Wikileaks presents one with a difficult issue to grapple with, in part because its actions concern the principle of freedom of the press, which has a long and checkered history. Traditionally, newspapers have been at liberty to disclose certain things that might be regarded as secrets by our government. This has been permitted for the sake of the public interest, on the theory that the public has a right to know what its servants are doing. I think that, had the U.S. not been at war, the political reaction against Wikileaks would have been much less than it is.
There is merit in Joe Lieberman's argument that the documents published by Wikileaks were illegally seized. The mainstream media does not seem to make a point out of it, choosing instead to focus upon the content and the repercussions. In effect, Wikileaks was performing a wiretap without a warrant or even any authority at all. Had a government agency acted in such a way, it would seem like Big Brother. Do not U.S. diplomats have a right to privacy? Are diplomats supposed to operate in dread that their remarks made in confidence will be one day published?
However, all the documents revealed by Wikileaks are as nothing, next to the revealing statements made by some immoderate politicians and pundits calling for the assassination of the founder of Wikileaks. Such remarks have been made before in regard to other nonviolent civilians and often followed by the spilling of blood.
"Win at any costs" is improper, I think. Otherwise, how are we to be distinguished from the enemy? If we are good, then we should act so. Words alone are not enough. I believe the Obama Administration has handled the situation well, at least in terms of not making any violent and illegal threats. Sarah Palin, for her part, has criticized the Adminstration for its supposed incompetence and called upon the full capabilities of Nato to be unleashed against Wikileaks. One Republican lawmaker wants to classify the founder in the same category as Al Qaeda, opening up the possibility of assassination with potential collateral damage. These sentiments are all familiar and have been observed many times before.
The long-term results of the Wikileaks disclosure remain unclear to me. It may be that the disclosures serve, rather than harm, the interests of those who complain the loudest about it. That seems to be the suspicion of the Russians. The Iranians believe it is an orchestrated attempt by the United States to dupe them. I don't know what to believe. The Wikileaks will be valuable to scholars, however. They will be the primary beneficiary. Only when the reports can be digested, summarized and interpreted will the public really benefit from them. It seems like too much raw data for a layman. I have not been motivated to read them, so far, in part because I find the information depressing, as it tends to reinforce what I already understand.
I do have grave doubts about the ethics of stealing private documents from the government, particularly in cases where no crime was being committed, although it could be argued that turnabout is fair play, as the government performs warrantless wiretaps nowadays and engages in what used to be thought illegal surveillance and espionage against its own citizens. Nowadays the government even has the right to poke about in people's underwear for no reason other than they seek to board a plane.
I do trust Hillary Clinton's judgment, in general, in matters of foreign policy, and if she believes that the disclosure is harmful, then I am inclined to think that they might be so. I did not vote for her in the Democratic primary of 2008, but remain an admirer. In retrospect, perhaps I should have voted for her after all. Obama has been a disappointment on gay issues. I think that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly savaged by right-wingers for what seem to be irrational reasons or just because she is an outspoken woman. She is far more polite and diplomatic than Ann Coulter on the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment