DNC email hack revealed the division in perspective that existed within those whom support transparency. As already referenced, many advocates of transparency shuned WikiLeaks and claim that its intended affect at reshaping Americans viewpoint on the government is ineffective due to the destructive and frivolous nature of the leaks. In essence, a conditional agreement can be drawn between Clinton, Snowden, and Gibney on WikiLeaks’s effect or lack thereof on American attitude towards the government.

Conclusion

Furthermore, WikiLeaks has engaged in activities regarding the cyber world that has been argued to be extremely taxing on the peaceful relationship between the government and its people. In generalization, human rightists argued that the government permanently defaced its image in regards to respect to humanity as a result of the revelations facilitated by WikiLeaks. Assange and his supporters note that a lasting impact has been drilled into the attitude of Americans towards the government. Finally, opponents of WikiLeaks recognize the evident impact but continue to engage in behaviors to recover this depreciation in political capital.

Works Cited

Davies, Nick et al. “Iraq War Logs: Secret Files Show How US Ignored Torture.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 22 Oct. 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks.

Gibney, Alex. “Can We Trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Aug. 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html.

McCarthy, Andrew. “Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria.” National Review. N.p., 04 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Opper, Melissa Hannah. “Wikileaks: Balancing First Amendment Rights with National Security.” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 31.3 (2010): 237-268.

Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Leaking Superpower: WikiLeaks and the Contradictions of Democracy.” Third World Quarterly 33.10 (2012): 1909-924. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Sorell, Tom. “Human Rights and Hacktivism: The Cases of Wikileaks and Anonymous.” Journal of Human Rights Practice J Human Rights Practice, vol. 7, no. 3, 2015, pp. 391–410. doi:10.1093/jhuman/huv012.

“Visa, MasterCard Sued for Blocking Donations to WikiLeaks.” RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/214007-datacell-wikileaks-bank-blockade/.

Feedback from Instructor

“In general, you’re making an argument here instead of telling me what other people’s arguments are.”

My Revision Plan

-Add more sources

-Synthesize Properly

-Connect sources more clearly

-Clarity in sentence structure.

Final Draft

Is WikiLeaks Effective at Shifting the American Attitude Towards their Government?

WikiLeaks, notorious in the modern technological era for releasing confidential documentation, has in the last decade received an internationally recognized name. Consequently, various perspectives have emerged to evaluate the extent to which leaks conjured by WikiLeaks has evolved the relationship between Americans and their government. WikiLeaks is a nonprofit organization, typically associated with commando Julian Assange, with the purpose of attaining a “…more transparent society…” and a more “just society” (Pieterse 1918). As a result of WikiLeak’s objective at expanding transparency across the globe, it began its cyber war with the United States when it released private political logs of the tragic events that commenced on September 11^th. While the exploitation of the confidential documents did not directly trigger a conflict between WikiLeaks and the United States government, it did brew tension which would later manifest into a struggle of political capital between the United States government and the governed. People responded in one of three ways. Human rights activist argue that the leaks by WikiLeaks justifiably provoked Americans to view their government as brutal, frivolous, and gruesome entity. Assange and his supporters believe their behaviors in regards to transparency is leaving a justifiable change on American sentiment towards the government. Finally, defenders of confidentiality recognize that the relationship between the government and the people is deteriorating but assert that the mechanism in which WikiLeaks operates is dangerous and corrupt.

The Iraqi War Logs

Human rights activists were one of the first groups to adopt a perspective pertaining to the evolving connection between Americans and the United States government. Human rights activists immediately vocalized their opinion, accusing the United States military of having unjust “blood on their hands” according to a consensus by notable human rights activists such as Phil Shiner, a human rights specialist at Public Interest Lawyers (Davies). Similarly, Tom Sorell, professor of Politics and Philosophy at the University of Essex, notes, “both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch object to the excessive use by governments of security classifications that render some of the information revealed by WikiLeaks officially secret” (Davies). Both Shiner and Sorell illustrate an acknowledgement that the leaks instigate a negative change in the American attitude towards the government because the deceit has been interpreted by Americans as improper and “excessive” and has been officially condemned by human right organizations.

In contrast, politicians and supporters of confidentiality recognize the evolving attitude between the government and the governed but have quickly adopted measures to counter the inevitable change reported by human rights activists (Davies). The Pentagon, a clear affiliate of the government and hence proponent of secrecy in regards to political affairs, claimed, “this security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed. Our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment” (Davies). The Pentagon’s remarks directly contrasted with the human rights activists, illustrating a difference in the value of transparency suggesting that the changes in the relationship between Americans and the government is viewed differently. The Pentagons remarks clearly condemned the leaks and the changing attitude while opposition such as Sorell and Shiner criticize institutions such as The Pentagon for their tendency at secrecy (Davies). In generalization, adversaries of transparency such as The Pentagon, argue that WikiLeaks inappropriately shifted the attitude of American’s towards the government with the Iraq War logs.

In alignment with human rights activists, supporters of radical transparency asserted that the Iraq War logs did indeed accomplish the intention of shifting American sentiment towards the government. Assange, the symbolic figure of the perspective valuing transparency, released the documents to “reveal the truth” (News). Assange and advocates of radical transparency felt that releasing the documentation promoted the condemnation of the military by the people, which was a component of his agenda (News). The arguments of Sorell and Shiner both align and serve as evidence to Assange’s claims. Collectively, all three perspective recognize the change in the bond between the government and Americans as a result of the Iraqi War log leaks but they view level at which the attitude was changed on a wide spectrum.

The Chelsea Manning Incident

The documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan primarily triggered the human rights activist’s perspective. Melissa Opper, scholar of the Loyola Law review, described the responses and viewpoints of human rights activists to the atrocities revealed by the footage. Opper described a major depreciation in the relationship between human rights activists and the United State’s military, clearly inspired by the brutality being flaunted by the troops (Opper). Again, those whom support government confidentiality noted the change in the level of political capital immediately after the revelation and this time responded by questioning the existing legality of the leaks through the Espionage Act (Opper).

The perspective which supports confidentiality attempted to recover the declining public support of the war by persecuting Manning and deteriorating his name along with WikiLeaks through the Espionage Act. Opper asserts that this maneuver backfired because the persecution and the proposed changes to the Espionage Act was bombarded with distaste as the supporters of transparency and human rightists associated this maneuver with a decline in democracy (Opper). The attempt at rewording the Espionage Act was viewed by Opper and other scholars as a clear shift in the relationship between Americans and their government. The successful indictment of Manning to decades in prison was also met with disgust by both supporters of transparency and human rights activists (Opper). Collectively, the human rights activists and correspondents of Assange and WikiLeaks noted that the political capital between the government and Americans evolved as a result of the Afghanistan War Log leakage.

The Financial Blockade

The United States government implicitly demonstrated a desperate sentiment to counter the depreciating level of political capital when it supported the financial blockade on WikiLeaks from major credit card companies VISA and MasterCard. The financial blockade nearly inhibited WikiLeaks from receiving ninety-five percent of its projected funding for the organization. As a result, many of the activities conducted by WikiLeaks was put on a hiatus.

The human rights activists immediately recognized this as a decline in the magnitude of democracy between Americans and the government as evidence by comments by major figures in this group. Among the human rights activists who recognized the evolving relationship between Americans and the government in terms of democracy was United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights, James Ball. James Ball deplored the blockade claiming that, “whether you support WikiLeaks or not, the blockade by Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and others is a sinister attack on free speech” (Pieterse 1920). Many Americans rallied for this idea, critiquing the government for violating basic principles of democracy including free speech (Pieterse 1921).

Assange and his supporters immediately recognized this evolving relationship as evidence by WikiLeaks official comments officially stating that this maneuver is “a dangerous, oppressive and undemocratic precedent” and “an existential threat” (Visa, MasterCard Sued for Blocking Donations to WikiLeaks). Both Ball and Assange connect the blockade with an attack on free speech and hence a vital component of democracy. In synthesis, the United States government recognized the threat WikiLeaks posed in destabilizing the peaceful relationship between Americans and the regime as evidence by their strong support for the financial blockade. This however, backfired as it arguably triggered more animosity according to WikiLeaks supporters such as Assange and human rights activists like James Ball (Pieterse 1921). In sum, the financial blockade was recognized by all perspectives in leaving a major repercussion on the relationship between Americans and their government.

The Democratic National Convention Email Leak

Because WikiLeaks abstained from redacting the DNC emails, hence revealing private personal information, the perspectives on the extent to which WikiLeaks changed American attitude differed from the events discussed earlier in the article. For instance, Alex Gibney, former employee under Assange, and hence strong advocate for transparency, argued that this hurt the credibility of WikiLeaks, hence slightly improving the depreciation in trust between the United States government and the people (Gibney). Gibney continues to argue that the mechanism in which WikiLeaks presents its findings is unjust and hence neglected to be digested seriously by Americans (Gibney). Other proponents of transparency also share this same analyzation of the effect of WikiLeaks; Edward Snowden for example claims “hostility to even modest curation is a mistake” in reference to Assange’s impulsive drops of sensitive information (Gibney). Comparatively, Gibney and Snowden both advocate for a transparent regime, denounce the WikiLeaks approach, and argue that the leaks are ineffective and only slightly sway the attitude American attitude towards their government. Gibney even continues the argument by claiming that “we should no longer take him at his word”. Clinton shares this same animosity as Gibney and has explicitly denounced Assange’s recklessness in his objective for transparency(McCarthy). The DNC email hack revealed the division in perspective that existed within those whom support transparency. As already referenced, many advocates of transparency shunned WikiLeaks and claimed that its intended affect at reshaping Americans viewpoint on the government is ineffective due to the destructive and frivolous nature of the leaks. In essence, a conditional agreement can be drawn between Clinton, Snowden, and Gibney on WikiLeaks’s effect or lack thereof on American attitude towards the government.

Conclusion

Furthermore, WikiLeaks has engaged in activities regarding the cyber world that has been argued to be extremely taxing on the peaceful relationship between the government and its people. As a result of the leaks, the American attitude has shifted in regards to how they view their government. In generalization, human rights activists like James Ball, argued that the government permanently defaced its image in regards to respect to humanity as a result of the revelations facilitated by WikiLeaks. Assange and advocates of transparency noted the lasting impact being drilled into the attitude of Americans towards the government. However, some supporters of transparency such as Alex Gibney and Edward Snowden argue that WikiLeaks operates immorally. Finally, opponents of WikiLeaks recognize the evident impact but continue to engage in behaviors to recover this depreciation in political capital such as the remarks by Hilary Clinton.

Works Cited

McCarthy, Andrew. “Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria.” National Review. N.p., 04 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Opper, Melissa Hannah. “Wikileaks: Balancing First Amendment Rights with National Security.” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 31.3 (2010): 237-268.

Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Leaking Superpower: WikiLeaks and the Contradictions of Democracy.” Third World Quarterly 33.10 (2012): 1909-924. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

“Visa, MasterCard Sued for Blocking Donations to WikiLeaks.” RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/214007-datacell-wikileaks-bank-blockade/.