Wikileaks: A Travesty
George Washington
Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.
…
The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
…
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion [sic] as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
…
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest… There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
“Turkish PM furious over leaked US cable” – Washington Post
“Putin criticizes US over Wikileaks revelations” – Politics Daily“Leaks spark concern in Beijing” – Radio Free Asia
“Uruguay demands clarification of Wikileaks reports” – Terra Peru (translated from Spanish)
“Tempers rise over Wikileaks revelations” – AFP
“Diplomatic furor grows over Wikileaks revelations” – NewsMax.com
“Wikileaks disclosures are leading to diplomatic cracks for US” – Chicago Tribune
Does anyone not see the contradiction above? Or rather, not so much a contradiction as much as an abject failure to heed the advice of the past; advice which was dictated by a wealth of knowledge gained through the experience of the ages. The old adage of ‘you reap what you sow’ has rung clearly. We have sown the seeds of dysfunction and enmity with our diplomacy, and our embassies are now so littered with the political entanglements bred by our failure to adhere to the sound political advice regarding foreign policy. What we see playing out now is the reaping of this bitter harvest.
But the most disturbing facet of our society brought to light by this situation is the response given by the general masses to the “leak” of all those classified documents. From calls of treason, to revisiting of the espionage act, to advocation of the assassination of Julian Assange, this pitiful display by the American people – obviously just repetition of the hysteria promulgated by big government media – simply highlights the complete misunderstanding of the true nature and function of government. As a result of over a century of state run education, the proper character of government has been so obfuscated that people truly believe that information should be classified and withheld from public knowledge. The purposeful withholding of anything from one person by another is nothing more than an act of totalitarianism, and completely inconsistent with perfect Liberty. Let us contemplate and then shatter the two common justifications for such despotic behavior: hysteria and national security.
The first, hysteria, is probably the one chosen most often as a supposedly obvious and logical reason for withholding specific information from public consumption. The line goes that if the general public suddenly was made aware of information which has been deemed beyond their scope, mass hysteria and pandemonium would surely ensue. Where to even begin. The proposition is so laughable, yet it is so tacitly accepted that it becomes scary. Realistically, what possible knowledge could exist within the inner circles of government that would cause people to behave in a frenzy? Aliens? Doomsday? The whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa? Who killed JFK? Give me a break. The rationale is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind how readily people accept this premise without even so much as a second thought.
But let us for one minute assume that there is something being held behind closed doors which could potentially have an earth-shattering effect upon our reality. As unrealistic and preposterous a suggestion as it is, it is even more outlandish to assume that 1, a select group of people should be privy to that information thereby elevating those select few to a status over and above the rest of mankind, and 2, that we underlings are so irrational and unstable that we cannot and should not make decisions for ourselves. On 1, how can anyone find it acceptable that in a republic, where the decision makers are nothing more than representatives elected from among the general public, those same representatives can decide for themselves and anoint themselves to positions and statuses which make them one step below divine? The mere suggestion is not only insulting to the dignity of any free person, but also tyrannical and suggesting of a despotism which no human being should be subject to. And on 2, how can anyone so easily accept that they should not be able to judge a situation or event for themselves? That acceptance is what is irrational.
The second justification for withholding information from the general public is the specious straw man, national security; that line being if certain information were made public it could potentially compromise our national security and jeopardize the lives of innocent Americans. Blah, blah, blah. The same arguments against the hysteria justification are sufficient enough to debunk this one as well, however an even more serious argument exists. When we speak of the true nature and character of government, we must consider the notion that if our government or its representatives behave in a manner which could potentially incite violence against the people of the nation, then they are acting in contrast to good government and in actuality are committing treason against the people. Let me state that again: if the government as an entity, or a representative of government commits any act which has the potential to incite violence and/or possibly bring death upon even one citizen, let alone thousands or millions, then the government has committed an act of treason against its citizens. The question should not be one of whether or not the general public should have access to knowledge which could jeopardize “national security,” but whether or not government should act in such a manner as to jeopardize the security of its citizens.
So leave Julian Assange alone. You want to be enraged? Be enraged that your government has pressured Amazon to close its servers to Wikileaks. Be enraged that the government is pressuring students not to read the Wikileaks site. Be enraged that your government is violating the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and the freedom of the press. Be enraged, but direct it where it should rightfully be directed toward, the government.