Instead of stating my opinion, I decided to briefly identify what seems to have been determined as main parties and perspectives involved—according to what we read and know. Certainly, there stands other significant information that needs to be explored as it relates to WikiLeaks releasing diplomatic cables. But since there is always more than meets the eye and more than one side to any story—this firestorm deserves much analyzing. So, I hope you will take the time to not only read what I have to say, but explore for yourself all the facts, so you can objectively approach this situation before jumping to any conclusions.
WikiLeaks is a central hub for revealing secrets to the public. Many of the secrets it is privvy to are of significant value not only to those immediately involved, but as we discover now—to the people of the world. WikiLeaks utilizes its connection to the Internet, and its cut-throat reputation to amass secrets that other information hubs would love to get their hands on—but don’t carry the weight WikiLeaks has to secure them.
From the perspective of WikiLeaks, they conclude they have the right to release information they receive—because it’s in the best interest of the international community to know what’s really going on. Their justification with regard to disclosure of information that gets dropped on them comes down to them revealing secrets of significant value—secrets that may be considered classified or top secret by certain parties.
Based on your own perspective:
•WikiLeaks is engaging in criminal activities by releasing secret information.
• WikiLeaks is doing for the U.S. government what the invisible hand and free-trade do for an economy: force the U.S. government to become a more efficient and secure government, but at the cost of being forced to pay for that “upgrade” in undesirable ways.
Technically, there is little difference between WikiLeaks and the media outlets that released the original diplomatic cables sent to them. Several websites are similar to WikiLeaks and if WikiLeaks is removed, they will likely take its place. Julian Assange—Founder of WikiLeaks Criminal or Hero?
Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks. Assange is considered either a criminal or a hero depending on your perspective. He stands between a champion of free speech or an anarchist. Assange is currently facing several serious charges related to sexual misconduct, and aside from the direct role these charges play in his future and freedom (he could go to prison for years), those charges are being utilized to their full advantage by his opponents hoping they will damage his credibility, take away his freedom and suppress or maybe even bring an end to WikiLeaks.
On the other hand Assange’s current problems are also being utilized by his allies to portray him as a true victim of a conspiracy intent on damaging his credibility and suppressing his active involvement in the ongoing mission of WikiLeaks—which is to alert people of the world to what is really going on in the underbelly of governments, politicians and higher-ups world wide. A Case For The People Members of the U.S. government engage in “private discussions” on many level with other entities because they believe that private conversations—as opposed to public ones, can more effectively help its citizens. This is a person-by-person opinion topic for discussion.
So, based on your opinion—do you believe the U.S. government will be less efficient and/or effective helping its citizens if diplomats DID NOT discuss certain “secrets” in private? Or, do you feel that although certain things may initially have to be discussed in private among diplomats—that at some future date, the public should be made aware of those discussions?
The U.S. government was formed to help its citizens by protecting them from anything that might put them in “harms way.” Depending on your definition of “harm” it is possible to conclude that WikiLeaks is engaging in activities that directly or indirectly could bring some level of harm to U.S. citizens. Depending on what you believe—it can be considered logical that government higher-ups want to suppress or negatively impact Assange to set an example to other parties considering engaging in comparable activities as those performed by WikiLeaks.
On the other hand Free Speech is protected under the First Amendment. But the Espionage Act of 1917 allows the U.S. government the right to label certain activities “harmful to American citizens” and, therefore, not protected under the First Amendment. Depending on how you interpret the Espionage Act of 1917, you may or may not consider actions taken by Assange and WikiLeaks to be criminal. Based on your beliefs it’s also possible to conclude that the Espionage Act of 1917 can be abused to block our First Amendment Rights.
If specific members of the American public sector conclude that Assange has violated specific laws, then certain other members of the American public sector and allies of the United States, must stop Assange and/or WikiLeaks from continuing to violate those laws. And, can enforce repercussions for him engaging in those illegal activities. Depending on your perspective, you may consider it the fault of the U.S. government for the release of the diplomatic cables by not properly securing them in the first place.
Or, you may consider it the fault of WikiLeaks for indirectly encouraging the theft of such diplomatic cables. Or possibly consider that both, or neither party to be at fault for the release of the diplomatic cables. As we search for truth and hope for honest disclosure by our government—not only on this topic, but numerous topics from the wars in which we are embroiled to the conspiracy of terrorism— it comes down to one thought:
Are we truly a nation of free people, or are we simply a nation of people defined by what higher-up dictate to us as our freedoms. If you would like more updated information on this topic visit: www.google.com/news and perform a news search of WikiLeaks.
So, based on your opinion do you believe the U.S. government will be less efficient helping its citizens if diplomats DID NOT discuss certain “secrets” in private? Or, do you feel that although certain things may initially have to be discussed in private— that at some future date the public should be made aware of those discussions?
Stephen Takowsky
publisher@bhtmag.com
