This is going to be a rather short, and unfunny posting.
Not only am I pressed for time, but I find this particular subject to be a little ridiculous and I can't find humor in it. Today WikiLeaks has begun (or finished by this time) the leak of over 380,000 classified documents regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The question of journalistic integrity is brought to light here. I understand the World (and therefore it's People) do need, on occasion, to see the truth around them. It is difficult, near impossible, to correctly decide what is for the public eye and what should remain secret. The debate over Public Domain and classified missions/details to our History (as a nation) will always be in question. The Government has to decide what is relevant while the people have to decide what is just. Do we need to know which men informed on the Mafia? Probably not. Would the remains of the Mafia love to know which of their former members snitched? Most definitely. Us, the People, having said information puts those informants lives and the lives of their children in direct danger, and therefore we do not need to know.
Within the leaked documents (almost half a million all told) are things regarding torture in Iraq (done by Iraqi military but known about by the US, apparently a blind eye was turned) but also things regarding troop movements and Iraqi informants helping our soldiers identify threats and try to end hostilities with the least threat of death possible.
Should the American people, and the Citizens of the World, have the knowledge of what has gone on in this war? Of course. Basic Human Rights (a concept that some, a la Starship Troopers consider a myth) have been, or rather have possibly been ignored, and as such something should be done. There may not be even the possibility of placing blame on one man, group or organization, but knowledge of these crimes may help prevent them in the future.
However, this does not detract from the fact that what the people at WikiLeaks have done is wrong. It is, sadly, in-debatable. If something you release, as a journalist claiming the pursuit of the ever mythical "Truth," directly causes someones death (in a way that doesn't involve a Trial by his Peers...and a Judge) then you have done wrong. That is essentially what has happened here, or at least that's what many governments and even other news agencies fear has happened. Some of the documents released have the names, full names, of informants involved in certain operations, some of them ongoing. This information cannot have any positive effects for the people named, or any of the American or Coalition troops involved in the conflict.
All this has done is put the lives of thousands of soldiers, and hundreds of Iraqi civilians, in danger. And for what? Journalistic Integrity? Is this the Journalism that follows around the stars of Jersey Shore? The people who make Snooki...Snooki...famous? The same people that lashed out at Rev. Terry Jones for his planned book burning and all the danger it could have caused turn around and do this?
Life is full of hypocrites, it's our nature to hate what we do and do what we hate. But sometimes, it's so plainly visible that it's inexcusable.
I believe that we, the People, had the right to know about what is going on in this war that we have been dragged into, without our permission or request. (The argument for the 2001 Terror Attacks being the cause of the conlfict can obviously be stated at this point, but as Osama bin-Laden, the man widely regarded as the perpetrator of said attacks is not the focus of the current conflict, the debate loses some of it's gumption.) However, I feel that, as citizens, we can wait. Our desire to know about the nature of this war should never override our desire to see it ended peaceably, with as little violence and killing as possible.
No, I don't want to see American soldiers coming home in body bags because of some website that has decided it can, quite literally, make it's bones by leaking classified files. No, I don't want to see concerned Iraqi citizens with a desire to see Freedom in their land denied their right to live with said rights and benefits.
I don't even want the Insurgents, fighting for their declining way of life to die. These are real men and women here. And though, at the moment they might be holding AK-47's or M4's, next year they could be pushing grocery carts and holding babies.
Life may not be sacred, but it's worth a chance, it's worth more than the quick thrill of hidden knowledge.
In closing, I want everyone to understand that I in no way condone any of the negative acts that these documents most certainly allege, if not prove, have happened in the Middle East (and whatever else they manage to have gotten a hold of.) My argument is simply that the their is a time and place for it, and in the case of a life in death issue such as war... well the time is well after the victor has been named and around the time the official History books are going into print.
So maybe it wasn't "short." Don't judge me.
ReplyDeleteI have a rather non-orthodox view on this subject. If the person's aim is to stop wars, then the only means by which it can be done is through the wickedness of war(or conflict). It is disingenuous to argue that he could be causing more deaths when, first of all, unless the news is VERY EXTREME those people already have their opinion of us. It is also disingenuous to say that he could cause more deaths when the very reason our troops are overseas are to live fighting or die. If instead we decide to send our troops home because of the release of documents then does that not save troops' lives? This is theoretically quite realistic, particularly if the news is as extreme as you state it might be(and indeed it must be so if you are to argue that it would cause more deaths to soldiers). So in essence your argument only says "I hate you for doing this and I hate that I can't do anything to you because of it because you aren't american...this must mean you're a pussy because we can't do anything to you. You're anti-american." Well, he's not american to make that statement really have any value whatsoever, which of course further enrages you.
ReplyDeleteSo to sum up, he could save lives in the long run even if you argue he would cause more deaths in the short run. Thus your argument has no legs to stand on.