Wikileaks vs U.S military

It provoked controversy when it first appeared on the net in December 2006 and is still a chip on the shoulder of the most influential government in the world. Yes a simple wiki page is responsible for what the US government believes to be the unlawful supply of information to foreign intelligence which may be used to harm its Army and government interests. This is a subject that is very dear to my heart , when I think about politics and the new media I can’t help but believe that here is a tool for democracy if I have seen no other, and Wikileaks is a march in the right direction. The internet was developed by the US military , but wouldn’t it be the sweetest irony if that same baby could be the tool to shatter their colossal megalomania, call them out on their bullshit and bring down their fortress of lies?

The whistle-blowing website Wikileaks is one again at the centre of media and political attention as it makes public more than 90 000 secret records of incidents and intelligence reports from the US military about the war in Afghanistan. Wikileaks is an international organisation, based in Sweden that publishes sensitive documents. By far one of the most controversial servings form the site has been the recent video post of US military killings. The video shows U.S soldiers laughing as they gun down Afghan civilians and two journalists in a firefight in Baghdad in 2007. The man thought to be responsible for leaking the footage is Army intelligence expert , Bradley Manning. He is said to be locked up in a military prison after being shipped to Kuwait. He faces trial by court martial, and if found guilty, a heavy jail sentence.

Other documents disclose how the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets. Documents detail coalition troops shooting unarmed drivers and civilian motorcyclists supposedly because they are terrifies that they could be Taliban suicide bombers.

The site now claims to host more than a million documents . Anyone can submit to Wikileaks anonymously , but a team of reviewers, volunteers from the mainstream press, journalists and Wikileaks staff decide what is published. According to Editor in Chief and founder, Julian Assange, “the site accepts classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance” it does not take “rumour, opinion and other kinds of first hand reporting or material that is already publically available. The recent documents went through rigorous inspect ion before publication on the site and have been approved as legit by the BBC.

However the site has suffered a blow due to the issue of source confidentiality something that it prides itself on. “We specialise in allowing whistle-blowers and journalists who have been censored to get material out to the public”. Mr Assange in the light of the Manning case, insists that Wikileaks never divulges its resources . “We have deliberately structured our operation to protect sources under threat of criminal law”, he said. The site is working to help protect journalist and sources from prosecution, its currently working with the Iceland government on efforts to increase legal protection for whistle-blowers in the country.