(HOST) The WikiLeaks of thousands of America’s secret diplomatic cables were initially compared to a weapon of mass destruction. This morning commentator and veteran ABC News diplomatic correspondent Barrie Dunsmore explains why the leaks may be both less – and more significant than first thought.
(DUNSMORE) The disaster that was predicted with the WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of America’s diplomatic cables has not occurred. There has been embarrassment because of the candor diplomats used when writing to Washington about their host countries, both friend and foe. And there could be at least a temporary chilling effect on future communications between America’s diplomats and top level people in whose countries they serve.
But what made the leaks much less than a catastrophe was that what was being said privately in these cables was perfectly consistent with what was being said and done publicly. In contrast, the 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers was so explosive because this secret analysis of America’s Vietnam War history was completely contrary to what the government had been saying publicly. In other words, even as the government was promising there was "light at the end of the tunnel" its own experts were explaining why the war was unwinnable. There is no such duplicity evident in the WikiLeaks.
This is not to say that having tens of thousands of secret government documents appearing on the Internet can be a good thing. The fact is that governments can’t function without confidentiality. Certain information needs to be kept secret.
What must be done immediately is a complete overhaul of the system for sharing classified documents. Under that system, U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, who worked in communications in Baghdad, was allegedly able to download all these diplomatic cables. He is said to be WikiLeaks’ source and is awaiting trial. Yesterday we learned the Justice Department is looking for evidence of collusion between Pfc Manning and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. If he encouraged or assisted in the extraction of the documents, Assange could be charged as a conspirator.
He is already being demonized in conservative circles. Newt Gingrich has called Assange an "enemy combatant" – by which I guess he means he should be secretly arrested by the CIA and held in solitary confinement in Guantanamo.
It’s also been suggested that by publishing the leaks the New York Times committed treason. Actually, what the Times did was take material that was going to be dumped onto the Internet, analyze its meaning and put it into context.
Yet there is a greater issue here. We welcomed it when FaceBook and Twitter were able to show the world the Iranian government’s crackdown on dissidents which followed Iran’s rigged presidential elections. And we chastise the Chinese for trying to control its citizens’ Internet access. But when several major American corporations tried to silence WikiLeaks by shutting down its web site and cutting business contacts, most people here seemed to think that was okay. Is it?
The Internet was an American creation, but it is now far beyond America’s control. That means if other countries are expected to grant freedom of speech on the Internet, the American government and its corporations should also respect that right, even when their interests are being seriously challenged.