This house supports WikiLeaks - opening speeches

Opening Proposing Speech

Ladies and gentlemen, it is this latest loud hubbub surrounding Wikileaks that is bringing us together to ponder on this website’s legitimacy.

This house supports Wikileaks.

But, first, what is Wikileaks? Well, we define it as a specialized website in the dissemination of unpublished documents that may be sensitive and compromising.

Its sources are Internet users around the world, who, of course, are anonymous and protected by the website...

Opening Opposing Speech

Andre Gide once wrote: « Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. »

In this debate, we will legitimately doubt the idea that WikiLeaks, the international non-profit media organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous sources and leaks, should be supported.

First of all, how authentic are information published by WikiLeaks?...

Opening Proposing Speech

Ladies and gentlemen, it is this latest loud hubbub surrounding Wikileaks that is bringing us together to ponder on this website’s legitimacy.

This house supports Wikileaks.

But, first, what is Wikileaks? Well, we define it as a specialized website in the dissemination of unpublished documents that may be sensitive and compromising.

Its sources are Internet users around the world, who, of course, are anonymous and protected by the website.

We will first ask ourselves if the attack on Wikileaks is an attack on freedom of speech.

Then, we will talk about Wikileaks’ transparency.

Finally, we will see how this website can be a regulation tool between a state and its people.

As we see it, Wikileaks is rather more interesting for the debate it raises rather than the published documents themselves.

Most of all, it raises the question of freedom of speech.

Do you sincerely deem that the accusation of Julien Assange, the cofounder Wikileaks, as a rapist, is a coincidence with the launching of thousands of war logs?

Obviously, Julien Assange has become the man that has to be taken down. He is on the run, moving from one country to another. Recently, he refused to tell about his current location. This leaves us aghast, especially, when we know that the man, through his project, hasn’t broken any law. In fact, he smartly uses all the countries’ laws in his favor. In Belgium, he takes advantage from the fact that a wiretapped conversation with a journalist isn’t considered as a proof in court and, in Sweden, he uses the law that considers the disclosure of a source as a crime. But, why all this snakelike slithering? Why are there many countries that are trying to take him down? Isn’t this an attack on freedom of speech?

If the website is shut down, this would mean that freedom of speech is a mere chimera and that journalist can’t do their work, especially when we know that a lot of newspapers, such as The Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel, publish documents from Wikileaks. In this context, Mr. Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said, regarding governments’ pressure on Wikileaks, that « Once such measures were used against Wikileaks, it would only be a matter of time until they are used against other media outlets and individuals. » [1]

Thus, this is more a matter of information control. Countries try to control information through their own intelligence and won’t allow sensitive data to be spread.

This demeanor shows that there is a breakdown in the tacit contract of trust between a state and its people.

This remark brings us to the second argument comforting our opinion regarding this topic. It is transparency.

We support Wikileaks because we deem that it unveils the dark side of most countries.

For instance, on one hand, some documents regarding the US, far from the usual platitudes, unearth US true foreign policy, with thousands of revelations likely to seriously damage Washington.

On the other hand, some reports on Iran show its will to equip itself with nuclear weapons, which has brought some American people to agree with the US policy with Iran. [2]

Moreover, reports between US ambassadors and the pentagon reveal major problems in some countries such as Tunisia. In this country, democracy remains a dream.

Most of the problems are summarized in the report:  « Too often, the Government Of Tunisia prefers the illusion of engagement to the hard work of real cooperation. Major change in Tunisia will have to wait for Ben Ali's departure, […] Tunisia has big problems. President Ben Ali is aging, his regime is sclerotic and there is no clear successor. Many Tunisians are frustrated by the lack of political freedom and angered by First Family corruption, high unemployment and regional inequities. “ [3]

Thus, Wikileaks, as a tool of information, is spreading secrets of governments to their people. We can even say that the website may have a bigger part to play in society.

It can be THE regulation tool that will help in stabilizing the balance between a state and its people.

Simply, the state regulates the relations between people and, thus, uses power in order to attain its goal. However, it has been seen that some governments overuse their power whether it is on their own people or on an international scale, leading to an opposition with common opinion. In this case, how can we control the state power according to its people will? How can we regulate the regulator?

Wikileaks is a response for this question thanks to its transparency.
This website becomes then a tool for democracy.

Now, one sole question remains: can you, reader, reject Wikileaks after reading this wonderful rhetorical text?

Obviously, the answer is NO. Just vote for us!

Sources:

1.   “Prosecutors Eye Wikileaks Charges”, Evan Perez, AUGUST 21, 2010, The Wall Street Journal

2.   « Clinton : les fuites de Wikileaks sont une ‘attaque’ », Charlotte Menegaux, 29/11/2010, Le Figaro

3.   Document VZCZCXRO0363, sec.1, 6 et 7, Wikileaks

by HD 

Opening Opposing Speech

Andre Gide once wrote: « Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. »

In this debate, we will legitimately doubt the idea that WikiLeaks, the international non-profit media organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous sources and leaks, should be supported.

First of all, how authentic are information published by WikiLeaks?

WikiLeaks’ site states that submitted documents are vetted by a group of (only) five reviewers, with expertise in different fields such as language or programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known. In that group, Julian Assange (WikiLeaks’ director) has the final decision about the assessment of a document.

But, how consistent is a verification process in which the final decision is one person’s responsibility?

And if these reviewers “with expertise” are able to check the authenticity of a leak, why have they not been able to publish that information until the source proposes it? Moreover, we can obviously discuss the reliability of this verification process when the issue concerns privacy...

Accepting every means implies accepting all its risks. So we will need to evaluate them. But revealing the truth might be dangerous, especially when it is concerning sensitive and crucial issues such as national security and diplomacy. So does always the truth need to be unveiled?

What about the leaker’s safety? Is he or she always protected? Doesn’t the verification process of leaks present any risk of revealing leakers’ identities? We can not ignore the existence of such risks especially when the number of documents is counted in millions and assessed by few people...And by the way, aren’t there any risks of leaks in the verification process of the documents?!

Moreover, we can not that easily exclude the eventuality that WikiLeaks might be controlled by other secret organizations in order to manipulate people’s convictions and opinions. It is quite alarming how fast WikiLeaks gets supported and awarded by media (which are controlled by powerful people!).

WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.  In June 2009, WikiLeaks and its director Julian Assange won Amnesty International's UK Media Award (in the category "New Media") for the 2008 publication of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances", a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.

And even if WikiLeaks is not controlled by any other organization, it is becoming, day by day, a real threat and a massive weapon that could attract malicious and Machiavellian people...

by AS