WikiLeaks. A lighting-rod topic for many Americans – especially those of us in the military, who recognize the consequences of national security breaches here and abroad.
On one hand, I don’t want to dignify this topic with more attention than it’s already received. On the other hand, as a part-time writer and a life-long student of communication, I can’t resist speaking up.
Our nation is founded on the principal of free speech. As citizens, we’re able to agree or disagree with whomever we choose. And we’re able to share facts and opinions through whatever channels we choose. This right is enshrined in our Constitution, and has repeatedly been upheld in legal decisions.
But this freedom is not without limits. The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech does not include the right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater when no such danger exists. In that case, protecting random outbursts is outweighed by concern for public safety and the rights of other citizens.
Hack This!
WikiLeaks exists for one reason – to expose government secrets from around the world. Whatever. Whenever. However. Even if the information is illegally obtained. And even if exposure could put lives at risk. For WikiLeaks, unfettered access is a matter of principle.
So, when its founder was recently arrested for alleged sex crimes, defenders concluded that this was punishment for his organization’s “subversive” activities. In retaliation, some computer hackers have instigated “denial of service” web attacks against vendors who’ve withdrawn support from the beleaguered organization. Now others have launched counterattacks.
It’s Not About the Hackers
Unfortunately, hacker wars are starting to obscure the core issue. The heart of the matter remains: Should some information be kept secret? Does the public have the right to know everything, all the time? If not, where’s the limit?
Diplomacy and warfare often require secrets – for good reason. Having been trusted with operational security in Afghanistan, I understand the lethal consequences for my unit and me, had the enemy known our location. Likewise, Afghans who helped us (and their families) would have been at grave risk, if the Taliban had learned their identities.
So clearly, secrets have their place. But citizens are also entitled to know what their government is saying and doing on their behalf. None of us wants to be fed a stream of misinformation at the convenience of those in power. That’s why our forefathers created protections for the press. Without the “Fourth Estate” as a watchdog, corruption by public and private institutions could go unchecked.
But who’s watching the watchdogs? And, as new technologies stretch the definition of “media” far beyond traditional boundaries, who should we really trust?
Looking Beyond the Leaks
Clearly, our government has been embarrassed by information that WikiLeaks has released. And although we’ll need to repair diplomatic and other ties that have been tested by these disclosures, I doubt that our country will be seriously harmed.
Actually, my concerns focus on broader issues. I’m concerned about upholding the law. (And not just because it’s there.) Let me explain…
As citizens of a free society, we are bound by an understanding. We voluntarily agree to be governed by the rule of law. If we fail to follow the law, our society will lose its foundation. And without a firm foundation, we place the future of freedom in peril.
That doesn’t mean change is bad. Change is actually built into our legal system. When we believe laws are unjust, we can improve the status quo by working within the system. For example, through due process, we’ve established rights for women, minorities and the disabled. The process works. But, by design, it’s not swift or disruptive. Rather, it’s a process based on measured steps and collective input.
Free Information – At What Price?
As I’ve noted, WikiLeaks may technically have an “open mic” to post any information it chooses, any time it wishes. But by ignoring the responsibility that comes with free speech, this organization undermines the very social contract that supports its publishing rights.
WikiLeaks has unwittingly cut the branch on which its editors stand. What’s more, WikiLeaks has handed freedom’s enemies a stick they can use to beat us all.
Think about it. Whenever some despotic state twists freely available information to make liberty look bad, it hurts all citizens of the free world. And in the bargain, it diminishes those who publish the information. (In this case, don’t think for a minute that WikiLeaks would be protected if it operated under a Taliban regime! Free speech is only one of many liberties that the Taliban deny.)
No Robin Hood Here
So let’s not romanticize WikiLeaks or its founder as some sort of freedom fighter – snatching precious facts from the information “rich” – and redistributing it to the information “poor.”
Instead, I think the true freedom fighters are our brave women and men in uniform, who are literally putting their lives on the line for freedom in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re fighting very real battles to protect our freedom to speak whenever we wish – within the limits of our laws. Sometimes this requires secrecy. Because – like it or not – everyone doesn’t value freedom as highly as we do.
To paraphrase Shakespeare: “Discretion is the better part of valour.”
- Jeff
P.S. I invite you to discuss freedom, faith, troop support and related issues with me at my “Afghan Journal” Facebook Forum: http://Facebook.com/AfghanJournal.
P.P.S. To read about my experience in training Afghan security forces in a remote region near Pakistan – see my book at Amazon.com: “Afghan Journal: A Soldier’s Year in Afghanistan.”
Very cogent and well said.
@Larry: While I admit my initial thought on if PFC Manning is found guilty is exactly what you suggest, PFC Manning is not the only one who acted egregiously in this case. Where was Manning’s first line leader? His senior NCOs and officers? They should have been better supervising him and they should have had measures in place to preclude Manning from removing the information he did.
Even more disturbing to me is why did a PFC have access to classified diplomatic cables at all? In particular, there was certainly no need to know basis to justify access to global intelligence assets.
In my mind, there is a treasonous failure to compartmentalize the information to which PFC Manning had access. And there is a negligent failure of his chain-of-command to ensure his activities were within the scope of his duties. Those responsible for allowing PFC Manning the access he had are the ones who should be executed at sunrise.
I am a friend of “Dad”.
Good points. What is your position if this Private Manning is convicted of being the source of this information that was given to Wikileaks?
Should Manning be executed at sunrise following his conviction?
Good article; fully concur. Carry on