I was just surfing the web and I came across a shocking article.
Please have a look: The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks.
As I read through the article, I was just shocked to find out the lengths that the government would go to to hide information from its citizenry. Why would an institution that should be protecting the constitution go against the fundamental right of the freedom of speech? As I read further through the article, I was simply saddened by how much control the government has on the media. What else don't we know?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there are two sides to the information control & transparency coin, one is good and one is bad. The bad is that sometimes, a party in the government (whether it is one person or several people) make bad decisions, either purposefully or by accident, that results in the loss, corruption, or destruction (not killing but economic loss, etc) of innocent lives, and as a result, to preserve public image, they hide the information under the "National Security" clause. Whether or not to hide this information is itself ambiguous - to be a transparent government and risk losing military morale and public support, or to hide it all.
ReplyDeleteThe other side is really for national security. In the digital age, the "bad guys" (define them however you want - terrorists who kill civilians, or enemies and opposers of the United States's interests) can use potential transparency of the government to their advantage, and kill our citizens. There are something that should stay secret. Even we sometimes do things at the benefit of others we love we would like to keep secret (they don't have to morally questionable acts, it could be something as simple as a surprise party - but we do keep secrets).
I don't blame Private Bradley Manning for doing what he did - in fact, I commend him. However, he did break military protocol, and what to do about that, is up to the military. The military is an organization that runs off a chain of command, and question authority for even a second can cost lives in combat (I'm not writing all this 'out of my ass' as it were - pardon the language-, I have very close friends who were deployed in Iraq).
I think it's very easy for the us, as the public and outsiders to the government, to criticize the government. I'm not saying we shouldn't - in fact, it's our job to keep the government in line. But, in my opinion, there is a line that neither side should cross. This case is an excellent example of an ambiguous circumstance. Military protocol must be followed, lest soldiers lose morale and refuse to fight (in which case more court martials would follow, and the military would be weakened), and on the other hand, what the Private Manning did was right. It's a judgement call, and one has to weight to potential benefits over the potential losses.
Regarding that the founder of Wikileaks is being "hunted" by the Pentagon, that could be an exaggeration by the media to get more readers, as well as the Pentagon trying to cover it's own behind.
Regarding Lamo, what he did was extremely unorthodox, and unethical, and he betrayed the trust of Private Manning. In my opinion, whistleblowers are needed, and they have existed since the beginning of civilization. This is a rare circumstance during which one was ousted.