Wikileaks

It's not often that I feel that I know more about a story then the Journal writers.  But knowing what I know, I must say that opinion writer Bret Stephens has taken quite a childish stance on the recent Wikileaks hupla.  I get the feeling he's upset that the Journal didn't get the scoop.

The Times got the scoop.  Of course they claim they ran it by the US gov to get their take on it before moving forward.  Which is very considerate.  But I thought that the freedom of speech awarded certain rights -- particularly for the reason of communicating amongst the populace to discourage an oppressive government.

So if this had been a real emergency, then the Times would have failed.

But it is a real emergency.  That is if you consider that all people are created equal.  (Not all citizens...)  And if you can admit that the reason is more economic than humanitarian...  (Perhaps xenophobia sells it to the masses.)

We don't have troops stationed in Afghanistan to support the women who wish to remove their burqas, Mr. Stephens.  It may be a nice side effect, but I think that providing drinking water to those in need may be a more urgent necessity.  Oh!  But what of the implied atrocities?  Perhaps there's a better way. Wait!  They attacked our country?  Sure they did.  That's a load of bull. It was a small group of jackasses -- not a country.  And the US has a horrible track record of 'correcting' regimes, so I don't have a lot of confidence.  It takes years and years and years and lives and lives and lives...  We've already accounted for so many.

At a certain point the US becomes the terrorizer.  Case points come up time and time again.  The US will obtain no respect from those who employ reason if we continue to protect soldiers who commit errors.

And what of those who imagine they're playing a video game?  At what point does killing someone become alright?  It is not.  I'm sorry if I made your job more difficult, but perhaps I made you more human.

What of culture?  What of civility?  I take it for granted.  And I absolutely do not have the troops on the ground now to thank for it.  They are doing a job.  Hopefully they chose their careers with the intent on providing good, and not just because it was the only game in town, or because they thought they owed a debt.  Most of my friends who have participated in the US military did so out of desperation or opportunity.

Many of the US troops on foreign territory don't care at all about the people that they're there to protect.  And that's where Wikileaks comes in.  It's there [It can be used] to protect the masses from an oppressor by exposing it's secrets.  It seems to have no allegiances to one group or another.  It's, hopefully, beyond that.  And so far it has a perfect track record, unlike the US (not that it's a fair comparison...)

Anyway, much of the knowledge I have of Wikileaks has been derived through 2600 and Democracy Now, which I've been following since my formative years.  Julian Assange is always happy to speak his peace, but Jacob Appelbaum gave a keynote speech at HOPE a week and a half ago.  He gave a great talk about the organization and its intent.  I'm sure Mr. Stephens missed that one...