Classified documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released in recent months on the whistleblower website Wikileaks, have garnered public attention and prompted widespread debate. For instance, the website's Afghan War Diary, released in late July 2010, contains thousands of classified military documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. Such leaks have raised questions about whether the information should have been released, whether the leaker and Wikileaks should face prosecution, and the military’s strategies to control information.

Wikileaks is a whistleblower website that accepts anonymous submissions of leaked documents. Controversy about its methods has dogged Wikileaks since its inception; nevertheless, the site has continued to gain access to sensitive materials, which have laid the foundation for investigations by major journalism organizations and provoked reactions by governments and civil society. Notable documents posted on the site include the operating procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, nearly 7,000 Congressional Research Service reports, and a blacklist of websites proposed for censorship by the Australian government.

The recent leaks of military documents have proven particularly controversial. In April, Wikileaks posted a classified military video of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad that killed two Reuters journalists. The military had previously denied a Reuters request for the video under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Afghan War Diary, released in July, contains more than 90,000 documents dating from 2004 to 2010 – a size and scope that has drawn comparison to the Pentagon Papers, the 1971 government documents about U.S. involvement in Vietnam released by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg to The New York Times. While the sheer number of documents in the Afghan War Diary has prevented a comprehensive review, initial reviews have already found disturbing information, including accounts of Afghan police and army corruption, Afghan intelligence working against American interests and supporting the insurgents, and even that Osama bin Laden died in a hospital in 2007.

Debating the Leaks

The White House condemned the most recent leaks. National Security Advisor Jim Jones in a statement said that the Afghan leaks "could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security." In an interview, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the leaks irresponsible and said that Wikileaks could have "blood on the hands" in the event of a reprisal against a soldier or collaborator whose identity might be compromised.

Some transparency advocates also criticized the leaks. In an open letter, Reporters Without Borders said that while the release of the Iraqi video was "clearly in the public interest," "revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan [in the Afghan documents] is highly dangerous." Steven Aftergood, with the Federation of American Scientists, called Wikileaks' Afghan disclosures "clumsy" and said they had ironically bolstered public support for military secrecy.

Others supported Wikileaks and the disclosure of records. At ThinkProgress, Matthew Yglesias wrote that the Afghan files are "a potent reminder that there’s far too much classification and secrecy in the United States government." Tom Blanton, Director of the National Security Archive, which follows a strict legal approach to uncovering government secrets, also offered some support, saying that the recent Wikileaks release of documents “falls under the journalist function of the First Amendment” and that the documents will hopefully “spark a new level of the debate about the Afghan War.”

Examining Military Information Management

The leaks also focused attention on the military's ability to secure classified information. The Pentagon stated the incidents may lead to changes in the way sensitive material is distributed. Analysts suggested that steps could be taken to protect classified information without impairing information-sharing inside the military.

At the same time, some questioned whether the leaked information was properly classified. The overclassification of records has been a longstanding problem, with some officials estimating that as much half of what gets classified is not actually worthy of the protections. The Pentagon seems to want it both ways: on the one hand, it says that dangerous information has been leaked; on the other hand, it says that the leaked information does not compromise national security. If the latter is true, the release of such a large number of classified documents that does not compromise national security raises renewed questions about whether the system strikes the right balance over what is being classified.

Citing a document about a reconstruction team visiting an Afghan orphanage, Yglesias commented, "That’s not a military secret that puts people’s lives at risk … It’s just a small data point that gives us some greater understanding of Afghan society." Similarly, Aftergood noted that “WikiLeaks has published a considerable number of valuable official records that had been kept unnecessarily secret and were otherwise unavailable, including some that I had attempted and failed to obtain myself.”

Clearly, the leaks demonstrate challenges to federal information policy resulting from a changed information environment. At Techdirt, Mike Masnick commented, "The real question is how does the government and the military learn to function in a society where information is a lot more open and free."

President Obama issued Executive Order 13526 on December 29, 2009, prescribing a uniform system of classifying and declassifying government information. The order clarified the authority to label records top secret or classified and set clear goals to reduce the backlog of records.

Whistleblower Protections?

The leaks also raised questions about what protection – or prosecution – such whistleblowers deserve. Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project on Government Oversight, said:

If there were safe channels for national security and military whistleblowers, leaks of classified information would be far less likely. Given that, POGO will continue to do everything we can to ensure passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and protections for all whistleblowers.

However, the incident seems to have lost Wikileaks some sympathy among members of Congress. CongressDaily reported that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is drafting changes to his shield law for journalists to ensure Wikileaks is excluded from protection.